Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 03-23-2013, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Who fucking cares. Grow up. .

I'm just glad that you admit you do not care about forgery, destruction of original documents, lying, torture, even murder of those who do not follow the catholic redaction - that in your view it apparently deserves the same respect as history absent all of those things.

I'm not emotional at all. Those are facts. It is not hate to point out those facts. Sober analysis requires acknowledging them. Someone cursing and saying "grow up" on the other hand sounds pretty emotional to me.

I do not have to assume a forger is telling the truth. My goodness that is throwing reason out the window.

stephan huller · 03-23-2013, 09:24 PM

Quote:

I'm just glad that you admit you do not care about forgery, destruction of original documents, lying, torture, even murder of those who do not follow the catholic redaction - that in your view it apparently deserves the same respect as history absent all of those things.

A wiser man than me once said 'evil is more necessary for life than good.' It's not that I 'support' evil. It's - what am I going to do about it?

aa5874 · 03-23-2013, 11:20 PM

The fundamental problem with the claim that the Pauline writings were composed before c 62 CE is that none of the Pauline writers made such a claim.

And to compound the problem no author of the Canon even suggested such a thing.

But it gets worse, it is a consensus by Scholars across the board that the very Pauline letters have multiple authors.

Now, examine Acts one more time.

Saul/Paul was NOT dead at c 62 CE or at the end of the story in Acts.

Once Saul/Paul was NOT dead at c 62 CE then he could have written the letters to Churches AFTER c 62 CE.

However, it does not really matter when Saul/Paul lived if the letters are forgeries.

So, why was it presumed the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE??

What is the actual evidence??

Non-Apologetic writers do NOT even acknowledge Paul.

Many Apologetic writers did NOT acknowledge Paul as a Persecutor, or an Evangelist or a letter writer to Churches up to 150 CE.

There are NO manuscripts of the Pauline letters dated to the 1st century.

I simply cannot understand what is the basis, the evidence, to maintain that the Pauline letters were composed c 62 CE.

It appears to me that the argument for early Pauline letters before c 62 CE is extremely weak and cannot be supported in or out the NT Canon.

stephan huller · 03-24-2013, 08:16 AM

A another variant reading in the gospel of the Epistula Apostolorum. It references the Legion story as:

Quote:

The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked. [Mark 5:1]

Compare Mark 5:

Quote:

And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand

and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.

Compare Acts of Judas Thomas:

Quote:

Why dost thou wish to destroy us, when our time is not yet come ? Why dost thou wish to take away the power that was given us, when till now we have had reliance upon it? What have we to do with thee, that thou art come to drive us out?

aa5874 · 03-24-2013, 09:12 AM

The presumption that Pauline letters to Churches were composed before c 62 CE cannot now be maintained on BC&H since those who do so will have to provide actual evidence from antiquity.

There is NO actual evidence from antiquity--not even a direct claim in the Canon.

It has been exposed that in the Canon there is no claim at all that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches and the Pastoral before c 62 CE.

When we go through the Canonised letters word by word under the name of Paul there is no statement at all that any of the letters were written before c 62 CE.

When we examine copies of non-apologetic writings there is no mention of a Jesus cult of Christians who worshiped a character called Jesus of Nazareth as a God or as the Creator of heaven and earth--nothing of a character who was believed to have been sacrificied and resurrected for remission of sins until the 2nd century.

Essentially, the Pauline lettters appear to have been written in a vacuum.

For about 150 years after the supposed conversion of Saul/Paul, no Apologetic or Christian writer mentioned the names of the Seven Churches to which Paul supposedly wrote.

For at least 150 years after the Ascension of the supposed Jesus, there is no mention of the Activities of Paul as claimed in Acts of the Apostles.

Incredibly, after 150 years of silence, the very first writer to mention all Seven Churches to which Paul supposedly wrote Also claimed Jesus, being about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius, was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50.

See Against Heresies 2.22 and 3.14

Irenaeus admits that in gLuke the supposed Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was baptized by John in the 15th year of Tiberius.

In order for Jesus to have been crucified at about 50 years of age it would mean the crucifixion happened about c 49 CE.

The 15th year of Tiberius is c 29 CE. In gLuke Jesus was about 30 years of age at c 29 CE.

Effectively, the writings under the name of Irenaeus are a pack of confusion, contradiction and fiction.

Essentially, Acts of the Apostles and all the Pauline letters are historically and chronologically bogus in the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Saul/Paul could NOT have preached Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 49 CE.

See 2 Cor.11.31-33--Paul must have been lying if Jesus was crucified c 49 CE.

2 Corinthians 11.31-33

Quote:

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

32In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison , desirous to apprehend me:

33And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Now, examine Acts 9

Quote:

24But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

How in the world was it possible for Irenaeus to have argued that Jesus was baptized at 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tibeius but was crucified at about 50 years of age when gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings should have been well known and circulated in the Roman Empire long before c 180 CE??

It is clear writings under the name of Irenaeus were manipulated.

When Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age he did NOT and could NOT have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

But, not only did Irenaeus Not know of Acts and Pauline letters but those Heretics whom he argued against also did Not know of them.

