Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bronzeage · 06-20-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

You keep stating things which are accepted as fact by the Christian Community and act as if this should be startling.

Hi Bronzeage;

Yes, I interpret aa5874's observation as startling, in that, so far as I am aware, nearly everyone assumes that:

a. Paul's epistles preceded the Gospels;

b. Paul personally created the church in modern day Turkey/Syria/Lebanon.

evidence, please....The issue really at the heart of this discussion is simple: When were Paul's epistles composed, and more importantly, how do we establish this date?

? Is the intention here to belittle? Didn't work, if so.....

Then, what is "an apostle of Christ"? Is that a title that any old person can attain? Were not all the other "apostles" appointed by Jesus, according to the gospels? So, by what right does "Paul" appoint himself apostle? Are there other self-appointed apostles out there? If not, why should we regard Paul's writing as legitimate?

Is it not odd, that the concept of "apostle" is only found in two places: the gospels, and Paul's letters? Does it help us, hinder us, or represent meaningless observation, to inquire which came first: the gospels or Paul's letters, based upon this notion of an "apostle of Christ"? Did any other Greek religious community employ this word αποστολος before Paul's epistles?

Romans 1:1
παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου

I am unaware of any extant copy of Memoirs of the Apostles. So far as I know, it is only a title of a text claimed to have been read in churches, by Justin Martyr. I have no idea if it identified Paul, or his epistles. Marcion's text is thought to have existed about the same time, middle of the second century, but, again, where's the beef? I don't see any wound....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

Are you claiming that Paul did not exist, the letters did not exist, or something else is revealed by the fact that churches existed before Paul wrote his letters?

Again, maybe I err, here, aa5874 will address the points himself. From my point of view, the significance of his comments regarding Paul's epistles, is to illustrate the extent to which the notion that Paul's epistles predate the gospels, is tenuous and faith driven, not based on evidence.

Indeed, I argue, that 1 Corinthians 15:3 demonstrates, to my satisfaction, if no one else's, that Paul had a copy of at least one of the four gospels, in his hands, as he wrote his epistles:

παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας

Else, if not, then to what does γραφας refer?

This is not my thread and I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

My goal is to be certain I understand the argument. This is why I ask questions and try to eliminate inconsistencies. Up to this point, little of it has made sense and your post has not aided me.

As for

"παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας"

it's all Greek to me.

gurugeorge · 06-20-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

As for

"παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας"

it's all Greek to me.

"According to Scripture" or "in accordance with Scripture". The phrase is ambiguous between these two, which leaves room for doubt about aa/tanya's intepretation.

IOW, it could mean:-

1) something like "in fulfillment of Scripture"; or
2) "according to Scripture" (as in "according to the BBC")

Plus also AFAIK, "Scripture" likely refers to the LXX, which again, throws a spanner in the works of aa's interpretation.

(Sorry aa, please don't shout at me

)

spin · 06-20-2012, 03:28 PM

The Jews obviously had churches if you look at the LXX. For example, Deut 23:3 excludes Ammonites and Moabites from the church of the lord (εκκλησιαν κυρου) even to the tenth generation. (See Deut 31:30, Jdg 20:2, 1 Kgs 8:14, etc.)

sotto voce · 06-20-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

As for

"παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας"

it's all Greek to me.

"According to Scripture" or "in accordance with Scripture". The phrase is ambiguous between these two, which leaves room for doubt about aa/tanya's intepretation.

IOW, it could mean:-

1) something like "in fulfillment of Scripture"; or
2) "according to Scripture" (as in "according to the BBC")

Plus also AFAIK, "Scripture" likely refers to the LXX

It could refer to the Hebrew Scripture. No honest person with knowledge of that and the LXX would have taken the latter as authoritative.

aa5874 · 06-20-2012, 04:00 PM

Some seem not to understand the Pauline writers had NO influence whatsoever on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians and are NOT even necessary in the Canon.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the FAITH. The Jesus story was ALREADY known in the Church.

Examine the letter to the Galatians.

The Pauline writer made some remarkable statements.

