Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 01-07-2011, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

According to the scriptures means old scriptures, like Hosea, Isaiah, Psalms and others. Hosea 6.2 has the "rise on the third day" bit. The mythical Jesus Paul is referring to is foretold there. It was his vision, his gospel, and he found confirmation of it in the scriptures. Paul is therefore "the one like Moses", the one who was believed to reveal the (hidden) meaning of the old law. His epistles were part of his new law. Stephan Huller claims that Paul's gospel was the one called Secret Mark, as Paul=Mark. That Paul was really named Mark, no problem with that, and no problem with that being transformed into the heretic Marcion. It makes sense. That this Mark also was the king Marcus Julius Agrippa, I can buy that as well since anyone claiming to have a new law, as Paul did, had to be someone with authority. But Secret Mark is harder to come to grips with, since it has a docetic Jesus, while the epistles have a mythical Jesus. But since both Huller and Doherty, two of my favorite authors, are contributing to this forum, maybe they can sort it out in a thread of their own!

It does seem that Catholicism was really a reaction against gnosticism on the one hand and Torah Christianity on the other.

aa5874 · 01-07-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And why would "Paul" claim that he NOW preached the FAITH he ONCE destroyed? See Galatians 1

Marcion's version of Galatians didn't have the verse you quote. Why was that? Because it's a later interpolation.

Please state the source of Marcion's version of Galatians.

According to the NT, Saul/Paul persecuted the Church in Acts 8-9 and "Paul" made similar claims in Galatians 1 and also in 1 Corinthians. 15.

Are you DENYING that there are stories in the NT that "Paul" persecuted the Church?

Are you DENYing that "Paul" claimed that there were people in Christ BEFORE him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

According to the scriptures means old scriptures, like Hosea, Isaiah, Psalms and others. Hosea 6.2 has the "rise on the third day" bit. The mythical Jesus Paul is referring to is foretold there....

Hosea 6.2 does NOT say that Jesus will "rise on the third day" or that Jesus rose on the third day.

Hosea 6.2 does NOT say Jesus DIED, NOR does it say Jesus was BURIED.

Hosea 6.2 CLEARLY refers to MORE than ONE person that was REVIVED on the SECOND day.

It was US, not Jesus, that was REVIVED after TWO days and it was the LORD who raised US up in the third day.

Ho 6:1-2 -

Quote:

1 Come, and let US return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal US; he hath smitten, and he will bind US up.

After two days will he revive US: in the third day he will raise US up, and WE shall live in his sight....

There are NO Hebrew Scriptures that claim JESUS DIED, was BURIED, and ROSE again on the THIRD day.

In the NT and Gospels Jesus died, was buried and rose again the third day. And in the Gospels, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be KILLED and be raised on the third day.

Mr 9:31 -

Quote:

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

The NT SCRIPTURES do INDEED mention the DEATH and RESURRECTION of Jesus.

"Paul" DID REFER TO SCRIPTURES of the GOSPELS for information about JESUS CHRIST.

"PAUL" was CONVERTED AFTER JESUS CHRIST WAS RAISED from the DEAD ans ASCENDED to heaven in the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

.... It was his vision, his gospel, and he found confirmation of it in the scriptures. Paul is therefore "the one like Moses", the one who was believed to reveal the (hidden) meaning of the old law. His epistles were part of his new law.....

You are a MYTH MAKER and STORYTELLER. There are NO stories in the NT that "Paul" started the Jesus cult. You CANNOT simply re-write the STORIES in the NT even if you BELIEVE that they are NOT true.

You MUST first FIND SOURCES that SHOW "PAUL" started the Jesus cult or was BEFORE the Jesus story was KNOWN.

The EXTANT sources SHOW that "PAUL" was AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY KNOWN and that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

See "Against Marcion" 4.5 and "Church History" 3.4.8.

BASED on EXTANT sources, "PAUL" was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.[/b]

Based on the writings of Justin Martyr, "Paul" was POSSIBLY ALIVE after the writings of Justin Marty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...Stephan Huller claims that Paul's gospel was the one called Secret Mark, as Paul=Mark. That Paul was really named Mark, no problem with that, and no problem with that being transformed into the heretic Marcion. It makes sense....

Why does that make sense? Are you aware that "Secret Mark" may be a forgery? Have you ever read "Secret Mark"? Do you know when Secret Mark was written? Who was the earliest Church writer to mention Secret Mark?

