Sheshbazzar

Yeah. so did Oral Roberts. so what? Neither one of them ever met any Jeezuz, only claimed to hear disembodied voices. That doesn't make either one of them credible witnesses to the existence of any human JC, which neither one of them ever met.
And here you are trying to make yourself into a witness for the existence of a human Jeezuz. When and where did you meet him?

As you can see, I and others here strongly disagree with that unevidenced assertion.
Not all that unclear. he clearly states that he did not get his commission or doctrine from men, but from disembodied voices and visions, and by means of communications with an -invisible- living dead zombie's ghost,-

But beyond that Paul, if he 'heard of Jesus as being a teacher and miracle worker' has no advantage over Oral Roberts or Jim Jones or Charlie M. who all likewise 'heard of Jesus as being a teacher and miracle worker', and never met him either.

Get it through your head. Paul himself TELLS you that he never met any flesh and blood breathing living human Jeezuz.
He is not a credible witness to the existence of a human person whom he ADMITS that he never met.
His other outlandish supernatural claims leave his trustworthiness and credibility at absolute loony-tunes zilch.

I have a very different and practical down to earth view on the Pauline writings than that dogmatic one being espoused by aa.

Duvduv

If the Greek form of Elijah/Eliyahu is Elias, and Zechariah Zecharias, then essentially Yehoshua should take the form YEHOSUAS or YESUAS. Yet Joshua in the Tanakh is never Yesuas. If that is because other names include "yah"/"yahu", then that is understandable.
Yet isn't the name HOSHEA then HOSEAS?

Duvduv

Perhaps it's simply a matter of pronunciation whereby Yesuas turned into Yesus because the letter U precedes the A, which is different thsn in the case of Osias as the spelling for Hosea/Hoshea.

TedM

It is evidence that Paul THOUGHT Jesus had been a human. The timing of Jesus' life then is an important part..read on..


The reason is the timing of the beginning of Christianity. It didn't begin 500 years prior. It began recently, that much we know. It is reasonable to believe that the events that spawned it (the death and resurrection of a man) were recent.



This is a distortion of interpretation spouted out continuously by folks on this forum who don't understand Paul's writings. Paul clearly heard of Jesus previously from humans, so you are presenting a strawman argument. In any case your response doesn't really address what I was saying: Paul didn't write about Jesus as a teacher or miracle worker.


Have you met Mickey Mantle? One doesn't have to meet a person to know if that person had lived recently or not.

The only one I heard is a conspiracy brought about by a pedantic need to discover the exact timing of the passover. I am not impressed.

TedM

What a bunch of meaningless arguments. Quantity doesn't equal quality.

Argument from silence from a co-conspirator! Too funny!

Irrelevant, unless you consider that forgeries normally exist in order to pretend to be someone who actually does exist.

The author of 2 Peter (a Canon document) referred to Paul's writings as 'scripture'. Implication is they long existed prior to 2 Peter.

Paul was a deeper thinker. Not a surprising theology for a pharisee-Jew reinterpreting the OT in light of a revelation about the alleged Jesus' resurrection claim.

Irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that one should expect to find them. The fact that the findings in 2nd century were tiny portions of much bigger documents is evidence for corruption to such a degree that one should NOT expect ANY 1st century canonical documents to be recovered. Such a recovery requires unusual preservation, such as was the case with the Dead Sea Scrolls.


Poor and unlikely interpretation of the document.

Argument from silence, and not a good one. If the heretics had hijacked and butched Paul's works, it is understandable that one individual (Justin) might have avoided Paul's works, yet repeated the Pauline theologies that he believed in.

Not true. James, John, Peter, Cephas, Barnabas, Luke, and Timothy are all found in writings attributed by the majority of scholars to the first century.

So? Forgeries exist.

False. GMark says Jesus ransomed his life for the many. Gjohn shows signs of early creation and is full of redemption for sins wording.


Argument from silence. Mentioned along with an early creed, as well as the statement that many of those witnesses were still alive. Suggests early derivation. Gospels all relay different resurrection experiences. This argues against a coordinated 2nd century conspiracy.


IF true, which it probably is not, they you are arguing for a difference in theology. That is not likely for a coordinated 2nd century conspiracy.

Misleading. Only fragments survive. The quote I found indicates that he was referring to a specific context, and not all of Marcion's works.


What did he acknowledge? I'll be you never read this work. Got a link? Irrelevant argument from silence.

'IS considered'. Misleading again. Are you not familiar with a long standing belief that Acts(and by extension the earlier gLuke work) was written while Paul was still alive? Provide evidence that Eusebius and Origen thought gLuke was written after the temple fall and maybe you'd have a decent point finally.

It is clear that the reason you make all of these LOUSY arguments is that you don't really have any GOOD ones.

Paul lived and wrote in the mid-1st century.

Iskander

The quality of your preaching is low; bring on your “clonies” to help you.

Sheshbazzar

Duvduv, I had devoted several hours in composing a very detailed reply to these questions, going intensively into and comparing the Hebrew, Greek, and English translations. Unfortunately an unexpected computer shut-down caused all of that work to be lost. I do not presently have time available in which to collate all of that Hebrew and Greek again to write all of that over, and my computer is still having 'issues' with delayed response.

But to sumarise what was illustrated. The name 'Joshua' first occurs in Numbers 13:16, where the KJV renders it as 'Jehoshua'.
But this is the exact same name and spelling that is rendered as 'Joshua' in hundreds of other verses.

As far as attaching an 'S' to the end of -any- of these Hebrew names, that is simply a Greek custom, it is not required, not even in the Greek language. It is what is known as 'Hellenization', conforming things to Greek customs, and has no validity at all in translating or transliterating.
And in any event most of us here are not Greeks. Forget trying to add an 's' to Hebrew names.

The Septuagint (The LXX) does add the Greek 'S' (sigma) to the name written in Numbers 13:16. And the Greek as spelled is not a 'translation' nor is it a correct transliteration.
In hundreds of other instances the Greek gives the spelling as Iesu, indicating that a terminal 's' (sigma) is not required.

It may be noted, if you are a scholar, or even if you are simply willing to investigate, that the Greek texts are not consistent in their spelling of this name 'Joshua' or 'Jesus', and that even the English text sometimes swaps one name for the other.

THe Hebrew 'Jehoshua' is composed of 'YAH' (The theophonic NAME) joined with 'h 'oshua' ('the -deliverer') making 'Yah-hoshua' or 'Yahoshua', by interpretation, 'Yah's Deliverance'
(in Hebrew two letter 'h'es are never written together, when they would in expression come together, they are joined into being a single letter h)

In latter Hebrew texts the 'o' is often dropped from Yahoshua giving the also Scriptual, and thus valid form 'Yahshua'.

Y'shuah is another name, one lacking the distinctive prefixed theophonic 'Yod Hey' element, with 'YAH' being written or vocalised.
As thus. Y'shua is the simple statement; 'he helps' or 'he delivers' without specifiying whom.
But this must be qualified by the fact that simply prefixing any Hebrew name with a yod is often used to indicate the theoponic 'Yahh'.
-This is because of the concept that 'whatever it is going on' is always the (often incomprehensible) workings of 'Yahweh' bringing all things existing into being.
In other words if anyone is 'helping' or 'delivering' it is only possible because 'Yahweh' -the causitive force,- is causing whatever is happening, or will happen, to happen.

Sheshbazzar

Oral Robert's THOUGHT Jeezuz had been a human too. Doesn't do nothing to evidence that this mythical character was ever a human.

No that much WE DO NOT know.

There has NEVER been recovered -ANY- information or documentation from the 1st century that indicates ANY contemporary knowledge of the existence of any human 'Jesus of Nazareth'.

The human person in this imaginative religious fairy tale is as absent from any known interaction with actual history, and from any evidence of being a historical living human being, as 'Zeus of Olympus'.

The events that were recent to the time of the JC cult arising make it even MORE reasonable that the entire story was composed as a religious propaganda fiction to firmly place the guilt for the destruction of the Jewish Temple on the Jewish Priesthood by a religious cabal that wished to usurp power and become the replacement religious authorities.

No, his (or those who-knows-how-many 'Pseudo-Paul's') particular shtick was to make Jeezuz an eternally existent 'son of god' non-human living dead, resurrected zombie godling for his horse shit theological construction which does not have a god damned thing to do with any actual life of any human 1st century Jew.

Paul clearly states;
ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ 'To reveal his son IN ME'
Not something heard or learned about from someone else's reports but something -revealed- to one specific individual.

Then we get this kind of weird shit from 'Paul'
He had a weird 'out of body mystical experience' and claims that is the basis of his preaching, nothing that he heard from anyone else.

'Paul' TELLS YOU that he never met Jeezuz in flesh and blood human form.
(remember, according to the tale, Jeezuz was supposed to have been crucified and flew off into heaven before Saul even came on the scene)
But now we have 'Paul' telling us what he 'recieved' FROM THE LORD JEEZUZ, Not from Saint Pete, not from Andy, not from Barney, But FROM THE LORD JEEZUZ Kristoes hizzself!

You know. That Jew that died, was buried, arose from the dead and flew off into the sky years before?
Paul TELLS us he has been carrying on convesations with an eternally existent 'son of god' non-human living dead, resurrected zombie godling and that this invisable Zombie is the one who has been showing and telling him all of these things, absolutely not from listening Peter, John, and Mary.

So either 'Paul' is telling the truth, or he is a damned liar when he says that he recieved this stuff 'FROM THE LORD'.
And if he is deluded, or is inventing this horse shit, he sure is hell is not a trustworthy souce upon which to claim there must have been a human Jeezuz. Paul's Jeezuz is an invisable cosmic entity that he communes with in ecstatic religious visions and hallucinations.
Which leaves whether he thought or believed that there had 'once-upon-a-time' been a human Jeezuz a rather vacuous speculation.

The way this dookey is composed, even in the Greek, 'Paul' is uncertain whether it was his Christ that got levitated off into the third heaven....or was it himself? Don't ask him. He don't know :huh:

And as you have rejected the accounts of his 'experience' and 'conversion' as related in Acts, one wonders where and when YOU THINK 'Paul' had this marvelous experience. (epileptic seizure? dehydration? heat exhaustion? aneurysm? a major brain fart?)
Did Jeezuz only speak to him on only one occasion? or every time he used the latrine?

This kind hokey religious crap is nothing new to me, I used to be forced to sit and listen to religious liars for Jeezuz relate their imaginary 'visions' and 'out of body' religious experiences, and 'Jesus Christ sat down and ate lunch with me' stories damn near every day.
I didn't buy it from them, and I don't buy it from the liars that wrote the New Testament.
Religious people make up horse shit stories. They have been doing it for tens of thousands of years


Not an accurate analogy at all, there are millions of pieces of contemporary historical witnesses and tangible contemporary artifacts that witness the existence of Micky Mantle. For the imaginary Jeezuz all we have are writings, most of which were forged, written by a variety of anonymous and addled brained religionists. And not one iota of contemporary evidence that there ever was such a person.

Then you are not familiar with the protracted arguments that have been ongoing between me and aa for months in this Forum.
Your ignorance of that substantial number of posts is not my fault. I am not impressed by your ignorance.

The timing of the Passover is one integral aspect of these writings. If you are too damn lazy to study these texts, and learn what you are presently so utterly ignorant about, that is your problem.

aa5874

I am OBLIGATED to respond to TedM's REPEATED nonsense about "Argument from Silence" I started this thread. I must confront those who wish to derail it.

The very claim by TedM that the Pauline character lived in the 1st century MUST, MUST, MUST be supported by Silence---a Lack of evidence.

TedM repeatedly fails to admit that a LACK OF evidence SATIFIES Mythology.

Ted M repeatedly fails to ADMIT that history cannot be reconstructed on Silence.
What nonsense!!! Something must first be quantified if it is to be qualified.

No quantity means No quality

In other words, since there is No evidence for any historical Jesus then your statement is NOT relevant.

You have NO idea of the difference between an argument fron silence and FACTS.

It is a FACT that the author of Acts did NOT ever acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches. --Please just go and read Acts so that you won't appear to be Ignorant of the Facts.

The FACT that the author of Acts did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters ALLOW me to argue that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles were composed.

Well, now that you have mentioned it let us set the record straight. The supposed letters written by Seneca are products of fraud and forgeries and those under the name of Paul are only products of fraud.

You are making an argument from silence because you have NO Facts about the actual time of composition of 2 Peter.

Please, it must be logical that if 2 Peter was written in the 4th century that the Pauline writings just had to be composed ONE day before 2 Peter was composed.

But, again, you introduce more arguments from silence. You have No Facts.

This the fact---There is NO statement in the OT that without the Resurrection of Jesus there would be No remission of Sins and that Jesus died for our sins.

Hebrew Scripture does NOT contain such Blasphemy.

The NT is a compilation of the Blasphemies Against the Jewish God.

The LAWS of the God of Moses did NOT require that a Son of a God be sacrificied and raised from the dead.

Again, you present MORE arguments from Silence. You have NO Facts but employ your imagination.

A tiny fragment dated to the 2nd century comes from a LARGER document which is dated to the 2nd century.

This is so basic.

When a manscript is being dated by C 14 is the ENTIRE fragment used??

No, No, No!!!

You seem to have NO idea that tiny fragments from the 2nd century are Samples of 2nd century writings-NOT the 1st or the 4th century.


Your statements are those of one who either easily forgets the written evidence or never knew the written statements found in Apologetic sources.

The FACT that an Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote After Revelation is corroborated by writings attributed to Justinb.

Again, It is a Fact that Justin MENTIONED Revelation by John and did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters.

Based on Justin, the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the Churches.

These FACTS ALLOW ME to argue that the Pauline writings were NOT composed Before Revelation and were NOT composed before the Jesus story was already known, preached, Believed and Persecuted.

Again you have NO idea of the difference between an argument from Silence and the FACTS.

It is a FACT that Justin claimed the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the Churches on Sundays.

That FACT ALLOWS me to argue that the Memoirs of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters.

You have NO Facts therefore you MUST, MUST argue from Silence. You have no other choice.

Again, you have NO historical Facts. You IMAGINE that stories in the Bible are historically accurate.

Are you an errantist??

Please, there are NO actual recovered dated manuscripts from the 1st century of the Jesus story


Is English your firsr language?? You appear NOT to even understand the meaning of the word 'False'.

It is true that the early Gospels do NOT CLAIM Christ died for our sins.


Again, you have NO idea of the difference between FACTS and an argument from Silence.

It is a FACT that NO author of the NT Canon claimed that over 500 PEOPLE at once saw Jesus.


How dare you talk about "probabilty" without the Facts--without data???

You have NO actual evidence of a co-ordinated 1st century Jesus cult.

It is wholly absurd that all Christian writings would have been coordinated

Well, what do you use for your arguments?? Don't you use the same tiny pieces to argue for the history of your Jesus.

Again, you do NOT understand the difference between an argument from silence and FACTS.

Ephraim the Syrian did NOT acknowledge that Marcion used the Pauline letters in his three Prose Against Marcion.

Are you NOT FAMILIAR with the argument that the Pauline writings were late??

Your problem has been isolated.

You are NOT familiar with Facts. The NT is a compilation of Myth Fables.

How do you intend to argue that Paul lived and wrote in the mid-1st century??

What sources are you going to employ??

The Paul/Seneca letters and the Bible.

What FACTS from the 1st century??

You cannot even dream of providing any FACTS to support your claims.

My argument is WELL SUPPORTED by FACTS.

Sheshbazzar

I have got to say, this about the most piss-poor dumb-ass apologetic excuse I have heard.

Paul's writings according to Christianity were being distributed and exchanged among the churches in the first century, And it was Paul himself who personally went out and established these Gentile churches, and personally visited, and revisited, and taught in these Gentile churches for years, spreading the Gospel of Jesus and his unique by personal 'revelation' Pauline theology throughout the Mediterranean basin for years. Even preaching on Mars hill in Athens, and generally being by far the most famous Christian in the entire world of the first century.
And the content of his writings....why, they were pure music to Christian ears, elaborate theological explanations that his fellow Christians sucked up like flies on shit.

But here we have 'ol Justin writing about Christianity, and the beliefs and practices of his fellow Christians, in 150 or so CE, and he doesn't quote even one of these fantastic Pauline theological verses, even when they are perfectly in line with what he is trying to express, and of course his readers, according to Christian history, would by that late date have known of Paul the Apostle clear to Gaul.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons only 30 years latter knows Paul's writings and Pauls theology forwards, backwards, and sideways.

But 'ol Justin, supposedly, according to Ted, circa 150 CE was a bit nervous and scared to quote even a single verse from Paul (and apparently everyone else in that church was to, as they did not read or preach from the writings of Paul (whom everyone supposedly knew) on Sundays)
Something stinks bad wrong here, and it ain't the writings of Justin.

In the face of what Christianity teaches about the missions, the authority, and the fame of the Apostle Paul, and about the development of Church history, this apologetic is absolutely ridiculous.