He was called by God to preach the Gospel and did NOT consult any human being or the Apostles before him but went to ARABIA.

Now the Pauline writer is writing about events AFTER at least 17 years
Remember this is the ONLY letter from Paul to the Churches of Galatia.

Galatians 1.15-2,1

Quote:

15 But when he that set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, was pleased

16 to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood;

17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas; and I abode with him fifteen days;

19 but another of the apostles saw I not, except James the brother of the Lord.

20 Now as to the things that I write to you, behold, in the presence of God I lie not.

21 After that I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,

22 but was not known personally to the churches of Judea that were in Christ;

23 but they had only heard that he that once persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once destroyed;

24 and they glorified God in me.

1 Then, fourteen years after, I again went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking with me Titus also...

Even from the statements of the Pauline writer we can see that he HAD NO influence at all on the START of the Jesus cult.

In Galatians the writer attempted to STOP the spread of the Jesus cult.

Over a minimum 17 year time period there is ONE SINGLE letter to the Churches of Galatia.

The people of the Galatia Churches could NOT reasonably be expected to have been waiting for ONE letter from Paul.

They must have had knowledge of the Jesus story Before the Pauline letter.

It was the Jesus story that started the Jesus cults to which the Pauline writer supposedly sent letters.

The Jesus story that Jesus was the Son of God who DIED for our sins, was buried and Resurrected on the THIRD Day was WRITTEN and known BEFORE Paul wrote his letters.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline letters.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Churches.

aa5874 · 06-20-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

As for

"παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας"

it's all Greek to me.

"According to Scripture" or "in accordance with Scripture". The phrase is ambiguous between these two, which leaves room for doubt about aa/tanya's intepretation.

IOW, it could mean:-

1) something like "in fulfillment of Scripture"; or
2) "according to Scripture" (as in "according to the BBC")

Plus also AFAIK, "Scripture" likely refers to the LXX, which again, throws a spanner in the works of aa's interpretation.

(Sorry aa, please don't shout at me

)

Again, it is a WASTE of time trying to tell me change my POSTING style.

Again, you very well know that once the Jesus story was already written and used in the Churches as Scriptures BEFORE Paul then according to the Scriptures can mean the Gospel.

You also know that there is NO claim in the LXX that a man DIED for OUR Sins was buried and Resurrected on the Third dAY.

Please, you cannot continue to waste time.

It was the Blood of Bulls and Goats that were used for the atonement of Sins in the LXX.

aa5874 · 06-20-2012, 07:28 PM

Over 100 manuscripts of the NT has been Dated by Paleography and none have been found to be from the 1st century and before c 70 CE. The Pauline writings, P 46, have also been dated at about 200 CE.

The dated NT Manscript are therefore compatible with Apologetic sources of the 2nd century that do NOT mention the Pauline letters.

In a supposed letter to the Philippians, again we see that the Churches of Philippi were already in existence and that there were Bishops and Deacons.

Philippians 1

Quote:

1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, that are in Philippi, [color]with the bishops and deacons.[/color]

But, when did Churches have Bishops??

There is no mention of Bishops in the Four Canonised Gospels.

There is NO mention of Bishops in the General Epistles.

Only letters under the name of Paul mention Bishops and deacons.

However when we examine Justin Martyr's "First Apology" this author wrote NOTHING about Bishops. The leader of the Church was called the President up to the mid 2nd century.

First Apology LXV

Quote:

....Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water...

First Apology LXV

Quote:

....And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent,....

First Apology LXVII

Quote:

......the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings...

Justin Martyr is Corroborated by Lucian a 2nd century Non-Apologetic source in " The Death of Pergrine.".

Lucian's Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. ...

There were NO Bishops of Christian Churches during the time of 2nd century writers Justin Martyr and Lucian of Samosata.

The Pauline writings were composed AFTER Churches in the mid 2nd century,.

