Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Yes, yes, I don’t understand, of course

The quality of the extant material cannot be used as evidence in support of the claim that the object under study never existed.

It is apparent that you don't understand what EVIDENCE is. Thanks for the confirmation.

You seem not to understand that it was the Church who claimed JESUS and PAUL did exist that was in CONTROL of their OWN EVIDENCE, their OWN WRITTEN RECORDS.

THE CHURCH'S WRITTEN RECORDS MUST BE IN PRISTINE CONDITION.

The Church historian claimed Acts of the Apostles and ALL 14 Epistles of "Paul" were authentic.

Well, when the written records of the Church are examined and compared to secular historians and writers of antiquity it appears that we really have a FICTION STORY about "PAUL".

The WRITTEN EVIDENCE from the Church is extremely good for the theory that "Paul" was very very LATE.

I have never heard of a case where a defense TEAM has lost a case because of the POOR quality of evidence from the prosecution.

The Church has presented POOR QUALITY EVIDENCE which should have been under their control.

They MUST lose every SINGLE CASE for Jesus, the 12 disciples and PAUL.

It is ALL OVER.

Calm down.
You are using the texts of Christian writers as evidence of their non-existence!!

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles

I am new to this forum. Is aa5874 really suggesting that all the writings of the Church - the Old Testament, New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers are all forgeries? In what sense are they forgeries? Does he mean they were no historical authors to any of the texts?

No, it means only that someone is not a Christian.

Christianity has 2000 years of history and a foundation as solid as any other religion.

aa5874 · 07-30-2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Calm down.
You are using the texts of Christian writers as evidence of their non-existence!!

You don't even understand what I have ALREADY done.

The Pauline writings are extremely questionable and appear to have been written later than the writers themselves would have us believe.

1. The author of gMatthew did not use a single passage from any Pauline letter.

2. The author of gMark did not use a single passage from any Pauline writing.

3. The Church historian claimed there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

4. The author of gMatthew seemed not to know that over 500 people and "Paul" saw the non-historical resurrected Jesus.

5. The author of the short-ending of gMark seemed not to know that over 500 people and "Paul" saw the non-historical resurrected Jesus.

6. The author of gMatthew did NOT write that Jesus was the Creator and equal to God as found in the Pauline writings.

7. The author of gMark did NOT write that Jesus was the Creator and equal to God as found in the Pauline writings.

8. In gMatthew, Jesus did NOT teach that his resurrection would be for the REMISSION of sins.

9. In gMark, Jesus did NOT teach that his resurrection would be for the REMISSION of sins.

10. In gMatthew and gMark, the crucifixion of Jesus caused prophecy to fulfilled, the Jewish Temple was destroyed. The Pauline Jesus did not tell "Paul" the Jewish Temple would Fall.

11. Not a single detail from any event in the supposed life of Jesus can be found in the Pauline writings.

12. If the Pauline Jesus did exist he could have ONLY human but the Pauline Jesus could NOT have been a mere human according to the writers Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, was resurrected from the dead and that his death and RESURRECTION was to REMIT the SINS of ALL mankind BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

13. The Pauline Jesus character CANNOT BE LOCATED in the HISTORIES of MANKIND before the Fall of the Temple.

14. The Pauline Jesus CAN BE LOCATED in the 4th century under Constantine.

The abundance of evidence tend to show that the Pauline writings were very very late.

Doug Shaver · 07-30-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

I was distinguishing between people who read and don't read the original material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

my emphasis.

This is the same question with which I am constantly hounding Doug Shaver:

What original material are you writing about? Are you discussing P45? P46? P75? What about Codex W? What about your claim that "the original" new testament was written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek?

I have never made that claim. I have never believed that claim. You must have me confused with someone else.

I do not recall your ever asking me about any reference I might have made to "original material." That is not a phrase I can recall ever using, although I might have in some particular context.

When I talk of original documents, I am talking about autographs. No extant manuscript of early Christian writing is an autograph, so I would not call it original.

aa5874 · 07-30-2010, 09:11 AM

Now that we are dicussing the authenticity of the Pauline writings guess who are missing from the discussion with the evidence of authenticity?