The supposed Heretics at the time of Irenaeus c 180 CE did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters because if they did they would exposed the blatant lies of Irenaeus.

But, now, Not even the supposed Church c 180 CE knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters because if they did they would have exposed the blatant lies of Irenaeus.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus has destroyed any claim that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were known up to c 180 CE.

Acts of the Apostles was unknown by Irenaeus, the Heretics and the Church c 180 CE when it was argued that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50 years.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are LATE interpolations and redactions in the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

All letters under the name of Paul were fabricated after c 180 CE.

stephan huller · 03-24-2013, 11:24 AM

Epistula gospel	Mark	Matthew
and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years	5:25 and a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years.	And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years
-	She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus	-
-	she came up behind him in the crowd	came behind him,
touched the hem of his garment	and touched his cloak	and touched the hem of his garment
and was healed in the same hour	-	-
-	because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.”	For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
-	29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.	-
-	At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd	But Jesus turned him about,
And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done,	-	-
he said: Who touched me?	and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”	-
Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee.	“You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered,	-
-	“and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”	-
But he	But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.	-
answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me.	-	-
Straightway that woman	Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her,	-
came before him,	came	-
-	and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear,	-
and answered	told him	-
and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee.	the whole truth.	-
And he answered and said unto her:	He said to her,	and when he saw her, he said,
-	“Daughter,	Daughter,
-	-	be of good comfort;
Go, thy faith hath made thee whole.	your faith has healed you. Go in peace	thy faith hath made thee whole.
-	and be freed from your suffering.”	And the woman was made whole from that hour.

stephan huller · 03-24-2013, 12:04 PM

But if we compare this with Luke:

Epistula gospel	Mark	Luke
and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years	5:25 and a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years.	And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years,
-	She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus	which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
-	she came up behind him in the crowd	44 Came behind him,
touched the hem of his garment	and touched his cloak	and touched the border of his garment:
-	because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.”	-
and was healed in the same hour	29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.	and immediately her issue of blood stanched
-	At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd	-
And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done,	-	-
he said: Who touched me?	and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”	And Jesus said, Who touched me?
Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee.	“You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered,	When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee,
-	“and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”	and sayest thou, Who touched me?
But he answered and said unto us:	But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it.	And Jesus said,
I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me.	-	Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
Straightway that woman	Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her,	And when the woman saw that she was not hid
came before him,	came	, she came
-	and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear,	trembling, and falling down before him,
and answered	told him	she declared unto him before all the people
and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee.	the whole truth.	for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
And he answered and said unto her:	He said to her,	And he said unto her,
-	“Daughter,	Daughter,
-	-	be of good comfort;
Go, thy faith hath made thee whole.	your faith has healed you. Go in peace	thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.
-	and be freed from your suffering.”	-

There are clear points - critical points in the narrative where Luke agrees with the Epistula gospel against Mark. I think this is deeply significant. I think this narrative is a powerful argument for something like Q - perhaps even two sources (the Marcionite gospel and the Gospel of the Hebrews).

Most scholars have so very little imagination. Too busy focused on sameness. Scared by diversity. Can't see things staring them right in the face. Of course the argument against this is going to be 'the Epistula gospel is a gospel harmony.' Not possible because of the variant ordering (see above)

Duvduv · 03-24-2013, 12:59 PM

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ostolorum.html
So much of the Epistula is rather incomprehensible and thoroughly confused, even compared to the canonical gospels with all their problems. Whenever it was written the author enjoys picking from here and there in the canonical texts like a smorgasbord, and throwing in a mere few lines about Paul for good measure (despite his overwhelming importance) along with the notion that the Christ is actually the angel Gabriel, and referring to King David as "David the prophet" (along the lines of the Muslims).
Maybe it wasn't even intended to be taken seriously at all and was a parody of the texts that preceded it.

stephan huller · 03-24-2013, 01:45 PM

it is interesting to notice that whereas the Marcionite gospel, Luke etc fail to demonstrate the apostle's touching Jesus, it was universally accepted that this woman did so. Considering how important it was to the Johannine tradition to emphasize this 'apostolic touching' - indeed the document goes out of its way to make the apostles - even handle (= Ignatius, Smyrnaeans) their Lord, the heretical understanding must have been first and quite aggravating to the community (hence the correction).

Mary then is the only disciple worthy of touching Jesus (save for Judas who plants a kiss on his person). Interestingly Irenaeus identifies both (Against Heresies Book Two) as being at the heart of the heretical doctrine of salvation:

Quote:

1. That they improperly and illogically apply both the parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely-devised system, I prove as follows: They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth AEon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism. They maintain also that the same thing was clearly set forth in the case of her who suffered from the issue of blood. For the woman suffered during twelve years, and through touching the hem of the Saviour's garment she was made whole by that power which went forth from the Saviour, and which, they affirm, had a previous existence. For that Power who suffered was stretching herself outwards and flowing into immensity, so that she was in danger of being dissolved into the general substance [of the AEons]; but then, touching the primary Tetrad, which is typified by the hem of the garment, she was arrested, and ceased from her passion.

