Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 11-26-2012, 06:38 PM

AA, you keep repeating this point all the time. But then if you argue that the epistles come along to historicize the resurrection you still have to explain why the very same epistles did not bother to mention a word about John the Baptist, Mary, Jerusalem or Galilee in the life of Christ identified in Mark or the Christianity of the brethren in Jerusalem (per Galatians) in relation to the Christ who they had seen and spoken to.

aa5874 · 11-26-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, you keep repeating this point all the time. But then if you argue that the epistles come along to historicize the resurrection you still have to explain why the very same epistles did not bother to mention a word about John the Baptist, Mary, Jerusalem or Galilee in the life of Christ identified in Mark or the Christianity of the brethren in Jerusalem (per Galatians) in relation to the Christ who they had seen and spoken to.

You keep saying the same thing without taking into consideration that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor which is also mentioned in Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Acts 7-9

If Paul was actually a Persecutor of the Faith and there were Churches of God then Paul MUST have known the Jesus story and could have IDENTIFIED those who BELIEVED, PREACHED, TAUGHT and PRACTISED the Faith.

Paul as a Persecutor was able to IDENTIFY the Place of Residence of those who BELIEVED, PREACHED, TAUGHT, and PRACTISED the FAITH in the Apologetic source called Acts of the Apostles.

Galatians 1

Quote:

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it...............23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in time past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed .

Acts 8:3 KJV

Quote:

As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

How many times must I repeat that Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church of God and DID WASTE it??

It is without reasonable doubt that the Pauline writer and Acts claimed Paul persecuted the Faith.

In effect, the Pauline MUST have been familiar with the Jesus story and cult if he was a Persecutor.

This is so basic.

Duvduv · 11-26-2012, 07:58 PM

If the whole story is fiction anyway, then don't assume what the author had in mind for his protagonist. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question as to why the authors of the epistles who knew GMark didn't include details so pertinent to the story even a single time. If the epistles can mention certain details they can mention others from GMark as well.

aa5874 · 11-26-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the whole story is fiction anyway, then don't assume what the author had in mind for his protagonist. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question as to why the authors of the epistles who knew GMark didn't include details so pertinent to the story.

I am not dealing with Motive. Why did the Church invent the Trinity or believe the mother of Jesus became Pregnant by a Ghost??

I am dealing with the WRITTEN STATEMENTS from the Witnesses of antiquity that support my arguments.

My argument is that the Pauline writer was aware of the Jesus story if he was a Persecuotor and wasted the Church of God.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith so whether or not he mentioned Mark, Mary, John the Baptist or Galilee is of no real value because he claimed he was AWARE of Scriptures with the Jesus story.

1. The Pauline writer claimed that Jesus DIED for our Sins.

2. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus resurrected on the Third day.

3. The Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

4. The Pauline writer claimed there were people in Christ Before Him.

5. In Acts, Saul/Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected AFTER the Apostles/disciples.

6. Apologetic Sources also claimed that the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke and even Revelation by John.

See Origen "Commentary on Matthew 1", Eusebius "Church History" 6.25 and the Muratorian Canon.

The short gMark PREDATED the Pauline letters.

No-one preached Christ crucified and resurrected for Remission of Sins in the short gMark story.

Steve Weiss · 11-26-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After being on this forum for over 6 years I will now present my Myth Jesus theory.

After having read thousands of post from many contributors, the NT Canon, Apologetic sources and Non-apologetic sources I have come to the conclusion that the Jesus movement was INITIATED by Belief in an anonymous story about an invented character called Jesus the Son of God sometime in the 2nd century

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT show any new religion related to any character called Jesus who was Sacrificed for the Sins of all mankind.

So up to c 115 CE, based on Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, there was NO stories about a character called Jesus the Son of God.

All arguments and controversies about the Jesus story by non-apologetic sources are found for the first time ONLY from around the mid 2nd century.

I would expect these arguments and controversies to have occured earlier if a Jesus story was known and circulated since the 1st century.

In the supposed early Pauline writings it is claimed that preaching Christ Crucified was a Stumblingblock to the Jews and Foolishness to the Greeks yet we see NO arguments and NO controversies document in Jewish and Roman writings when the supposed Paul preached Christ Crucfied--NOTHING.

The Pauline writer gives the impression that he preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected in many parts of the Roman Empire but again the supposed early evangelist and his NEW SAVIOR of the world are NOT mentioned at all in any credible Jewish and Roman writings but ONLY in forgeries.

Forgeries to place Paul and Jesus in the 1st century is a clear indication that they were NOT 1ST century characters. See the Paul/Seneca letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

It was starting around the mid 2nd century that we have all the ARGUMENTS for and against the Jesus story but NOT only arguments we have sources that explain what Christians Believe and the Nature of Jesus as we approach the 3rd century.

We have two Non-Apologetic sources from the 2nd century, Lucian and Celsus who show that a Jesus story was known in the 2nd century and Nothing but forgeries from the 1st century.

Now, the Jesus character supposedly was in Galilee and Jerusalem between c 1-36 CE, was WELL-KNOWN and had Thousands of people following him on a daily basis, he even claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed on the day he was crucified and a character called Paul supposedly preached Christ Crucified and Resurrected and that Jesus was the End of the Law along with other Disciples ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

Jesus Christ was supposed to be the NEW SAVIOR of the Roman Empire in the 1 st century---but we have NOTHING about the Jesus character--NOTHING from non-apologetic sources that wrote about events in the 1st century.

Jesus if he did exist should have had a DIRECT IMPACT on people who lived at the same time as himself. He supposedly had THOUSANDS of followers on a daily basis. He was supposedly a Miracle-Worker

The Jesus character had NO IMPACT on any person living between c 1-36 CE based on Non-apologetic sources. The Jesus character was completely unknown.

However, about 130 years later, there is a story that Jesus is the Son of God based on a Non-Apologetic writer Celsus in "True Discourse".

The 2nd century Jesus story had IMPACTED the Roman society NOT Jesus

It was a 2nd century Jesus story that was BELIEVED to be true.

It was a 2nd century Myth Fable about a crucified Son of God that Initiated the Jesus movement.

There was NEVER EVER any real character called Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God who had Thousands of followers and was Sacrificed for the Sins of Mankind.

ALL we have are Myth Fables of the 2nd century that was BELIEVED.

Justin Martyr a 2nd century writer BELIEVED a Myth Fable called the "Memoirs of the Apostle" and NEVER did produce any evidence whatsoever that Jesus did exist from the 1st century.

Celsus, based on Origen, in his "True Discourse" NEVER presented any credible evidence whatsoever that the Jesus character did exist in the 1st century.

Jesus was just a 2nd century story, a 2nd century fable, that people of antiquity BELIEVED was true and is NO different to people of today.

Up to now, as we speak, people still BELIEVE the Jesus character did exist although we have FIVE Myth Fables from the 4th century in the Existing Codices.

The Protestant religion was started based SOLELY on the Belief of the Jesus stories written hundreds of years earlier.

Today, Christians and HJers BELIEVE Jesus existed based on the Jesus stories written hundreds of years ago.

My theory is that the Jesus movement STARTED the very same way in the 2nd century.

People of antiquity BELIEVED a 2nd century fabricated Jesus story about a Son of God that was crucified because of the Jews.

The vast majority of persons and events mentioned in the OT and NT are fictional with occasional references to real people, places and events to lend it a modicum of very thin credibility. Today we have comic book heroes, but in the past there were mythological writings that people took as truth when there is no reason to do so. Debating who said what in the myth tends to ignore that we are dealing with fiction. The major events related in the bible don't require explanation because they never happened. Fiction is the default position, expecially when dealing with ancient writings penned by superstitious, ignorant and barbarous people.

Duvduv · 11-26-2012, 11:04 PM

You are dealing with what's in the epistles in relation to GMark claiming evidence that the epistles had to have been written after GMark based on certain story details. But your hypothesis is shaky if you ignore the fact that the epistles ignored very pertinent details from the gospel.
It could just as easily be argued that the epistles simply included elements heard orally before anything had been developed and committed to paper in a gospel.

aa5874 · 11-26-2012, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

.........Debating who said what in the myth tends to ignore that we are dealing with fiction. The major events related in the bible don't require explanation because they never happened. Fiction is the default position, expecially when dealing with ancient writings penned by superstitious, ignorant and barbarous people.

You seem to have missed a very significant fact. The ancient writings that people today have identified as fiction are actually records of the Beliefs of ancient people.

It is extremely important that we debate the accounts of ancient writings as they are found.

We are effectively debating the Writings of the Authors whether known or unknown NOT the words of the fictitious characters.

For example, the words of the Markan Jesus are vastly different to the words of the Johanine Jesus even though they are Myth characters.

Based on what the authors wrote about THEIR Jesus in addition to other sources we can deduce which Author most likely penned their Fictional Jesus story.

It has been deduced that the Markan Jesus story is most likely the earliest Jesus and that the Johanine Jesus story is the Last in the Canon.

Now, without going over everything, it is clear that the Pauline writings MATCH the Later gJohn NOT the earlier short gMark.

Based on the contents of the Pauline writings, the author most likely WROTE his letters AFTER the short gMark Jesus story or Synoptic was known.

The claim that God loved us and that Jesus Gave his life for Remission of Sins is a LATE improvement of the Jesus story.

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

...... I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

In the short gMark, the Long gMark and gMatthew there is NO statement about the LOVE of God.

In the short gMark and Synoptics it is the complete REVERSE--Man MUST LOVE GOD.