And which "Paul" was Mark? There may have been MORE than one person who wrote under the name "Paul".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

.... Well, the correct reading should be the other way around: Luke is using words found in Paul. Because gLuke is of a later date. Paul says in this epistle (1 Cor 11.23) that he got the words from the Lord, not from Luke....

Why do you BELIEVE "Paul" got words from the "Lord". You think the "Lord" can TALK? The LORD Jesus who was RAISED from the dead can TALK?

Are you AWARE "Paul" ADMITTED that he LIED for the Glory of God?

It is more likely that "Paul" got his information of Jesus from a written or oral source ON EARTH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

It has solved nothing. It amazes me that you, as an advocate of a theory that says almost everything in the NT is fake, take the words of Eusebius as the holy truth......

I did NOT ever claim almost EVERYTHING in the NT is FAKE and I do not take ALL the WORDS of Eusebius as the Holy truth.

Apparently you do not understand how theories are developed. Nothing that Eusebius wrote may be true but ALL I need to do is to SHOW what is WRITTEN and USE that information to DEVELOP a theory.

I do not ASSUME my own history and in "Church History" it can be found that "Paul" was KNOWN to be AWARE of gLuke and also in "Against Marcion" 4.5.

Now, you think "Paul" is a FAKE but you BELIEVE he got his information from the LORD. Even the LORD may be FAKE in the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

....The Swedish author Roger Viklund has shown that the words in the Testimonium are more in line with Eusebius way of writing than Josephus way of writing. So Eusebius is under suspicion as a faker! His claim that Paul knew of gLuke is just as faked. That's not my imagination, it's just simple logic....

So, you think that everything Eusebius wrote is faked? Well, not everything that Eusebius wrote about Josephus is faked.

It is your imagination when you think Eusebius faked the TF and faked "Church History" 3.4.8. You really don't know who faked the TF.

You should KNOW that "Church History" may have been faked AFTER Eusebius died, after all Antiquities of the Jews was interpolated AFTER Josephus died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...The whole sentence in his Church history just oozes of fake: "And they say..." (Not a very trustworthy way of starting a statement!)...that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own (what does he mean, as if? Paul did speak of a gospel of his own, time and time again!) wherever, he used the words "according to my Gospel." (so "according to my" actually means according to someone else - yeah, right. That's an early example of Orwellian double-speak!).....

But, this would mean that both "PAUL" and gLuke may have been fakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

...Eusebius wanted to wipe out the belief that Paul had his own gospel because it was a threat to the authority of the Roman church. Paul's roots were Alexandrian, and that was the threat....

But, do you NOT believe "PAUL" was FAKE? You forgot that you think PAUL=MARK.

And there is NO Church writer which claimed Eusebius wanted to wipe out the belief that Paul had his own Gospel.

What source of Antiquity, apologetic or not, show that "Paul" was a threat to the Church?

Church writers wrote about the so-called heretics who were possibly threats to the Church and neither SAUL OR PAUL are mentioned as threats to the Church.

Quote:

I have EXACTLY what I need to say WITHOUT contradiction that "Paul" was AWARE of the Jesus story and was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.

Quote:

What you have is your own speculation based on the faker Eusebius.

You do not understand what "speculation" is.

You speculate when you claim "Eusebius wanted to wipe out the belief Paul had his own gospel" because you have ZERO sources of antiquity to support your claim and to show that Paul had a Gospel BEFORE the Jesus stories were written.

I have evidence from sources of Antiquity to support my theory that the Pauline writings were late, that is, after the Fall of the Temple and were NOT used by Marcion and that Jesus of the NT was all MYTH.

dog-on · 01-07-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent F

According to the scriptures means old scriptures, like Hosea, Isaiah, Psalms and others. Hosea 6.2 has the "rise on the third day" bit. The mythical Jesus Paul is referring to is foretold there. It was his vision, his gospel, and he found confirmation of it in the scriptures. Paul is therefore "the one like Moses", the one who was believed to reveal the (hidden) meaning of the old law. His epistles were part of his new law. Stephan Huller claims that Paul's gospel was the one called Secret Mark, as Paul=Mark. That Paul was really named Mark, no problem with that, and no problem with that being transformed into the heretic Marcion. It makes sense. That this Mark also was the king Marcus Julius Agrippa, I can buy that as well since anyone claiming to have a new law, as Paul did, had to be someone with authority. But Secret Mark is harder to come to grips with, since it has a docetic Jesus, while the epistles have a mythical Jesus. But since both Huller and Doherty, two of my favorite authors, are contributing to this forum, maybe they can sort it out in a thread of their own!