2. Then, again, as to their assertion that the passion of the twelfth AEon was proved through the conduct of Judas, how is it possible that Judas can be compared [with this AEon] as being an emblem of her--he who was expelled from the number of the twelve,(1) and never restored to his place? For that AEon, whose type they declare Judas to be, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored or recalled [to her former position]; but Judas was deprived [of his office], and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, "And his bishopric let another take."(2) They ought therefore to maintain that the twelfth AEon was cast out of the Pleroma, and that another was produced, or sent forth to fill her place; if, that is to say, she is pointed at in Judas. Moreover, they tell us that it was the AEon herself who suffered, but Judas was the betrayer, [and not the sufferer.] Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to [the endurance of] passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that AEon who suffered?

3. But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the AEon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the AEon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely(3) accidental passion; not only was He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man(4) by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The AEon, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was notable to find Him; but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, "ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men,"(5) and conferred on those that believe in Him the power "to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy,"(6) that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while He manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But their AEon, when she had suffered, established(7) ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced--death, corruption, error, and such like.

4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering AEon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number. For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel. But this AEon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for, according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve AEons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary,] as having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that AEon who occupies the thirtieth place?

5. But if they say that Judas in perishing was the image of her Enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any analogy to that truth which [by hypothesis] corresponds to it. For the Enthymesis having been separated fromt he AEon, and itself afterwards receiving a shape from Christ,(8) then being made a partaker of intelligence by the Saviour, and having formed all things which are outside of the Pleroma, after the image of those which are within the Pleroma, is said at last to have been received by them into the Pleroma, and, according to [the principle of] conjunction, to have been united to that Saviour who was formed out of all. But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, "Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed;" (1) and, "It were better for him if he had never been born;"(2) and he was called the "son of perdition"(3) by Him. If, however, they say that Judas was a type of the Enthymesis, not as separated from the AEon, but of the passion entwined with her, neither in this way can the number twelve be regarded as a [fitting] type of the number three. For in the one case Judas was cast away, and Matthias was ordained instead of him; but in the other case the AEon is said to have been in danger of dissolution and destruction, and [there are also] her Enthymesis and passion: for they markedly distinguish Enthymesis from the passion; and they represent the AEon as being restored, and Enthymesis as acquiring form, but the passion, when separated from these, as becoming matter. Since, therefore, there are thus these three, the AEon, her Enthymesis, and her passion, Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot be the types of them. (2.20)

Thus the original gospel of the Johannine community (= not the corrected one we now possess) goes out of its way to make Peter and perhaps the rest of the apostles 'handle' the Lord to demonstrate that they too were worthy of this honor. But notice:

1. the touching passages of the woman (= Mary) and Judas are retained
2. the Epistula gospel (= the gospel of the Hebrews) retains these but adds more (= Peter etc)
3. then Luke resets the material to no touching by the apostles

Why?

jakejonesiv · 03-24-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ostolorum.html
So much of the Epistula is rather incomprehensible and thoroughly confused, even compared to the canonical gospels with all their problems. Whenever it was written the author enjoys picking from here and there in the canonical texts like a smorgasbord, and throwing in a mere few lines about Paul for good measure (despite his overwhelming importance) along with the notion that the Christ is actually the angel Gabriel, and referring to King David as "David the prophet" (along the lines of the Muslims).
Maybe it wasn't even intended to be taken seriously at all and was a parody of the texts that preceded it.

Hi Duvduv,

I am with you on this one. This mashup cannot be shown to exist before the 4th or 5th century.

Jake

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

03-23-2013, 11:20 PM	#733
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The fundamental problem with the claim that the Pauline writings were composed before c 62 CE is that none of the Pauline writers made such a claim. And to compound the problem no author of the Canon even suggested such a thing. But it gets worse, it is a consensus by Scholars across the board that the very Pauline letters have multiple authors. Now, examine Acts one more time. Saul/Paul was NOT dead at c 62 CE or at the end of the story in Acts. Once Saul/Paul was NOT dead at c 62 CE then he could have written the letters to Churches AFTER c 62 CE. However, it does not really matter when Saul/Paul lived if the letters are forgeries. So, why was it presumed the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE?? What is the actual evidence?? Non-Apologetic writers do NOT even acknowledge Paul. Many Apologetic writers did NOT acknowledge Paul as a Persecutor, or an Evangelist or a letter writer to Churches up to 150 CE. There are NO manuscripts of the Pauline letters dated to the 1st century. I simply cannot understand what is the basis, the evidence, to maintain that the Pauline letters were composed c 62 CE. It appears to me that the argument for early Pauline letters before c 62 CE is extremely weak and cannot be supported in or out the NT Canon.

03-24-2013, 12:59 PM	#738
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ostolorum.html So much of the Epistula is rather incomprehensible and thoroughly confused, even compared to the canonical gospels with all their problems. Whenever it was written the author enjoys picking from here and there in the canonical texts like a smorgasbord, and throwing in a mere few lines about Paul for good measure (despite his overwhelming importance) along with the notion that the Christ is actually the angel Gabriel, and referring to King David as "David the prophet" (along the lines of the Muslims). Maybe it wasn't even intended to be taken seriously at all and was a parody of the texts that preceded it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.