Duvduv · 06-20-2012, 07:48 PM

Please explain to me the illogical association in Galatians between Paul claiming his was the true gospel and the existence of churches following a gospel other than his when he was a freelance persecutor. Because if his gospel was the absolute truth according to Galatians then any other gospel -doctrine would be incomplete by definition and could not possibly have expressed the intent of his Christ either before or after resurrection EVEN if gentiles had been excluded according to the will of apostles and Christ himself.

If churches were flourishing to the point of the need for persecution in Judea just a couple of years after the crucifixion, what happened to make the Christ have to appoint a special freelancer after the resurrection when he could have done it just a couple of years earlier? And according to Acts at least Paul could not explain what he knew about the Jesus story prior to hiring himself out as a *freelance * persecutor of the worldwide church considering he was himself in Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Some seem not to understand the Pauline writers had NO influence whatsoever on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians and are NOT even necessary in the Canon.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the FAITH. The Jesus story was ALREADY known in the Church.

Examine the letter to the Galatians.

The Pauline writer made some remarkable statements.

He was called by God to preach the Gospel and did NOT consult any human being or the Apostles before him but went to ARABIA.

Now the Pauline writer is writing about events AFTER at least 17 years
Remember this is the ONLY letter from Paul to the Churches of Galatia.

Galatians 1.15-2,1

Quote:

15 But when he that set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, was pleased

16 to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood;

17 neither went I up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas; and I abode with him fifteen days;

19 but another of the apostles saw I not, except James the brother of the Lord.

20 Now as to the things that I write to you, behold, in the presence of God I lie not.

21 After that I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,

22 but was not known personally to the churches of Judea that were in Christ;

23 but they had only heard that he that once persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once destroyed;

24 and they glorified God in me.

1 Then, fourteen years after, I again went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking with me Titus also...

Even from the statements of the Pauline writer we can see that he HAD NO influence at all on the START of the Jesus cult.

In Galatians the writer attempted to STOP the spread of the Jesus cult.

Over a minimum 17 year time period there is ONE SINGLE letter to the Churches of Galatia.

The people of the Galatia Churches could NOT reasonably be expected to have been waiting for ONE letter from Paul.

They must have had knowledge of the Jesus story Before the Pauline letter.

It was the Jesus story that started the Jesus cults to which the Pauline writer supposedly sent letters.

The Jesus story that Jesus was the Son of God who DIED for our sins, was buried and Resurrected on the THIRD Day was WRITTEN and known BEFORE Paul wrote his letters.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline letters.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Churches.

aeebee50 · 06-20-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

It still boils down to what a person wants to believe.

Maybe that's good enough for you.
The facts should be more important than what you want to believe.

There some I believe and some I do not. I always like William Craig's opinions.

Horatio Parker · 06-20-2012, 09:52 PM

How does your theory fit with the account of Paul in Acts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Examine any so-called Pauline Epistles and read the first few verses and you will immediately Notice that Churches were ALREADY in existence BEFORE each letter was supposedly written.

Romans 1.

Quote:

7 to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ concerning you all, that your faith is spoken of in all the world.

1 Corinthians 1

Galatians 1

Ephesians 1.

Philippians 1.

Colossians 1

1 Thessalonians 1

Quote:

1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.......

The so-called Pauline Epistles SHOW that BEFORE the very letters were written there were ALREADY people who had Heard of the Jesus stories and had developed Churches WITH BISHOPS and DEACONS.

These Churches supposedly FUNCTIONED WITHOUT the Pauline letters. Whether or not there were Pauline letters there would be Saints, Deacons Bishops and the Christian Faith.

[ It is EXTREMELY significant to understand that the so-called Pauline letters did NOT start any Jesus cult.

It is EXTREMELY significant to understand the letters CAME AFTER the Christian Faith was ALREADY KNOWN and circulated.

The Pauline Gospel did NOT start the Christian Faith it was the Jesus stories and the LETTERS came AFTER.

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

06-20-2012, 03:28 PM	#33
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The Jews obviously had churches if you look at the LXX. For example, Deut 23:3 excludes Ammonites and Moabites from the church of the lord (εκκλησιαν κυρου) even to the tenth generation. (See Deut 31:30, Jdg 20:2, 1 Kgs 8:14, etc.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.