Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-26-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874's "evidence" consists of arguments from silence

So do Doherty’s.

aa5874 · 02-26-2012, 07:56 AM

It is a complete waste of time to argue that the Paul was first to write about Jesus when the writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith that he Presently preached and also when he claimed to be the Last to see the resurrected Jesus AFTER over 500 people.

Galatians 1

Quote:

Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed...

It is EXTREMELY important to understand that the Pauline writer is claiming churches in Christ had ALREADY been established in Judea and that he persecuted them.

In Romans, the writer IDENTIFIED by name some who were in Christ BEFORE him.

Romans 16:7 KJV

Quote:

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

So, the Pauline writer has CLEARLY shown that he did NOT start the Christian Faith.

And the Pauline writer will DESTROY all claims that he was the first to write the Jesus story when he declared that Jesus DIED for OUR SINS, was buried, and rose on the THIRD day according to the scriptures.

Only Christian Scriptures contain the BLASPHEMY that Jesus DIED for OUR SINS and that Jesus was resurrected on the THIRD day.

1 Cor.15

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which Ialso received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

So, it is a FACT that the Pauline writers did NOT ever claim to be first to have started the Christian Faith but claimed there were Christian Churches, Christian people, some of whom he persecuted, and that there ALREADY were known Christian Scriptures.

The Pauline writer has PLACED himself after the Fall of the Temple.

The earliest Jesus story that claimed Jesus DIED for OUR SINS was after the Short-Ending gMark.

In the Short-Ending gMark, the character called Jesus does NOT state that he will Die for Our Sins.

The Jesus of the earliest gMark did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to REMAIN in Sin. gMark's Jesus was NOT a Savior or a Sacrifice for Universal Salvation.

Mark 4

Quote:

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:12That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them....

The Pauline writer from his own words have PLACED himself AFTER the Short-Ending gMark--the Pauline author was ALIVE when Jesus was considered a Universal Savior.

It has been LOGICALLY deduced that the Pauline letters were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 ce using the DATA provided in the very Epistles attributed to Paul and the Short-Ending gMark.

I use the WRITTEN statements provided in the NT Canon, not Imagination

It is the written evidence, the written statements of antiquity that has DESTROYED all claims that Paul wrote before c70 CE.

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-26-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the character of Paul in the letters does not flesh out the character in Acts, but contradicts it.

Will you admit that Romans 10:9-13 may have barrowed the ‘Joel 2:32 idea’ from Acts 2:16-22? (Y/N)

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-26-2012, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

he has problems with English syntax.

Hey Toto,

How’s my English syntax doin?

Bingo the Clown-O · 02-26-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...Last to see the resurrected Jesus AFTER over 500 people.

The appearance to “500” can be found in Acts of Pilate Chapters 12 & 13.

“Pilate therefore, upon this, gave them five hundred soldiers, who also sat round the sepulchre so as to guard it” … “And upon this there came up one of the soldiers guarding the tomb, and he said in the synagogue: Learn that Jesus has risen.”

And that (Acts of Pilate) in turn, appears to depend (at least) on Matthew 13:55.

“We know this man to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, born of Mary”

Bernard Muller · 02-26-2012, 09:07 AM

to Maryhelena:

Quote:

Only if you are assuming a historical NT 'Paul' - and then you have other problems to face.

What other problems?

Quote:

Down graded to be only an ethnarch over an ethnic percentage of the population. Still leaves you with other problems to face.

According to Josephus, all cities with Diaspora Jews got these "downgraded" ethnarchs acting on their behalf.

Quote:

And 'Paul' could well be not a historical figure....

Too much effort in trying to deny his existence, not enough to understand him through his letters.

Quote:

As for the John (the Baptist) story in Josephus, it has it's own problems. The gospel story-line only dates the death of JC to the time of Pilate. That rule ends around 36 c.e. - the time of the war between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas. Dating the death of JC early - 30 c.e. presents quite a problem re Aretas IV being a very angry man over the divorce of his daughter from Antipas and having to contain that anger, over the insult to his family pride, for 6/7 years..

But there are reasons for the delay. From one of my webpage:

Quote:

The delay between "the first [occasion] of his enmity" (27C.E.) and the battle (36C.E.) can be explained as follows:
Client kings (of the Romans) were forbidden to make war against each other (understandably!). Furthermore, Josephus wrote Herod Antipas "was in great favour with Tiberius" (Ant., XVIII, II, 3). In these circumstances, it was impossible for Aretas to go immediately on the offensive and he had to wait for an opportune time.
In 36C.E., Tiberius was semi-retired in Capri and the Roman strong man in the East was Vitellius, the president of Syria. To maintain peace with the threatening Parthiates, Tiberius sent Vitellius to negotiate a treaty with the king of Parthia. The meeting was successful. Herod Antipas, who was also there, informed Tiberius about it, before Vitellius could do so. Vitellius was furious at Herod and looking for revenge (Ant., XVIII, IV, 5). Soon after, Aretas attacked the army of Herod. Why then? Aretas must have thought that Herod lost his Roman support: Tiberius was peace loving and weak, Vitellius would not do a thing for Antipas.
At first, he was wrong: Tiberius did order Vitellius to retaliate against Aretas. But when the Roman army was marching towards Petra, Tiberius died and Vitellius happily "recalled his army" (Ant., XVIII, V, 3).

