Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-02-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

Last year i got very interested in te issue of freewill, predestination and the problem of Evil. I downoaded the CCEL ante-Nicene fathers and searched these books extensively. Predestination et al are almost entirely absent from early theologians, It is not until Augustine that these issues become a problem. This suggests to me that Paul was not that well known or important to most well known early theologians.
follwinng Augustine, much ink was spilled over these issues, notably by Calvin, Luther and other reformation theologians. Predestination also is to be found in te Gospels to some extent, and acts. But with the theology of Paul is where it is most bluntly asserted Romans 8 - 11 and 1 Corinthians. I found this most disconcerting. In the first two cenruries of Christianity, Paul makes almost no impact on Christianity as far as I can tell. Only with Monnanus does it start becoming something argued over. The issues of the problems of grace are almost absent for cennturies until Pelagius innadvertantly made it an issue. I cannot be the first one to notice this puzzling oddity.

Do you know of any scholar who discusses this near absence of Pauline doctriness for the 1st 250 years of Christianity?

Cheerful Charlie

It is the Theology of Church writers that exposes the chronology of their writings.

gMark presents the crudest form of the Teachings of the Jesus cult while the Pauline writings are the most sosphicated.

Incredibly, even the supposed Jesus in the short gMark did NOT know that by the works of the Law shall no man be justified.

Even the supposed Jesus in gMark did NOT know he was Equal to God and that he and God were One.

In gMark, the supposed Jesus did NOT know why he must resurrect--Paul knew--without the resurrection mankind would remain in sin.

When we examine every Non-Pauline writing in the Canon we see NOT one sentence even copied--Not one.

Hundreds of verses from the short gMark can be found in the long gMark--in fact OVER 500 verses.

The Jesus story in the short gMark is the Foundation of the Jesus cult and the Pauline writings were INVENTED AFTER the Jesus story and cult was already developed throughout the Empire at least from the 2nd century or later.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the authors of the short gMark, the long gMark and gMatthew attended Pauline Churches or ever heard of the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.

angelo · 03-03-2013, 02:40 AM

There is little doubt that all gospel authors had gMark in front of them when writing theirs, including the epistles, acts the whole shebang was interpolation with spin added by them.
Where did the author of Mark get his info from? Well, certainly not from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim he ever met, or knew anyone who knew a historical Jesus.
Mark read the O/T, the foundation of his elaborate tale of a messiah.

aa5874 · 03-03-2013, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There is little doubt that all gospel authors had gMark in front of them when writing theirs, including the epistles, acts the whole shebang was interpolation with spin added by them.
Where did the author of Mark get his info from? Well, certainly not from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim he ever met, or knew anyone who knew a historical Jesus.
Mark read the O/T, the foundation of his elaborate tale of a messiah.

These are the facts.

Apologetic writers ADMITTED that the Pauline writer not only knew of gLuke but that he also knew of Revelation by John and wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation---See Church History 6.25 and the Muratorian Canon.

And from Galatians 1.18, we now know that the Pauline writer was AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where a character called Jesus had a brother called James.

The Entire Canon is historically bogus--there was NO Jesus cult of Jews who worshiped a character as the Son of God before c 70 CE and NO Pauline letters to the Jesus cult of the Roman Empire during that time.

Sheshbazzar · 03-03-2013, 08:24 PM

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Justin Martyr attended Pauline Churches or ever heard of the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.
....Even though 'Paul', the supposed 'Apostle to the Gentiles' was supposedly the one person most responsible for the founding of all of the Gentile churches, and had traveled far and wide preaching 'his' gospel for years. :constern01:

How could it be, that Justin Martyr writing extensively about Christianity, Christian beliefs, and Christian church teachings and practices in 150CE knows absolutely NOTHING about any 'Paul'?

Knows NOTHING about 'Paul's' substitutionary sacrifice form of gospel?

And knows NOTHING about any doctrine of 'apostolic succession'?

There is only about one reasonable explanation. These things were not yet invented or known in 150CE.

.

aa5874 · 03-03-2013, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Justin Martyr attended Pauline Churches or ever heard of the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.
....Even though 'Paul', the supposed 'Apostle to the Gentiles' was supposedly the one person most responsible for the founding of all of the Gentile churches, and had traveled far and wide preaching 'his' gospel for years. :constern01:

How could it be, that Justin Martyr writing extensively about Christianity, Christian beliefs, and Christian church teachings and practices in 150CE knows absolutely NOTHING about any 'Paul'?

Knows NOTHING about 'Paul's' substitutionary sacrifice form of gospel?

And knows NOTHING about any doctrine of 'apostolic succession'?

There is only about one reasonable explanation. These things were not yet invented or known in 150CE.

.

How could it be that all the NT manuscripts that have been found and dated corroborate Justin Martyr??

How could Justin be so lucky??

