Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dogsgod · 04-24-2011, 10:40 AM

gurugeorge, another interesting point, apostolic succession can supposedly be traced but the descendants of Jesus or the apostles can not. Matthew and Luke provide Joseph's ancestry, however conflicting, all the way back to King David, but after Jesus was born no one bothered to keep track of Jesus' siblings and their descendants, nor of any apostles. Ireneaus talks of bishops but one would think it difficult to avoid Jesus' family. They seem to have vanished without a trace or a care. Funny how that works.

Sheshbazzar · 04-24-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

They seem to have vanished without a trace or a care. Funny how that works.

Couldn't afford to allow them to hang around to foul-up and discredit the plots and shenanigans of the orthodox.

Sheshbazzar · 04-24-2011, 11:15 AM

I think it would have been very dangerous or unwise for anyone to claim, admit, or be 'found out' having been a real relative or descendant of the Jebus linage.

aa5874 · 04-24-2011, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

gurugeorge, another interesting point, apostolic succession can supposedly be traced but the descendants of Jesus or the apostles can not. Matthew and Luke provide Joseph's ancestry, however conflicting, all the way back to King David, but after Jesus was born no one bothered to keep track of Jesus' siblings and their descendants, nor of any apostles. Ireneaus talks of bishops but one would think it difficult to avoid Jesus' family. They seem to have vanished without a trace or a care. Funny how that works.

The Church did claim that James and Jude, supposed siblings or relatives of Jesus, did write Epistles in their Canon but that appears to be FALSE.

However, the Church did claim to keep track of some of the supposed relatives or descendants of Jesus.

Examine "Church History" 3.20

Quote:

1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.
2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

4. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.
5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus....

dogsgod · 04-24-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I think it would have been very dangerous or unwise for anyone to claim, admit, or be 'found out' having been a real relative or descendant of the Jebus linage.

The Jebus linage is part of the King David linage, and that linage supposedly survived a great deal of dangerous times.

gurugeorge · 04-24-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, why have you NOT yet present any credible sources of antiquity for your claim that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos"?

I asked first aa, you show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I am the ONE who FIRST told you "Paul" was a LIAR and that Romans 3.7 is a CONFESSION that "Paul" himself LIED for the Glory of God.

Yes and what you first told me is what I first challenged you on several posts ago and am still asking you about now.

I am saying that you are totally misinterpreting that Romans 3:7 passage in a most ludicrous way. I don't think "Paul" is doing anything like admitting he lied in that passage. What he is doing is using "lying for God" as an example, in an argument, of precisely what he DOES NOT RECOMMEND. He is comparing it to "doing evil that good may result", and putting it on the same level, as something that is NOT good.

This interpretation of mine is quite obvious from the NIV translation I showed you. Here it is again:-

Quote:

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Notice my bold. It should be quite clear that, at least from this translation, the meaning of the passage is not at all what you say it is.

Now, my challenge to you, for the last few posts, which you've consistently ignored, is to defend your proposition that "Paul" is admitting he is lying in that passage. Maybe this translation is wrong, or maybe I am misinterpreting it. If so, please show me how.

Pointing at the Corinthians passages as you do below is NON-RESPONSIVE because it depends on your prior interpretation that "Paul" is lying in Romans 3:7.

i.e. IF "PAUL" ADMITTED HE IS LYING, then maybe those Corinthians passages may be understood as examples of his lying.

But if "Paul" didn't admit he is lying in Romans 3:7, those Corinthians passages are NOT NECESSARILY examples of lying - they are NOT NECESSARILY anachronistic, they DO NOT NECESSARILY admit some kind of knowledge of the gospels. They may have other interpretations, including being examples of visionary experiences (e.g. this is what Jesus told "Paul" happened, in his vision of Jesus). (Of course they may also be interpolations, and some have argued that, but let's not go there for the minute.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again look at the evidence that "PAUL" LIED for the Glory of God.

See above. Your interpreation of these Corinthians passages depends on your prior interpretation that there is an admission of lying in Romans 3:7. That is what I am denying. Before we can go any further, we have to sort this out, it's absolutely the lynchpin of your argument.

IOW, you think you've caught "Paul" bending, in an admission of lying. That would be a bizarre enough thing for a supposedly fictional character to do in the first place, if that fictional character is meant to be believed. But let that pass. Let's just see if the way you are interpreting that Romans passage is correct, or if this misinterpretation is the root of your error.

