Duvduv

Except you have no proof that the NT figure named Paul ever existed as a Jew or a gentile or anything else. Thus it is likely he was a composite figure just like the epistles are composites created for didactic purposes.

Iskander

Paul is used as an identifier

tanya

And, as you surely know far better than I ever could, 1500 years ago, in the place we now call Saudi Arabia, those who followed Mohammed, murdered scores of Jews, worshipping in their holy place, washing each other's feet, ultimately driven out of Mecca.

Was not YHWH's name on that temple as well?

Does it not occur to you, that perhaps it was not YHWH who placed his name, anywhere, on any similar temple, but rather, mere, mortal humans?

How could an omnipotent deity allow scruffy, barbarian savages like the Roman soldiers, to come and urinate on the recently destroyed Jerusalem temple, in 70CE?

How could the omnipotent YHWH allow the Mesopotamians, 2500 years ago, to waltz into Jerusalem, sack the place, enslave the inhabitants, and compel them to move to Baghdad, while their soldiers defecated on the ruins of that first temple, bearing the name YHWH?

YHWH places nothing, anywhere. Humans write. Humans create temples. Humans create fiction. YHWH does not exist, no matter how many feet you wash.

Mumbo jumbo is just that. 12, 5, 60, 13, matters not which "magic" numbers you concoct, or in which sequence. Corn grows because the farmer plucks out the weeds nearby. The Jewish farmers have succeeded over the millennia, because they are very skillful at removing competitors, not because of any "choice" by YHWH.

TedM

At least you're getting closer to admitting that the passage had to do with the Messiah. Your close-mindedness on this issue is amazing. Perhaps you've never studied Messianic prophecy as interpreted/claimed by Christians. I suggest you take a few hours to do so and it won't take long before your realize that practically ANY passage about a future peaceful existence for Israel can be interpreted by Christians, such as Paul, to be a reference to Jesus in some way. The fact that this specifically references the rising on the third day makes such an interpretation a cakewalk. You've dogheadedness on this issue just makes you look extremely ignorant, aa. Think about it.

TedM

Sticking to facts and logic without an admission of the limitations of your ability to understand all of existence is arrogant and dogmatic. To assert that ALL THAT THERE IS, is natural and someone claiming otherwise has a burden of proof, is close-minded.

I never said it was certain. I said it is a possibility, and that to deny that possibility is close-minded. To require proof in order to concede that there could be a world or occurances in this world that don't follow the natural laws we are familiar with is close-minded.

An open mind says this: I have experienced no compelling reason to believe in the supernatural, although I admit that I am too ignorant to say that it does not exist.

Those that are too proud to say this are arrogant, and anti-God IMO. IOW they have a psychological imbalance as it pertains to need to be a know-it-all.

TedM

Yeah, I'm not interested in learning whether the passover was a day earlier or later. I doubt that the clues in the gospels support the conspiracy theory you put forward, and I do believe that your theory very well may be a product of overly particular thinking by obsessive compulsive types who arose many centuries after the Gospels were written. Perhaps if I go repeat the rosary 7 x 7 times at 7:07 tonight I'll see the error of my thinking..

aa5874

In "Did Jesus Exist?" page 117-118 Bart Ehrman claims that the Pauline letters to Churches are usually dated from c 49 and twelve to thirteen years later.

In effect, Bart Ehrman is claiming that all the Pauline letters to Churches were composed no later than c 62 CE.

But, where did Ehrman get his time of authorship of the Pauline letters??

No manuscripts of the Pauline letters have ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

Which author of the NT claimed the Pauline letters to Churches were composed c 49-62 CE??

NONE--ZERO

Ehrman's the time of authorship of the Pauline letters are from out of the SKY.

Ehrman is not an historian---he is a Magician.

Let us go through the ENTIRE Canon--chapter by chapter, verse by verse and word by word there is NO claim at all that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed by c 62 CE.

If Ehrman was an historian he would have given us the "history" of the Pauline letters.

The Pauline letters have NO history outside Apologetics and NONE in the very NT Canon outside of "Paul".