Mark 12[

Quote:

28 And one of the scribes came forward as he had heard them disputing, and seeing that he had answered them well, he asked him: Which is the first commandment of all?

29 Jesus answered him: The first is: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;

30 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength..

The Pauline writer claimed No man is justified by Works--the Pauline writer made the Synoptic Jesus Obsolete.

Galatians 2:16 KJV

Quote:

...Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified .

The stories about Jesus are indeed fiction but it can be argued with supporting evidence that the Markan Fiction story in the Canon was composed before the Pack of Lies about Jesus in the Pauline letters.

The short gMark Jesus story was composed AFTER the writings of Josephus c 96-99 CE and Pauline letters have ever been found and dated from the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Sheshbazzar · 11-27-2012, 12:40 AM

What matches what don't make much difference when the text have been determined to have been heavily doctored and interpolated. Damn near anything can be stuck in just about anywhere, and was.
There is no chronological truth, nor factual sequences contained within the writings of these fudged documents, most of which are entirely fictional and crudely cobbled together.
Textual scholars make their entire careers out of identifying and dissecting all of this interpolating and doctoring.
Just because the text as now edited and rearranged seems to indicate something, it is no indication that that something so indicated is accurate.

aa5874 · 11-27-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You are dealing with what's in the epistles in relation to GMark claiming evidence that the epistles had to have been written after GMark based on certain story details. But your hypothesis is shaky if you ignore the fact that the epistles ignored very pertinent details from the gospel....

Your statement is of very little value when you ignore the fact that virtually all of the short gMark Jesus story is NOT found in the Pauline writings.

1. You ignore the fact that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith that he PRESENTLY preached.

2. You ignore the Fact that if there were Churches in Christ that there Must have been stories of Jesus BEFORE Paul Preached the Faith.

3. You Ignore the Fact that there were WRITTEN stories that Jesus Died FOR OUR SINS, was Buried, and Resurrected on the Third day which is found in the LATER Gospel of gJohn.

4. You ignore the fact that the very Pauline writer claimed he Met the Apostles BEFORE him in Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for 15 days.

5. You ignore the fact that Paul claimed his Jesus was REVEALED to him AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead.

6. You ignore the fact that the short gMark ENDS at the resurrection.

7. You ignore the fact that Apologetic sources of antiquity did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings up to the mid 2nd century.

8. You ignore the fact that an Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation by John.

9. You ignore the fact that Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

10. You ignore the fact that the Pauline writer did NOT claim to be an eyewitness of Jesus.

11. You ignore the fact that Apologetic sources claim Paul was converted AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known, preached, believed and practised.

12. You ignore the fact that NO Pauline writings have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It could just as easily be argued that the epistles simply included elements heard orally before anything had been developed and committed to paper in a gospel.

It CANNOT be easily argued the Pauline writings predate the the Jesus story of Canonised short gMark.

Duvduv · 11-27-2012, 05:44 AM

I expected you to ignore my point and to regurgitate your argument. I just decided I wanted to point out to others the flaw in the logic of your argument. Now you can go back and ignore my point and regurgitate your argument again.

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

11-26-2012, 06:38 PM	#781
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	AA, you keep repeating this point all the time. But then if you argue that the epistles come along to historicize the resurrection you still have to explain why the very same epistles did not bother to mention a word about John the Baptist, Mary, Jerusalem or Galilee in the life of Christ identified in Mark or the Christianity of the brethren in Jerusalem (per Galatians) in relation to the Christ who they had seen and spoken to.

11-26-2012, 07:58 PM	#783
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	If the whole story is fiction anyway, then don't assume what the author had in mind for his protagonist. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question as to why the authors of the epistles who knew GMark didn't include details so pertinent to the story even a single time. If the epistles can mention certain details they can mention others from GMark as well.

11-26-2012, 11:04 PM	#786
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You are dealing with what's in the epistles in relation to GMark claiming evidence that the epistles had to have been written after GMark based on certain story details. But your hypothesis is shaky if you ignore the fact that the epistles ignored very pertinent details from the gospel. It could just as easily be argued that the epistles simply included elements heard orally before anything had been developed and committed to paper in a gospel.

11-27-2012, 12:40 AM	#788
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	What matches what don't make much difference when the text have been determined to have been heavily doctored and interpolated. Damn near anything can be stuck in just about anywhere, and was. There is no chronological truth, nor factual sequences contained within the writings of these fudged documents, most of which are entirely fictional and crudely cobbled together. Textual scholars make their entire careers out of identifying and dissecting all of this interpolating and doctoring. Just because the text as now edited and rearranged seems to indicate something, it is no indication that that something so indicated is accurate.

11-27-2012, 05:44 AM	#790
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I expected you to ignore my point and to regurgitate your argument. I just decided I wanted to point out to others the flaw in the logic of your argument. Now you can go back and ignore my point and regurgitate your argument again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.