Justin wrote about 150 CE and the Pauline writings P 46 are dated 175-225 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Quote:

Papyrus 46 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by siglum 46, is one of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts in Greek, written on papyrus, with its 'most probable date' between 175-225.

Justin wrote NOTHING about Paul and how could it be that a 2nd century NON-apologetic writer called Celsus also did NOT write about Paul??

How could Justin be so lucky??

Origen admitted that Celsus did NOT write about Paul in his "True Discourse" composed c 160 CE.

Origen's Against Celsus

Quote:

And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

And Justin's luck seem to have NO end.

Justin wrote NOTHING of Paul and how could it be that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings??

How could Justin be so lucky??

Hippolytus would claim that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles. See Refutation of All Heresies" 7.

The matter is resolved. The Pauline letters were UNKNOWN and not composed up to the mid 2nd century

Justin Martyr is corroborated by Multiple sources.

1. Artifacts--actual dated writings [P 46]

2. Apologetic sources.

3. Non-Apologetic sources.

angelo · 03-04-2013, 12:18 AM

What if the whole sorry state of this tale is an invention of the father of church history Eusebius ?

Onias · 04-02-2013, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There is little doubt that all gospel authors had gMark in front of them when writing theirs, including the epistles, acts the whole shebang was interpolation with spin added by them.
Where did the author of Mark get his info from? Well, certainly not from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim he ever met, or knew anyone who knew a historical Jesus.
Mark read the O/T, the foundation of his elaborate tale of a messiah.

These are the facts.

Apologetic writers ADMITTED that the Pauline writer not only knew of gLuke but that he also knew of Revelation by John and wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation---See Church History 6.25 and the Muratorian Canon.

And from Galatians 1.18, we now know that the Pauline writer was AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where a character called Jesus had a brother called James.

The Entire Canon is historically bogus--there was NO Jesus cult of Jews who worshiped a character as the Son of God before c 70 CE and NO Pauline letters to the Jesus cult of the Roman Empire during that time.

Yes, but don't you think Rev 2 and Rev 3 were added after the Pauline letters were written since those chapters are very anti-Pauline?

aa5874 · 04-03-2013, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There is little doubt that all gospel authors had gMark in front of them when writing theirs, including the epistles, acts the whole shebang was interpolation with spin added by them.
Where did the author of Mark get his info from? Well, certainly not from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim he ever met, or knew anyone who knew a historical Jesus.
Mark read the O/T, the foundation of his elaborate tale of a messiah.

These are the facts.

Apologetic writers ADMITTED that the Pauline writer not only knew of gLuke but that he also knew of Revelation by John and wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation---See Church History 6.25 and the Muratorian Canon.

And from Galatians 1.18, we now know that the Pauline writer was AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where a character called Jesus had a brother called James.

The Entire Canon is historically bogus--there was NO Jesus cult of Jews who worshiped a character as the Son of God before c 70 CE and NO Pauline letters to the Jesus cult of the Roman Empire during that time.

Yes, but don't you think Rev 2 and Rev 3 were added after the Pauline letters were written since those chapters are very anti-Pauline?

Hebrew Scripture is anti-Pauline but was composed before the Pauline letters.

The words of the supposed Jesus when he was on earth are Anti-Pauline and BEFORE the Pauline letters if Jesus and Paul did live.

If Jesus did LIVE he said this BEFORE Paul.
Mark 10

Quote:

Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery , Do not kill , Do not steal , Do not bear false witness , Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother......

If Jesus and Paul did live and Paul was a Persecutor of the Jesus cult then he wrote after the Jesus story was ALREADY known.

Romans 3:20 KJV

Quote:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin...

Galatians 2:16 KJV

Quote:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified .

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

03-03-2013, 02:40 AM	#122
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	There is little doubt that all gospel authors had gMark in front of them when writing theirs, including the epistles, acts the whole shebang was interpolation with spin added by them. Where did the author of Mark get his info from? Well, certainly not from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim he ever met, or knew anyone who knew a historical Jesus. Mark read the O/T, the foundation of his elaborate tale of a messiah.

03-03-2013, 08:24 PM	#124
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There is NO evidence whatsoever that Justin Martyr attended Pauline Churches or ever heard of the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus. ....Even though 'Paul', the supposed 'Apostle to the Gentiles' was supposedly the one person most responsible for the founding of all of the Gentile churches, and had traveled far and wide preaching 'his' gospel for years. :constern01: How could it be, that Justin Martyr writing extensively about Christianity, Christian beliefs, and Christian church teachings and practices in 150CE knows absolutely NOTHING about any 'Paul'? Knows NOTHING about 'Paul's' substitutionary sacrifice form of gospel? And knows NOTHING about any doctrine of 'apostolic succession'? There is only about one reasonable explanation. These things were not yet invented or known in 150CE. .

03-04-2013, 12:18 AM	#126
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	What if the whole sorry state of this tale is an invention of the father of church history Eusebius ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.