Those who have been claiming for years that there is a consensus or agreement among scholars that at least some of the Pauline writings are authentic.

The claim that there are authentic Pauline writings have been maintained by "Chinese Whispers" or rumors.

No one can corroborate with non-apologetic evidence that there was a Pauline writer who actually lived in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple and did PREACH the Faith he once destroyed.

There is simply NO historical records of a Pauline FAITH before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Littlejohn · 07-30-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Like aa5874, I argue also that all, or almost, of New Testament's documents were forged, but not in the same way supported by aa5874, according to which such documents were invented 'from scratch', because it is never existed, according to him, a historical Jesus.
.

Let me make my position CLEAR. Based on the evidence that I have seen Jesus was just a story believed to be true by the DUPED.
.

It exists a story of Jesus, the true one, that you never read anywhere! ... Lingering on your 'theory', namely that Jesus never existed and that his figure and his story were invented from scratch, you'll never find this story! .. A story that has not yet been discovered even by those who, unlike you, believe that Jesus was a real historical figure: imagine us those who believe in its non-historicity!

Quote:

It is very likely that someone or some people initially wrote a story about a God/man Messiah who was was rejected by the Jews who predicted the Fall of the Jewish Temple and that there would be a conflagration very soon afterwards.
.

I repeat to you that the story of Jesus that you know, it was NOT his TRUE story! .. The falsification to which it has undergone by the 'forger' fathers, have made it almost unbelievable, because of the hallucinating inconsistencies produced by absurd forgeries of the fathers, to build around this historical character (ie. Jesus of Nazareth ), a worship 'ad-hoc': the CATHOLIC-CHRISTIAN one!

The real historical figure of Jesus, did absolutly not lend itself to build on a cult like 'catholic-christian', as full of shadows and facts nothing but edifying! ...

Do you understand, therefore, why the counterfeiter fathers were forced to mystify the real figure of Jesus, his story, the one of her mother (defined by the Jews of his time, '.. a descendant of princes and rulers who made the 'prostitute' with carpenters .."), and that of other characters?! ..

Surely, the only two historical figures that positively 'come out' from the entire context, were those of John the Baptist and James the Just! It is no a coincidence that Templars, when they were aware of the whole historical truth, thanks to the 'giovanniti' ('christians of St. John': today the Mandaeans), they converted to the faith St. John's,' which it saw in the figure of John the Baptist, the 'Saver Messiah'. (typical gnostic concept of 'milieu' by John's sect).

Quote:

Based on Hebrew Scripture, as in the book of Joel, it was thought that there would be a conflagration and that heaven and earth would soon pass away.

The rest is history, the Jesus story believers were DUPED and there has been no conflagration where heaven and earth have passed away.
.

You insist to refer to the Jesus of catholic 'faith', falsely linked on the part of counterfeiters to the Jewish 'humus', in order to 'package' your shocking 'negationists' theories'! .. So doing you don't will 'dock' anything EVER also!

There is also (and especially!) the Jesus of gnostic 'faith', who although even being not the 'genuine' Jesus of history, it is fundamentally different from the catholic one! Those who, according to you, they would be invented from 'scratch' the jesuan character, they would have therefore also invented the Jesus of the 'other riverside', namely the one gnostic? ... They would have invented all their stories, all their Gospels, all the diatribes of the catholic fathers with the gnostic 'heresiarchs'? ...

I just remember to you that there were more than 70 different gnostic sects!... For what reason they invented so many as??... Do you realize that to believe in these 'crazy' theories, it is like believing in the absurd dogmas, in which the catholic-christian faithful all, or almost, believe?!...

Quote:

Sometime later, Constantine made the story book Jesus the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire and gave him a NAME ABOVE EVERY OTHER NAME and that EVERY KNEE, in the Roman Empire, should BOW.
.

Emperor Constantine had NOTHING to do with the formation of catholic-christian structure, since it was developed in the second century AD! ..

