FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Dating Paul
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 90 of 99 « First 40808889 90 9192 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-03-2013, 08:13 PM   #891
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Examine the earliest gMark [Sinaiticus gMark]

Dear aa5874,

What is the date of Codex Sinaiticus?
What is the date of Codex Vaticanus?
What is the date of P-45?

Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:28 PM   #892
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
2 Corinthians 11:25 states that Paul was on the bottom of the sea for a day and a night. How could he have lived?
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:35 PM   #893
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
The Apostle Paul of Galatians declares that he went to Jerusalem as the consequence of divine revelation (Gal 2:1).
But in Acts, Paul is sent to the Jerusalem Apostles by the Antioch church, along with Barnabas and some other believers. (Acts 15:2 ff).

Quite a difference. Jake Jones IV
Yes, Acts refers to an established church1, as does Galatians 12; though Gal 2:1 (NIV) does say "again" -


.
There is a big difference between being sent by revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians), and being the lackey of the Antioch church.

Who established the churches in Galatia?
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:10 PM   #894
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default
Dear Jake,
Quote:
2 Corinthians 11:25 states that Paul was on the bottom of the sea for a day and a night. How could he have lived?
Probably Paul was meaning he survived in deep water, not at the bottom of it.

From my perspective and study, for the next 2 points:
Quote:
The Apostle Paul of Galatians declares that he went to Jerusalem as the consequence of divine revelation (Gal 2:1).
But in Acts, Paul is sent to the Jerusalem Apostles by the Antioch church, along with Barnabas and some other believers. (Acts 15:2 ff).
On that one, Paul was lying because I have reason to think Paul invented any revelation. That does not mean the Acts version (about why he went to Jerusalem) is true either. I think Gal 2:2b & 2:4 give a better indication.
Note: "Luke" put the "council of Jerusalem between the first & second journey; but according to Paul, it was between the 2nd and 3rd journey (52). I trust Paul on that one because "Luke" had huge motives for changing the time.
Quote:
Who established the churches in Galatia?
Paul, in the winter of 52-53.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:33 PM   #895
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
There is a big difference between being sent by revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians), and being the lackey of the Antioch church.

Who established the churches in Galatia?
Not sure any of the claims in any of it is factual, thus all of it is of dubious historical significance.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:51 PM   #896
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard Muller View Post
On that one, Paul was lying because I have reason to think Paul invented any revelation. That does not mean the Acts version (about why he went to Jerusalem) is true either. I think Gal 2:2b & 2:4 give a better indication.
Note: "Luke" put the "council of Jerusalem between the first & second journey; but according to Paul, it was between the 2nd and 3rd journey (52). I trust Paul on that one because "Luke" had huge motives for changing the time.
Quote:
Who established the churches in Galatia?
Paul, in the winter of 52-53.

Cordially, Bernard
You trust a Liar?? You trust a person who is involved in open perjury?? You trust an admitted Liar?? You trust Paul!! This is most remarkable.

How did a liar manage to get his writings Canonised??

Nobody knew he was lying because no-one saw or read his letters to Churches up to at least 62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.

The Pauline lies were invented very long after c 62 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:59 PM   #897
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Examine the earliest gMark [Sinaiticus gMark]

Dear aa5874,

What is the date of Codex Sinaiticus?
What is the date of Codex Vaticanus?
What is the date of P-45?

Jake
I am referring to the earliest CANONIZED story of Jesus in Existing Codices.

gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex is considered the earliest complete version.

P 45 is not a complete version--many chapters are missing.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 12:02 AM   #898
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Just can't help but notice how uncritically one could accept that statement attributed to "Origen." A gospel attributed to Luke commended by PAUL when the GLuke makes not even the slightest hint of a person named Paul OR his ideas presented in the SET of letters attributed to Paul. How preposterous to accept these claims uncritically in terms of content and context.
Origen is suggesting there were first Mark and Matthew, and then Paul, and then Luke, and then John. Never even hinting at the contextual problems staring us in the face.
Of course this Origen might also simply be hinting at how the imperially-sponsored scribes put everything together for the set known as a canon......
If gLuke was written before Paul was born or known why would it mention his name??

Origen claimed Paul was aware of the Gospel of gLuke--not that gLuke mentioned Paul.

Are you not aware of gLuke?

gLuke does NOT mention Duvduv.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 03:40 AM   #899
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post


Dear aa5874,

What is the date of Codex Sinaiticus?
What is the date of Codex Vaticanus?
What is the date of P-45?

Jake
I am referring to the earliest CANONIZED story of Jesus in Existing Codices.

gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex is considered the earliest complete version.

P 45 is not a complete version--many chapters are missing.
Do you accept in all particulars the textual variants found in the gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus as original? Be prepared to defend your answer.
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 03:43 AM   #900
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post


Dear aa5874,

What is the date of Codex Sinaiticus?
What is the date of Codex Vaticanus?
What is the date of P-45?

Jake
I am referring to the earliest CANONIZED story of Jesus in Existing Codices.

gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex is considered the earliest complete version.

P 45 is not a complete version--many chapters are missing.
Yet P45 is older than Sinaiticus. Just because Sinaiticus is complete doesn't mean it isn't chock full of scribal errors.
jakejonesiv is offline  
 
Page 90 of 99 « First 40808889 90 9192 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 09:22 PM.

Top

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