sotto voce

It could be that the whole of existence has its funny side. And most of us are the butt.

Now what was that about Paul in Acts? We really ought to know, eh?

aa5874

Well, if you are dependent on scholars why are you arguing against an historical Jesus??

Why are you not dependent on the actual recovered dated evidence??

Why are you now appealing to authority??

HJers appeal to authority.

Christians appeal to authority.

Inerrantists appeal to authority.

Atheists are now appealing to authority.

I appeal to the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The DATE of authorship of the Pauline writings are UNEVIDENCED, UNATTESTED and without corroboration in the very NT Canon.

You don't need a museum full of ancient text to understand that stories about Romulus and Remus, and the God of Moses are myth fables.

You can read the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

It is credible EVIDENCE from writings of antiquity that determine history.

In or out a court, it is the evidence, not expert opinion, that determines what most likely happened.

When any investigation is initiated it is the evidence from the witnesses that is of primary importance.

Justin Martyr, Aristides, Municius Felix, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Arnobius and Tatian are some of the witnesses of the start of the Jesus cult in the 2nd century.

There were NO Pauline writings up to the mid 2nd century based on the Witnesses.

Even Acts of the Apostles show that Saul/Paul did NOT write any letters to Churches up to the time of authorship--after c 59-62 CE.

proudfootz

When a poster cited 'the scripture of Paul' I mistakenly thought they were referring to Paul.

Apparently 'the scripture of Paul' is some unnamed verses from some unnamed book of the Hebrew bible which supposedly accounts for the similarities between Plato and Paul (that is, Plato read the Hebrew bible and drew the same interpretations of it that 400 years later Paul did).

proudfootz

Are you dating this evidence?

Do you do carbon dating in your kitchen?

Are you an expert on paleography?

Who taught you?

Have you personally seen any of these documents?

Can you read the texts in the original languages?

Or is it POSSIBLE that JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE you are RELYING on DATES and INTERPRETATIONS made by others?

Horatio Parker

Or - syncretism occurred because Greek became the intellectual lingua franca of the Jews.

Sheshbazzar

In 'translating' the Bible, the name יהושע got exchanged for the Greek name Ἰησοῦν which is NOT a 'translation', is NOT a 'transliteration', and is NOT an 'interpretation'.
It is simply the rank substitution of a more popular Greek name, for the original and Scriptural name.
It is a sibboleth being substituted by the arrogant and the deceived for THE 'shibboleth'.

Is there not even one other person here who can see and comprehend what is wrong with this substitution?

If it don't make any difference what the actual NAME the messiah is, men might as well be baptized into the name 'Satan', and sing their praises to the name 'Satan', and call upon the name 'Satan' for their salvation.
Because calling upon the substituted and false name spelled as Ἰησοῦν or Ἰησοῦς or 'Jesus' is doing the equivalent.

The NT tells you that there is but 'ONE Name under heaven given among men...' NOT multiple names or a substitute name.

It also tells you of another that would come in another name. And that is the thing that has long since been done;
A lie has came in another name, with a 'mark' = 'tau' = † the Nehushtan of old and the world has received it, and believed it, and bows down to it.

aa5874

What about you?? Where do you get your dates for early Paul?? In Acts of the Apostles there is NO claim that Saul/Paul wrote any letters to Churches.

Who invented the dates and order of authorship for the Pauline letters??

What about you?? Did you carbon date the Pauline letters to the 1st century in your kitchen?? Have you seen or heard that Pauline letters were carbon dated to the 1st century in or out a kitchen??

P 46, the Pauline letters have been dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century so why are you giving the impression that they were early??

What about you?? Are you an expert on paleography?? Is Ehrman or Doherty experts on paleography??

Tell me why do scholars who are not experts in Paleography claim the Pauline writings are early WITHOUT a shred of evidence??

The Pauline writings are dated by Paleography with an error of 50 or more years from mid 2nd-3rd century

So-called Scholars date the Pauline writings to c 50-60 CE without a shred of evidence.

Who taught you??

Who teaches people to examine Written Statements???

Who needs a Ph.D to state that the NT Jesus was described as the Son of a Ghost, that was God the Creator, who was on the pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, Walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, Ate Food after wards and then ascended in a cloud??

I don't need a Ph.D to say that Adam and Eve in Genesis were Myths.

Jesus was the product of a Ghost and a woman.

I was TAUGHT to identify Myth Fables by writings attributed Justin Martyr.

What have you seen?? You have NOT seen any manuscripts of the Pauline writings dated to the 1st century.

What about you??? Even if you can read all the languages of the ancient world you will not read in any extant Codices that Paul wrote letters to Churches in Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writings are unattested, and without corroboration in the very NT.

I RELY on the dates provided by Paleography and C14.

1. No author of the NT claimed Paul wrote any letters up to c 59-62 CE.

2. No Pauline letters have been found and dated to the 1st century.

The claim that the Pauline writings were early is a product of "Chinese Whispers" or propaganda.

sotto voce

Syncretism occurs because people prefer easy to hard. Israelites found almost every religion more congenial than their own. They didn't need to travel to demonstrate that propensity, either.

Christianity, being more demanding, has given rise to a level of syncretisms of a different order.

tanya

Thanks, Horatio. Your post got me thinking, always dangerous.

Umm, I do not claim to grasp sotto voce's argument here, vis a vis Plato's having encountered the written Hebrew Torah in Athens, in the fourth century BCE. I seem to recall, from Wikipedia, that the Persians invaded Greece in the fifth century BCE, so, if anything, would there not have been an influence, in Athens, rather, from Zoroastrianism, (Zarathustra), instead of from Moses? When did the Babylonians destroy the temple, and expel the Jews, about a century earlier, right?

And, wasn't a significant component of the Hebrew bible composed during the Jewish forced residence in Baghdad? And, does this ancient religion not demonstrate at least a modest influence from Zoroastrianism, as a consequence of Jewish residence in Baghdad? And then, when King Cyrus released the Jews, so that they could return to Jerusalem, why would not some of them travel instead from Baghdad to Athens, to set up shop in that growing metropolis, just as some traveled East, to Persepolis?

I assume that the significant influence of Greek on the Jewish people originated with the invasion by Alexander, about a century later.

Clivedurdle

<http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showt...rus-Christ>

I understand the experience by the Rivers of Babylon to have been a major system upgrade for Judaism, when the Most High got revised, angels and demons introduced, and many other Zarathustran habits.

The publication of the Septuagint is a further system upgrade, when Greek apps get added.

The destruction of the Temple led to a major splitting of the system, one following the original OS, the other going to the equivalent of Microsoft!