Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-01-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...I have no problem accepting that Paul is full of shit, yet, he is still the best we have in regard to early Christian history. The gospels are even more full of BS than Paul. At least Paul doesn't claim miracles in every other sentence like the absurd gospel fantasies.

But, the (KJV)Pauline writings are FAR worse than (KJV)gMatthew and (KJV)gMark.

First of all the authors of gMatthew and gMark did not claim that they witnessed anything found in those gospels but the Pauline writers claimed they SAW Jesus after he was resurrected and that the resurrected Jesus revealed information to them.

The Pauline writings as presented appear to be DELIBERATE fiction written to decieve.

The Pauline writers made claims that cannot be supported by any external non-apologetic sources and are most likely false.

1. The persecution of Jesus believers during the time of king Aretas.

2. The claim that Jesus was RAISED from the dead and that he was the last to see the resurrected Jesus.

3. The claim that he met apostles James, John, and Cephas.

4 The claim that he received information from the resurrected Jesus about his betrayal on earth.

5. The claim that he got his gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

6. The claim that Jesus was called Christ or the Messiah.

Once Jesus did not exist then those claims from the Pauline writers are false and deliberately mis-leading.

Now, there is no evidence whatsoever outside of apologetics that there was a Jesus from Nazareth who was called the Christ, or Messiah and was worshiped as a God, the creator of heaven and earth during the time of King Aretas.

As soon as the Pauline writers made themselves witnesses to fiction then it can be reasonable deemed they were part of the plot or scheme to decieve ALL mankind about the history of Jesus believers.

There is far better evidence about early Christians than the Pauline writings.

There are Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagors and Octavius in "Minucius Felix".

The KJV Pauline writings are BS and a pack of lies.

Solo · 07-01-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I did a quick search, and it appears to me that in every instance that "it is written" appears in Paul, save one (Gal. 4:22*) , it is used to introduce a direct quote. 1 Cor. 15 is not introducing direct quotes but is merely referring to ideas found in scripture, so this doesn't seem like a compelling case for non-Paulism of 1 Cor. 15.

Not my nomenclature.... but do let me know if you find another 'kata tas graphas' in Paul elsewhere.

Quote:

I've argued here many times that all of 1 Cor. 15 is a later addition, but that wouldn't change that fact that some author, be it Paul or a later editor, nonetheless felt the need to interject that the death, three day internment, and resurrection are all "according to scripture".

Even if it's an anachronism, this still indicates that there was some controversy regarding these ideas. Otherwise, why interject it?

I have had recently an exchange on this with Andrew Criddle. Take a look .

Quote:

The improbability of Paul referring to LXX. in 1 Cr 15:3-4 with respect to the scriptures was discussed by G.A.Wells who suspected that it was a reference to the later gospels, and thus a manifest interpolation.

This is certainly possible, but if so, we are still left with the puzzle as to why the interpolator felt the need to interject "according to the scriptures" in regard to ideas that a traditional model would proclaim to have been firmly established in the earliest stage of Christianity. Why does Wells discount the idea that Paul really was stating that the death, internment, and resurrection were rooted in Jewish scriptures? Those ideas really are in there afterall, if a sod method of exegesis is used, and every indication is that Paul used such a method.

Well, the issue is more a question: was the burying/rising in three days/disappearing from tomb/ "firmly established in the earliest stage of Christianity" ? Wells thinks not.

Besides, in the next segment of 1 Cor 15 Paul is scandalized by those among his flock at Corinth who don't even believe in resurrection from the dead. He says that if that were true then Jesus was not raised from the dead and he - Paul - would be misrepresenting God by preaching that God did just that. This part of 1 Cor 15 does not seem to know anything about any "scriptures" according to which Christ died for our sins and was buried and raised on the third day....that's what's odd.

In contrast, I don't think the interpolator's intent would be a great mystery. The references to 'scriptures' have a clear purpose in the passage: to establish that the physical resurrection of Christ is going by the Book..

Best,
Jiri

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.