Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-14-2012, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

OF COURSE this is the 21st century!! I am simply talking in terms of HOW THEY THOUGHT in those days! In those days this being was deemed "human" because he was born from a human womb in the 9th month regardless of how the egg became fertilized. They didn't think like people in the 21st century!...

In those days it was PUBLICLY Circulated and documented that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator that walked on Sea Water, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended. See the Extant Codices.

And in those very days, it was also publicly Circulated and documented that Romulus and Remus, the MYTH founders of Rome, were human brothers born of the same woman. See Putarch's Romulus.

You should understand that the Myth Fables of Jesus, Romulus and Remus have ZERO historical credibility.

Duvduv · 01-14-2012, 04:54 PM

Of course there is zero historical credibility there, I was simply suggesting that "man of men" means a pure human being born of egg and sperm. but the Christ was born of a woman's egg in her womb with supernaturai fertilization, enabling the Jesus figure to be considered a physical person because of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

OF COURSE this is the 21st century!! I am simply talking in terms of HOW THEY THOUGHT in those days! In those days this being was deemed "human" because he was born from a human womb in the 9th month regardless of how the egg became fertilized. They didn't think like people in the 21st century!...

In those days it was PUBLICLY Circulated and documented that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator that walked on Sea Water, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended. See the Extant Codices.

And in those very days, it was also publicly Circulated and documented that Romulus and Remus, the MYTH founders of Rome, were human brothers born of the same woman. See Putarch's Romulus.

You should understand that the Myth Fables of Jesus, Romulus and Remus have ZERO historical credibility.

Duvduv · 01-14-2012, 04:56 PM

Don't forget this post. I posted it before the one you replied to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

aa5874, if the Book of Acts preceded the epistles, then why didn't the story of the revelation of Paul as appearing in Acts find its way into the epistles?
Why didn't the historical Jesus of NAZARETH find its way into the succeeding epistles?
Why didn't mention of the Baptist find its way into the epistles?
Why did the Peter of Acts then have epistles written just as Paul did?
If Acts was the first written text of the sect to appear, then what tradition(s) did it come from where "Peter" and "Paul" were revered as the great apostles, and who were these two important figures that got top billing in the earlier period before Acts was produced?

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 05:03 PM

The epistles do not come as packages in the Nag Hammadi Codices. How did the authors/transmittors/translators who manufactured the Nag Hammadi Codices treat Paul and the Epistles?

aa5874 · 01-14-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Of course there is zero historical credibility there, I was simply suggesting that "man of men" means a pure human being born of egg and sperm. but the Christ was born of a woman's egg in her womb with supernaturai fertilization, enabling the Jesus figure to be considered a physical person because of that...

Why have you suddenly stopped thinking like people of those days ? Please provide the evidence that people of those days THOUGHT there was an EGG in a woman's womb.

From what EGG or what WOMB did Marcion's Phantom come?

You know how people of those days THOUGHT!!??

Now, tell me about the EGGS for Adam and EVE?

Duvduv · 01-14-2012, 05:20 PM

What do you mean they don't come as packages?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The epistles do not come as packages in the Nag Hammadi Codices. How did the authors/transmittors/translators who manufactured the Nag Hammadi Codices treat Paul and the Epistles?

Duvduv · 01-14-2012, 05:22 PM

The fact of a virgin giving birth meant to them without sexual intercourse the woman became pregnant and gave birth to a physical person.
Now would you remember to reply to my other posting?!

Originally Posted by Duvduv
aa5874, if the Book of Acts preceded the epistles, then why didn't the story of the revelation of Paul as appearing in Acts find its way into the epistles?
Why didn't the historical Jesus of NAZARETH find its way into the succeeding epistles?
Why didn't mention of the Baptist find its way into the epistles?
Why did the Peter of Acts then have epistles written just as Paul did?
If Acts was the first written text of the sect to appear, then what tradition(s) did it come from where "Peter" and "Paul" were revered as the great apostles, and who were these two important figures that got top billing in the earlier period before Acts was produced?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Of course there is zero historical credibility there, I was simply suggesting that "man of men" means a pure human being born of egg and sperm. but the Christ was born of a woman's egg in her womb with supernaturai fertilization, enabling the Jesus figure to be considered a physical person because of that...

Why have you suddenly stopped thinking like people of those days ? Please provide the evidence that people of those days THOUGHT there was an EGG in a woman's womb.

From what EGG or what WOMB did Marcion's Phantom come?

You know how people of those days THOUGHT!!??

Now, tell me about the EGGS for Adam and EVE?

aa5874 · 01-14-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The fact of a virgin giving birth meant to them without sexual intercourse the woman became pregnant and gave birth to a physical person...

If you want to appear credible then provide the evidence that people of those days thought a woman had an EGG in her womb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.. In those days this being was deemed "human" because he was born from a human womb in the 9th month regardless of how the egg became fertilized...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

..Now would you remember to reply to my other posting?!

Let us resolve One post at a time. Right now I am dealing with your post about what people of those days THOUGHT about a woman's womb.

As soon as you provide the evidence from antiquity or admit you have none for your claims then I can deal with your other posts.

Duvduv · 01-14-2012, 06:31 PM

I don't see why this is necessary. Many ancient people, including the Talmud knew about sperm ("zera") causing pregnancy. And virginity and the menstrual cycle as well in relation to pregnancy. As far as I am concerned this is a given. They may not have understood all the details we know today involved in IVF reproductive technologies, but they knew the basics. I don't have an inventory of sources for you about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The fact of a virgin giving birth meant to them without sexual intercourse the woman became pregnant and gave birth to a physical person...

If you want to appear credible then provide the evidence that people of those days thought a woman had an EGG in her womb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

..Now would you remember to reply to my other posting?!

Let us resolve One post at a time. Right now I am dealing with your post about what people of those days THOUGHT about a woman's womb.

As soon as you provide the evidence from antiquity or admit you have none for your claims then I can deal with your other posts.

rlogan · 01-14-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have shown that the author of Acts did not denigrate Paul at any time in Acts of the Apostles.

Please state ONE single verse or passage in Acts of the Apostles where the author of Acts belittled Paul.

You constantly make spurious remarks but cannot support them with actual written evidence.

There is ZERO passages in Acts where the character called Saul/Paul is belittled by the author. ZERO--NIL--NONE.

My God, can you really be this obtuse? Acts takes this legendary Paul of the Epistles, who received his gospel from no man, and puts him under the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, eg Acts 15:

Quote:

1 And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Peter gets up during this phony council at Jerusalem and answers the question for Paul, reminding us in 15:7 that "everyone knows" God appointed Peter as his representative on earth.

Paul is such a lowly toad that he can't even be trusted to take this message back himself to his own congregations. So he is sent back with more worthy Jerusalem representatives along with letters instead in 15:22-24. In 15:32 we have these complete unknowns, Judas and Silas, confirming people in Paul's own Church.

If that weren't enough, they also carry back some other commandments like not eating anything that was strangled, and not to fornicate etc.

Paul does not even rise to the level of being a messenger boy in these passages.

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

01-14-2012, 05:03 PM	#234
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	The epistles do not come as packages in the Nag Hammadi Codices. How did the authors/transmittors/translators who manufactured the Nag Hammadi Codices treat Paul and the Epistles?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.