It does seem that Catholicism was really a reaction against gnosticism on the one hand and Torah Christianity on the other.

Or perhaps more of a Reece's Peanut Butter Cup.

"Who put their justice in my mercy?"

show_no_mercy · 01-07-2011, 08:03 AM

I think there needs to be more bolding and underlining in that post. Maybe some red coloring would help as well.

bacht · 01-07-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

It does seem that Catholicism was really a reaction against gnosticism on the one hand and Torah Christianity on the other.

Or perhaps more of a Reece's Peanut Butter Cup.

"Who put their justice in my mercy?"

I hate to say it, but the early Catholics were kind of clever. It's easy to forget that this was all new once upon a time.

bacht · 01-07-2011, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I think there needs to be more bolding and underlining in that post. Maybe some red coloring would help as well.

Kent is getting the aa treatment...

dog-on · 01-07-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Or perhaps more of a Reece's Peanut Butter Cup.

"Who put their justice in my mercy?"

I hate to say it, but the early Catholics were kind of clever. It's easy to forget that this was all new once upon a time.

Yes, they were clever. It what we called triangulation, back in the 90's, IIRC.

Doug Shaver · 01-07-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Perhaps we can open things up to people. Those who have read his website, or either of his books: How strongly does the evidence support Doherty's case on his page 4 comment above? Overwhelmingly? Marginally?

I'll be addressing that issue in my critique when I post it on my Web site. That won't be any time real soon, though, so for now I'll have to leave it with this. At this point I am convinced that if nothing else, he makes his thesis sufficiently plausible to raise, at the very least, reasonable doubt about Jesus' historicity.

I suspect that by the time I'm done writing the critique, I'll be able to justify a rather stronger position.

andrewcriddle · 01-08-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I know that Aretas IV appointed himself king and only later applied to Augustus for ratification, but Augustus (reluctantly) did eventually ratify his accession to the throne. IIUC he is generally regarded as a roman client-king, although one with a maybe unusual amount of autonomy.

You can see how much of a client Aretas IV was with his war against Herod Antipas. Tiberius wrote to urge Vitellius to make war against Aretas. This doesn't indicate a client relationship. Josephus says, "Vitellius got himself ready for war... Proceeding from the kingdoms that were under the Roman yoke, he pushed towards Petra..." (AJ 18.120) Petra was outside the pale and Aretas was to be the target of a war.

Whiston translates

Quote:

So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais

Greek conveniently at synoptic doublets In any case, since Aretas is currently facing military sanctions his dominions are not currently under effective Roman control. Once the Emperor regarded a client as being in de facto rebellion, his territories ceased, at least temporarily, to be regarded as being under Roman control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's not strange that a realm outside the spheres of a large power will perform the wishes of that power without being a client. About 60 years later Petra did get absorbed.

spin

It does seem clear that Aretas was a client in the minimal sense that his succession to the throne required Roman approval. However, it may have gone further. Bowersock argues Roman Arabia that Aretas' kingdom was temporarily annexed for 2 years c 2BCE.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 01-09-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You can see how much of a client Aretas IV was with his war against Herod Antipas. Tiberius wrote to urge Vitellius to make war against Aretas. This doesn't indicate a client relationship. Josephus says, "Vitellius got himself ready for war... Proceeding from the kingdoms that were under the Roman yoke, he pushed towards Petra..." (AJ 18.120) Petra was outside the pale and Aretas was to be the target of a war.

Whiston translates Greek conveniently at synoptic doublets In any case, since Aretas is currently facing military sanctions his dominions are not currently under effective Roman control. Once the Emperor regarded a client as being in de facto rebellion, his territories ceased, at least temporarily, to be regarded as being under Roman control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's not strange that a realm outside the spheres of a large power will perform the wishes of that power without being a client. About 60 years later Petra did get absorbed.

spin

It does seem clear that Aretas was a client in the minimal sense that his succession to the throne required Roman approval. However, it may have gone further. Bowersock argues Roman Arabia that Aretas' kingdom was temporarily annexed for 2 years c 2BCE.

When I give you Feldman and you respond with Whiston, it's analogous to responding with Strong's numbers to someone using the Greek.

What you've managed to scrape up is a possible Roman romp into Petra in 2 BCE. In short you have no reason to expect the Nabataeans to have been part of the club in the late 30s onwards under Caligula. This is transparent apologetics, Andrew, based on the sort of chewing gum and string history that one needs to eschew.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2011, 08:03 AM	#334
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	I think there needs to be more bolding and underlining in that post. Maybe some red coloring would help as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.