Merely Constantine just recovered from the 'limbo' the catholic church, in which had setted down Diocletian! .. Again, Constantine, because of maternal 'plagiarism', bestowed many favors to the catholic clergy, so as to enable it to 'stand out jump' towards the power, after his death. (also because of criminal collaboration of his descendants, as Constantius II and Theodosius)

".. Please give the corroborative sources of antiquity for the "core" truth about Jesus..."

I given you as many too of 'corroborative evidences' about Jesus! .. It is not my fault if you, against all logic and against all rational thought, continue to reject them! ... Your is a very minority position, and your theory and those similar to yours, come totally rejected by the official erudition, which has considered never such theories!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleJohn

...Unfortunately, lingering on the thesis of a Jesus never existed or a mythical Jesus, certainly does not help to bring out the historical truth from the 'sands' in which the counterfeiter fathers have it buried 19 centuries ago! ..
.

But, it can be said that lingering on the thesis that there is an historical core to Jesus does NOT help to bring out the historical truth. It certainly can be argued that Jesus has a mythical core.

The mythical or fictional core appear to be closer to the truth based on the abundance of evidence.
.

Nobody forbids you 'feed' yourself with your beliefs! ... Greetings!

Littlejohn

.

aa5874 · 07-30-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Let me make my position CLEAR. Based on the evidence that I have seen Jesus was just a story believed to be true by the DUPED.
.

It exists a story of Jesus, the true one, that you never read anywhere!

There is no evidence that I have read that appears to be true about Jesus of Nazareth.

I am investigating the claims by the Church writers and authors of the NT Canon that there was a character called Jesus of Nazareth the Creator of heaven and earth who was supposedly alive at around the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

So far my investigation tends to show that the NT Jesus was utter FICTION, a PACK OF lies, a non-historical figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

I repeat to you that the story of Jesus that you know, it was NOT his TRUE story! ..

That indeed is or appears to be the truth. Jesus of Nazareth has no true story that is known.

My theory that Jesus existed is in perfect order since all things deemed fictional have no known true history.

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Calm down.
You are using the texts of Christian writers as evidence of their non-existence!!

You don't even understand what I have ALREADY done.

The Pauline writings are extremely questionable and appear to have been written later than the writers themselves would have us believe.

1. The author of gMatthew did not use a single passage from any Pauline letter.

2. The author of gMark did not use a single passage from any Pauline writing.

3. The Church historian claimed there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

4. The author of gMatthew seemed not to know that over 500 people and "Paul" saw the non-historical resurrected Jesus.

5. The author of the short-ending of gMark seemed not to know that over 500 people and "Paul" saw the non-historical resurrected Jesus.

6. The author of gMatthew did NOT write that Jesus was the Creator and equal to God as found in the Pauline writings.

7. The author of gMark did NOT write that Jesus was the Creator and equal to God as found in the Pauline writings.

8. In gMatthew, Jesus did NOT teach that his resurrection would be for the REMISSION of sins.

9. In gMark, Jesus did NOT teach that his resurrection would be for the REMISSION of sins.

10. In gMatthew and gMark, the crucifixion of Jesus caused prophecy to fulfilled, the Jewish Temple was destroyed. The Pauline Jesus did not tell "Paul" the Jewish Temple would Fall.

11. Not a single detail from any event in the supposed life of Jesus can be found in the Pauline writings.

12. If the Pauline Jesus did exist he could have ONLY human but the Pauline Jesus could NOT have been a mere human according to the writers Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, was resurrected from the dead and that his death and RESURRECTION was to REMIT the SINS of ALL mankind BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

13. The Pauline Jesus character CANNOT BE LOCATED in the HISTORIES of MANKIND before the Fall of the Temple.

14. The Pauline Jesus CAN BE LOCATED in the 4th century under Constantine.

The abundance of evidence tend to show that the Pauline writings were very very late.

Whether Paul is late or early it means that Christianity is not a myth.