We can move on to Paul = Simon Magus, and my reasoning and evidence for that, after we sort this out.

gurugeorge · 04-24-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

gurugeorge, another interesting point, apostolic succession can supposedly be traced but the descendants of Jesus or the apostles can not. Matthew and Luke provide Joseph's ancestry, however conflicting, all the way back to King David, but after Jesus was born no one bothered to keep track of Jesus' siblings and their descendants, nor of any apostles. Ireneaus talks of bishops but one would think it difficult to avoid Jesus' family. They seem to have vanished without a trace or a care. Funny how that works.

Again, I think the only reason anyone ever even thought of siblings is because people then, as now, have misunderstood the term "Brother of the Lord" as implying siblinghood for James, when it is, as used elsewhere in "Paul", a term of art, a jargon term, denoting some sort of rank or position in the movement (perhaps connected with an LXX passage that I can't remember offhand, but has been pointed out on this board before - something about people who are righteous in a certain way are known as brothers of the Lord, sorry I can't recall it, maybe someone else can).

There are no apostles=personal disciples, and there are no siblings, in the supposedly authentic "Paul" writings, so far as I can see.

Toto · 04-24-2011, 03:47 PM

In the fourth century, there was a group that claimed to be descended from Jesus. The orthodox appear to have regarded them as an embarrassment, as they were rural folk who followed the Jewish laws. There is an old thread from 2002 in the archives, or google for desposynoi or desposyni.

dogsgod · 04-24-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the fourth century, there was a group that claimed to be descended from Jesus. The orthodox appear to have regarded them as an embarrassment, as they were rural folk who followed the Jewish laws. There is an old thread from 2002 in the archives, or google for desposynoi or desposyni.

Thanks for the link, it looks to be an interesting read.

aa5874 · 04-24-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

..... Let's just see if the way you are interpreting that Romans passage is correct, or if this misinterpretation is the root of your error....

Has it never crossed your mind that I can say the very same thing about you? It is MY view that you have mis-interpreted Romans 3.7 and that is the ROOT of your problem.

And 1 Cor. 11.23-25 and the Pauline writings MUST be LIES about Jesus since Jesus could have ONLY been human if he did exist.

And LOOK at another LIE from "Paul".

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

If Jesus Christ did exist he could have ONLY been HUMAN. "PAUL" must be a LIAR for the GLORY of God.

You want to see MORE LIES from "PAUL".

Colossians 1.16

Quote:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible........ all things were created by him, and for him

If Jesus Christ did exist he could have ONLY been HUMAN and "PAUL" LIED for the Glory of God and claimed Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth.

What a BIG LIE for the Glory of God!!!

I can SHOW you MORE PAULINE LIES for the Glory of God but let us MOVE on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

... We can move on to Paul = Simon Magus, and my reasoning and evidence for that, after we sort this out.

YOU CANNOT MOVE ON.

You have an ARGUMENT from SILENCE or an ARGUMENT from your IMAGINATION.

1.Your claims that Simon Magus was "Paul" and that Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos" are UNSUBSTANTIATED and cannot be corroborated by any credible historical sources of antiquity.

2. Your claim that Justin Martyr was lying because there is no archaeological historical evidence for the 12 disciples MUST also signify that "Paul/Simon Magus/ Paulos" was LIAR since there is NO archaeological historical evidence "Paul's claims about Jesus and the Apostles.

I have ALREADY recognized that you are ARGUING from SILENCE. I have ALREADY notified you that you have NOTHING credible from antiquity for what you say about "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos".

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

04-24-2011, 10:40 AM	#91
dogsgod Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 104	gurugeorge, another interesting point, apostolic succession can supposedly be traced but the descendants of Jesus or the apostles can not. Matthew and Luke provide Joseph's ancestry, however conflicting, all the way back to King David, but after Jesus was born no one bothered to keep track of Jesus' siblings and their descendants, nor of any apostles. Ireneaus talks of bishops but one would think it difficult to avoid Jesus' family. They seem to have vanished without a trace or a care. Funny how that works.

04-24-2011, 11:15 AM	#93
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I think it would have been very dangerous or unwise for anyone to claim, admit, or be 'found out' having been a real relative or descendant of the Jebus linage.

04-24-2011, 03:47 PM	#98
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	In the fourth century, there was a group that claimed to be descended from Jesus. The orthodox appear to have regarded them as an embarrassment, as they were rural folk who followed the Jewish laws. There is an old thread from 2002 in the archives, or google for desposynoi or desposyni.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.