And there is evidence for the delay:

Quote:

Also, Josephus related that Herod and Aretas "had some quarrel ... about their limits at the country of Gamalitis" . This area was part of the tetrarchy of Philip. But after Philip's death (33-34C.E.), it is likely both Herod and Aretas lobbied for it (before its annexation to Syria). Consequently, this latter quarrel must have started then.

Furthermore, a long delay between Herod Antipas & Herodias marriage and the battle in 36C.E. is implied in GMark. The following account is abnormally long and detailed, with some items quasi-legendary and probably drawn from John's latter followers, but, in passing, provides a valuable piece of information:
Mk6:19-28 "So Herodias
[Herod's new wife, presented as ambitious and scheming by Josephus]
` nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him ... On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias
[young Salome (whose father was Herodias' previous husband), later married to Philip, the king (tetrarch) of Cesarea Philippi, who died in 33-34C.E. Why later? Salome could not have performed a dance in front of a court of men as a married woman (to a king!) or as a royal widow. That would have been most improper, even scandalous]
` came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl,
[a married woman or widow could not be called a "girl"]
` "... At once the girl hurried in to the king ... He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother."

And there is still more evidence for a significant lapse of years between Herod's union with Herodias and the battle in 36C.E.:
In Josephus' Antiquities, XVIII, VI, 2-3, the future Agrippa I visits Herod and Herodias "who was now the wife of Herod the tetrach". Then he is given a position in Tiberias which he occupies for some (unspecified) time. Then he goes and stays in Syria when his friend Flaccus is its president (32-35C.E.). The length of his sejourn here is not told. Then Agrippa sails to Rome when Flaccus is still ruling.

Quote:

What you can't do is provide historical evidence for the existence of the NT 'Paul'.

But you do not accept Acts (which I date around 90), or 1Clement (which I date around 81) as saying anything true about Paul.

Toto · 02-26-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the character of Paul in the letters does not flesh out the character in Acts, but contradicts it.

Will you admit that Romans 10:9-13 may have b[o]rrowed the ‘Joel 2:32 idea’ from Acts 2:16-22? (Y/N)

I don't see that as likely. Romans emphasizes the equality of Jews and Gentiles before the Jewish god. Acts has Paul reaching to Jews (although the letters emphasize that his mission was to Gentiles.) Both authors knew the Hebrew Scriptures. Why would the author of Romans have needed to borrow the idea from Acts? If anything, it is more likely that the author of Acts picked up on the quote in Romans and added some references to the historical Jesus performing miracles and signs and wonders that Paul knows nothing about.

Rom 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”^[a] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”^[b]
Footnotes:

^[a] Romans 10:11 Isaiah 28:16 (see Septuagint)
^[b] Romans 10:13 Joel 2:32

Acts 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[a]

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Toto · 02-26-2012, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874's "evidence" consists of arguments from silence

So do Doherty’s.

Doherty provides positive evidence, and shows that there are silences where it would not be expected. You would know this if you had read him.

:huh:

Bernard Muller · 02-26-2012, 09:38 AM

to aa,

Quote:

Paul was first to write about Jesus when the writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith that he Presently preached

Why not? Conversion and deconversion happens all the time. And with Paul being so emotional, it is easy to explain why he was taking action against Christianity before he converted and for Christianity after he converted. There are now former apologists who before railed against atheists and then became atheists, arguing against their former religion.

Quote:

So, it is a FACT that the Pauline writers did NOT ever claim to be first to have started the Christian Faith but claimed there were Christian Churches, Christian people, some of whom he persecuted,

Those earlier Christians and churches could have beaten Paul's apostolic time by only a few years. That does not put Paul after 70.

Quote:

and that there ALREADY were known Christian Scriptures.

Are you saying some non-Pauline scriptures (like the short ending of gMark and therefore the whole of gMark) could have been written before 70?

Chili · 02-26-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Rom 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”^[a] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”^[b]
Footnotes:

^[a] Romans 10:11 Isaiah 28:16 (see Septuagint)
^[b] Romans 10:13 Joel 2:32

Interesting. I read: Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the Law" to say that 'saved in Christ' means no more law and therefore no religion.

then in 10:10 "Faith in the heart leads to justification, confession on the lips to salvation."

I see a difference since Romans 10:10 is not about professing 'your faith' nor is it that in the act of professing your faith that you are saved.

But I understand.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.