dogsgod

gurugeorge, thoroughly enjoying your posts. I can see the real political power in the gospels when you put it that way, how authoritative it would be to be able to claim apostolic lineage. Did Eusebius make most of the lineage up or was it an ongoing process since Polycarp?

dogsgod

According to wiki: "Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles — and none of them were Gnostics — and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture."

I guess this answers my question, at least in part.

gurugeorge

Ha, you're one to talk about diversionary tactics, when for the last two posts you've consistently ignored my question re. this crucial part of your argument from Romans 3:7

We can get round to "Paul" = "Simon Magus" and all the rest of it later, but first deal with my counter-argument to this point you constantly trot out about "Paul" being a liar because he (a fictional character according to you, remember?) claims he lied in Romans 3:7.

Let's deal with that first, eh?

More diversionary tactics and bluster. Come on aa, deal with my counter-argument re. that specific passage which you've now ignored for THREE posts.

These examples you've just given from Cor depend on your prior assumption of the truth of your interpretation of the Romans 3:7 passage. That's the ONLY ultimate counter-argument you've given me against my interpretation that the types of passage you're quoting from Cor are examples of visionary experience. Every time you've been backed into a corner about visionary experience, you've trotted out Romans 3:7, so let's get into that.

Does the passage you put so much weight on actually bear the weight you wish to put on it or not?

Just to remind you, here it is again:-

Either show why this translation, or my interpretation of it, is wrong, or admit that you're talking nonsense about "Paul" admitting he was lying in this passage. Admit that you've simply misread the passage, or show that I'm wrong about my interpretation of it.

gurugeorge

Yes, and the kicker is if you read Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy, you find that when he investigated it, he found no evidence of anything coming from the Twelve being prior, what he found was that orthodox writers inadvertently admit (i.e. they let it slip, despite themselves, because of their incessant whining) that the Christians who are first, everywhere, are the "heretics".

i.e. the orthodox writers claim that lineages from the Twelve were the first, and that heresy was a corruption, but what they admit despite themselves is that they are the latecomers, and that heresy is already established wherever they go.

This is really quite extraordinary, if it's true. (I'm not competent to say whether Bauer's investigations were good, I am following Ehrman when he says in Lost Christianities that Bauer's investigations, with a few tweaks here and there, are broadly admitted by liberal biblical scholars.)

Kapyong

Gday,

Hang on !
A claim that someone's soul exitted the body - so what? It's just a fancy way of interpreting death. Just like saying grandma's soul is now in heaven - that's not resurrection at all.

Resurrection is about coming BACK to life.

Did anyone claim Applethwaite came back to life - i.e. was resurrected ?


Kapyong

hjalti

Have you ever been the bishop of Durham?

dogsgod

Does the idea that Polycarp met John come only from Irenaeus?

aa5874

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

Why have you NOT yet presented any credible sources of antiquity for your claim that Simon Magus was "PAUL"?

It is NOT really rocket-science. If you had any credible evidence from antiquity that Simon Magus was really "PAUL" you would have POSTED the information long ago to show me up.

But, you have NOTHING credible from antiquity that Simon Magus was "PAUL" or NICKNAMED "Paulos".

I have ALREADY told you that I Interpret Roman 3.7 as a confession from "Paul" that he LIED for the Glory of God and have IDENTIFIED some of the Glorified Pauline LIES in 1 Cor 11.23-25.

"Paul" was NOT present with Jesus in NT when he was BETRAYED in the night after he had supped and did NOT hear the conversation of Jesus.

A resurrected entity could NOT have told that he was BETRAYED in the NIGHT AFTER he had supped and REPEAT his conversation about the Eucharist.

Please show how "PAUL" could have known about the BETRAYAL in the NIGHT after the Jesus had supped and a conversation with the disciples when Jesus may not even have existed?

I have SHOWN you that CHRISTIAN writers have placed "Paul" AFTER gLuke and have claimed that it was the 12 disciples that preached the Gospel to EVERY RACE of men.

Church History 3.4.8This is the evidence from "First Apology"XXXIX
This is in the evidence "The Apology" The ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity clearly shows that "Paul" is a LIAR and EITHER the Church itself was DECEIVED by "Paul" or USED "PAUL"
to DECEIVE.

To this very day the Church has NOT admitted that since "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke as stated by a writer of the Church then he MOST likely did NOT die under NERO.

I NEED the EVIDENCE from antiquity that Simon Magus was "Paul" or was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

I have ALREADY dealt with the passage and have SHOWN that "Paul" was a LIAR using EVIDENCE from the very Pauline writings.

1 Cor 11.23-25 MUST be LIES if Jesus was human.

1 Cor. 11.23-25 MUST be LIES regardless of the interpretation of Romans 3.7

And you KNOW the Pauline writings are a PACK of LIES if "PAUL" was Simon Magus.

Your argument has SELF-EVAPORATED.

You cannot claim Simon Magus was "Paul" from SILENCE.

History cannot be compiled from SILENCE.

You need evidence from antiquity but you HAVE SILENCE.

Simon Magus was "PAUL" is an argument from a BLACKHOLE of DEAD SILENCE.

gurugeorge

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

Please deal with Romans 3:7 first, we'll get round to the other stuff once you deal with this very fundamental point that you keep bringing up (always in response to my point about visionary experience), which is your interpretation of the passage in Romans 3:7, that "Paul" admits he was lying in that passage.

Never mind these s**tstorms of obfuscation, answer the point you were asked now FOUR posts ago but have still not responded to.

Just to remind you, here it is again:-

Now, either show why this translation, or my interpretation of it, is wrong, or admit that you're talking nonsense about "Paul" admitting he was lying in this passage.

You can't keep trying to prove that this is an admission of lying because of the Corinthians passages, because my argument is that "Paul" is talking from visionary experience in the Corinthians passages, and you keep cycling round to the Romans 3:7 passage as your basic proof that there were no visions, just lies. I want to get to the bottom of this.

aa5874

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.

And I have you shown 1 Cor. 11.23-25 where "PAUL" is LYING for the Glory of God.

This is MY FINAL POSITION


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

1 Cor. 11.23-25 How many times MUST I tell you that 1 Cor. 11.23-25 are LIES for the Glory of God and SUPPORT my interpretation of Romans 3.7?

Now, please provide the source of antiquity that SHOW Simon Magus was "Paul" and Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos".

I won't let you get away anymore.

You claimed Justin Martyr was a LIAR because there is NO archaeological historical evidence for his statements about the disciples which would ALSO imply that "PAUL" was a LIAR as there is NO corroborative credible historical sources for "PAUL".

You have NOTHING credible from antiquity to support the VERACITY of "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos".

I cannot be wasting time with people who have NO intention of providing any credible sources of antiquity for what they say about "Paul/Simon Magus/Paulos".