Professor Dale Martin estimates the first letter of Paul to have been written in the year 50 AD.
The gospel of Mark is dated 70 AD writing down material used in the oral tradition.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...lecture02.html

Professor Ehrman writes :
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pp 57-58

Quote:

ORAL TRADITIONS BEHIND
THE GOSPELS
For the moment, we will leave aside the question of who these authors were (see "Some Additional Reflections" at the end of the chapter), except to point out that all of the New Testament Gospels are anonymous: their authors did not sign their names.Our principal concern at present involves a different issue, namely, how and where these anonymous authors acquired their stories about Jesus.

That is to say, these writings ultimately were based on oral traditions, stories that had circulated among Christians from the time Jesus died to the moment the Gospel writers put pen to paper. How much of an interval, exactly, was this?

No one knows for certain when Jesus died, but scholars agree that it was sometime around 30 C.E.In addition, most historians think that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, sometime between the mid-60s to early 70s. Matthew and Luke were probably produced some ten or fifteen years later, perhaps around 80 or 85. John was written perhaps ten years after that, in 90 or 95. These are necessarily rough estimates, but almost all scholars agree within a few years.

And he also describes the spread of Christianity as the work of a small group and says:

Quote:

By the end of the first century, this tiny group of Jesus' disciples had so multiplied that there were believing communities in cities of Judea and Samaria and Galilee, probably in the region of East Jordan; in Syria, Cilicia, and Asia Minor, in Macedonia and Achaia (modern Greece); in Italy; and possibly in Spain. By this time Christian churches may have sprung up in the Southern Mediterranean, probably in Egypt and possibly in North Africa

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now that we are dicussing the authenticity of the Pauline writings guess who are missing from the discussion with the evidence of authenticity?

Those who have been claiming for years that there is a consensus or agreement among scholars that at least some of the Pauline writings are authentic.

The claim that there are authentic Pauline writings have been maintained by "Chinese Whispers" or rumors.

No one can corroborate with non-apologetic evidence that there was a Pauline writer who actually lived in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple and did PREACH the Faith he once destroyed.

There is simply NO historical records of a Pauline FAITH before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Paul was the founder of a school of though and some pupils developed his ideas further. The Church is still doing this to day but the canon is now fixed.

Christianity is a living organism and continually transforming itself for the good of Christians and their friends

All the epistles are true Crhistian letters according to the teachings of Paul

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

It exists a story of Jesus, the true one, that you never read anywhere!

There is no evidence that I have read that appears to be true about Jesus of Nazareth.

I am investigating the claims by the Church writers and authors of the NT Canon that there was a character called Jesus of Nazareth the Creator of heaven and earth who was supposedly alive at around the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

So far my investigation tends to show that the NT Jesus was utter FICTION, a PACK OF lies, a non-historical figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

I repeat to you that the story of Jesus that you know, it was NOT his TRUE story! ..

That indeed is or appears to be the truth. Jesus of Nazareth has no true story that is known.

My theory that Jesus existed is in perfect order since all things deemed fictional have no known true history.

A reputable scholar like Dale Martin, Woolsey Professor or Religious Studies at Yale University,says:

“You'll find every once in a while somebody on the web, or the internet, or something or in some crazy blog, saying that Jesus never existed, but reputable historical scholars all admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed. There was a guy back there, Jesus of Nazareth.There's just too much evidence that he existed and it's just not controvertible when it comes to reliable historical evidence.The theological Jesus, the Jesus of Christian confession is not the historical Jesus”

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

07-30-2010, 09:11 AM	#155
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Now that we are dicussing the authenticity of the Pauline writings guess who are missing from the discussion with the evidence of authenticity? Those who have been claiming for years that there is a consensus or agreement among scholars that at least some of the Pauline writings are authentic. The claim that there are authentic Pauline writings have been maintained by "Chinese Whispers" or rumors. No one can corroborate with non-apologetic evidence that there was a Pauline writer who actually lived in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple and did PREACH the Faith he once destroyed. There is simply NO historical records of a Pauline FAITH before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.