FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The Big Picture: A Top 10 List for HJ
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 19 of 24 « First 91718 19 2021 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2012, 10:31 AM   #181
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

You descredit your sources and then want people to accept whatever you imagine. You NOT doing history you are story teller.

In the NT, it is claimed Paul was some how involved in the supposed stoning of Stephen in Acts of the Apostles and that he went on a house to house persecution campaign and had some sent to prison.

And in Galatians, Paul claimed he wasted the Church. Paul implies some serious persecution.

I do not want to hear your invented stories. You don't need any evidence you just want to tell people what they MUST believe
I don't believe any of that horseshit about Stephen or Paul seriously "persecuting" anybody, beyond maybe haranguing them in a synagogue or two.

Ive been exploring this lately.


it just seems funny that paul is said to hunt the original movement down


Then we dont have a peep out of the original movement, and pauls own version magically appears and takes over.

I understand suspicion, alone doesnt count. but the bible does give a example of a grusome death and places paul there


My opinion is paul never even met a single real apostle at a later date.
outhouse is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 12:34 PM   #182
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

Paul never says he was a Pharisee. He says:

3 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

I agree with the thread about authenticity that we have to take what Paul says with a grain of salt. 1 Cor 9:20 seems to self-implicate him in deceit. "zealous for the traditions of my fathers" could refer to something other than Pharisees.
A writer under the name of Paul claimed he was a Pharisee.

Philippians 3:5 KJV
Quote:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee...
When were those words written??? Who saw them??? Why are people so timid to discuss the History of the Pauline writings.

Supposedly THOUSANDS of Scholars support an early Paul but discussing the actual evidence is off-limits.
Yep, I stand corrected.
Grog is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:08 PM   #183
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
It would be incredibly idiosyncratic for a Roman Gentile convert to have pretended to have been a Jewish Pharisee.
It would be even more incredibly idiosyncratic for a Jewish Pharisee to use the Torah to argue against the Torah, as Paul repeatedly does.
James The Least is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:09 PM   #184
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

because a real man left a impression on enough people to be glorified after his martyred death.




Ignorance here bud.

Pauls epistles are to early. There were no churches then.

The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.
False.


unsupported assumptions based from ignorance
Great! Show me your evidence for earlier dates.
James The Least is offline  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:54 PM   #185
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.
False.
unsupported assumptions based from ignorance
Great! Show me your evidence for earlier dates.
Peter Kirby accepts most early dates for Paul in
earlychristianwritings
ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE, but with only the Pastorals to after 100 CE. Seven he dates as 50-60.
Adam is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 12:31 AM   #186
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.
False.
unsupported assumptions based from ignorance
Great! Show me your evidence for earlier dates.
Peter Kirby accepts most early dates for Paul in
earlychristianwritings
ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE, but with only the Pastorals to after 100 CE. Seven he dates as 50-60.
One guesses that the notion of "evidence" is too complex here, James. Do you have crayons?
spin is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:53 AM   #187
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
The Pauline epistles don't show up in the historical record until the 130s at the earliest. The dating of 50s/60s is meaningless church orthodoxy.
False.
unsupported assumptions based from ignorance
Great! Show me your evidence for earlier dates.
Peter Kirby accepts most early dates for Paul in
earlychristianwritings
ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE, but with only the Pastorals to after 100 CE. Seven he dates as 50-60.
I inquired about evidence, not church orthodoxy.
James The Least is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:07 AM   #188
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Peter Kirby accepts most early dates for Paul in
earlychristianwritings
ranging from 50 CE to 150 CE, but with only the Pastorals to after 100 CE. Seven he dates as 50-60.
I inquired about evidence, not church orthodoxy.
do you have the education to know the difference??

serious question here. without a education many would dismiss what they dont have a clue about.
outhouse is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:09 AM   #189
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default
you might ave to read here but its worth a try

http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Paul/dating.htm
outhouse is offline  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:47 AM   #190
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
you might ave to read here but its worth a try

http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Paul/dating.htm
Your source dates the Pauline epistles based on the assumption that a passage in Acts is historical. There is no secular reason for trusting Acts to reflect history. This is just church doctrine.

You might have to read something to realize this. Try any of Richard Pervo's books.
Toto is offline  
 
Page 19 of 24 « First 91718 19 2021 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.