Effectively, ONLY the Pauline writers can corroborate their own writings in the Canon.

There is no attestation of a single Pauline letter in the 1st century by any NT author.

aa5874

Please, you are cluttering my thread with your absurdity that Hosea 6.1-2 refers to 1 Cor. 15.

You have already provided a link which shows that Hosea 6.2 refers to a 2000 YEAR desolation of the world--Nothing at all about a character called Jesus who DIED for our sins.

See http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm
It is clear to me that your God and Jesus have NO real existence---they are absolute mythology--always been--always will.

It is also clear that no recovered dated manuscripts, no author of the NT Canon and no supposed contemporary of Pilate ever claimed to have seen Jesus of Nazareth and the NT authors have NOT acknowledge any Pauline writings were composed up to c 59-62 CE.

The Entire NT Canon is a compilation of the 2nd century or later Myth Fables that were accepted as history in Antiquity--that's all.

The NT Canon is really no different to Myth Fables of Jewish, Roman and Greek about Moses, Romulus and Remus, Apollo or Zeus.

TedM

Yep, when you have no REAL response just go back to the old, tired response I already showed to be ignorant and irrelevant. You are showing your true colors here aa.

Your approach is pathetic. Your reliance on arguments from silence is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you combine that with a complete refusal to acknowledge the reasonable arguments against that silence, your true emotional commitment to extremist skepticism is evident for all to see. Do you not realize that you are spending enormous amounts of time on a forum full of skeptics who have rejected your brand of skepticism time and again because they see the same head-in-the-sand stubbornness that I've been pointing out to you? It isn't because I am a theist. Your own atheist kinds here think you are too far out there to be taken seriously. Have you never considered WHY out of the hundreds of persons that have read your views only a handful tend to even come close to agreeing with you, and it is usually those with limited study of their own? Do you like being an island?

I note that once again you have failed to address my comments on the ridiculousness of your theory that Romans would have had any need for a Jewish Savior in order to explain the fall of the Jewish temple.

Don't bother. It is all about defending your warped views, and rarely about seeking truth and reason, for you, IMO. You seem to be on a mission to save the world from their illogical religous belief systems which give them a higher purpose in life and make them happy. Is your alternative any better aa? Can your world view provide them with something great to fill the void left when they reject their faith in a good God? What's the point? Who cares if you are right? You think the world would be better off? Do you not realize that people gravitate toward what makes them feel fulfilled, and therefore you are pretty much just pissing in the wind at best and at worst you are threatening to take away their security by ripping their faith out of their hearts? It would be one thing if you actually had a decent argument that didn't rely on rejecting almost all writings other than those of Justin Martyr as being forgeries in a vast, complicated conspiracy worse than that of the aliens at Roswell or the faked moon landing, but you don't. Your approach is nearly completely guided by emotion and not reasonable analysis.

Give it up, aa. Your 'evidence' is too obtuse, restrictive, questionable, and arbitrary to be taken seriously. As such, you will NEVER succeed in convincing more than the tiniest percentage of believers. Hell, you can't convince any more than the tiniest percentage of NON-BELIEVERS! Your mission is doomed to failure.

aa5874

You are cluttering my thread. Open a thread on Hosea 6.2 to expose your absurdities.

Your statement is illogical and contradictory. Stop begging because you make me feel like you are terrified that I may convince a lot of people.

Is it NOT a fact that No author of the very Canon claimed that they SAW Jesus??

It is a Fact. Just go read the NT.

Is it NOT a fact that NO author acknowledged that Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 59-62 CE??

It is a FACT.

There is NO corroboration whatsoever in the very Bible of the Church for the actual human existence of Jesus and the Pauline letters in the 1st century.

I may NOT convince you BUT the evidence is SOLID and my argument cannot be overturned.

The actual recovered dated manuscripts EXPLAIN why there is NO corroboration for the existence of Jesus and the Pauline letters by the very authors of the Bible.

There was NEVER EVER any actual human being called Jesus of Nazareth and there was NEVER EVER any Pauline letters in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

And NONE will ever be found--Jesus and Paul were Literary inventions of the 2nd century or later.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri