Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-29-2012, 10:28 AM

You did not address Bernard's argument about those verses in GMatthew and what you think they are meant to say. Is that so hard to comprehend?
I am able to comprehend it and offer my view. It is possible there were sects that advocated the Christ to gentiles but this is no evidence that Matthew was attempting a response to the epistles in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So you mean to say that you are incapable of addressing questions or challenges of others. That's strange....

Your statement is clearly illogical.

Did I NOT show that the Pauline writer was AWARE of WRITTEN sources of the Jesus story where Jesus died, was BURIED and Resurrected on the THIRD day in 1 Cor. 15???

The very Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be Visited by the resurrected Jesus after Over 500- people in 1 Cor.15.

So, I have addressed the questions many many times.

It was the Pauline writer who REJECTED the early Jesus stories AFTER the Fall of the Temple and FABRICATED Revelations from a supposed resurrected Jesus which was FOUND ALREADY WRITTEN in Christian Scriptures.

ONLY Christian Scriptures claim Jesus died for OUR SINS and was resurrected on the THIRD day.

The EARLIEST Jesus stories in the Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Bernard Muller · 02-29-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Did I NOT show that the Pauline writer was AWARE of WRITTEN sources of the Jesus story where Jesus died, was BURIED and Resurrected on the THIRD day in 1 Cor. 15???

But I found many arguments showing 1 Cor 15:3-11 is a later interpolation.
See here: http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc

Quote:

The very Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be Visited by the resurrected Jesus after Over 500- people in 1 Cor.15.

Even if the event with the 500 was true, Paul could have been allegedly "visited", let say, 10 years after.
In other words, your observation about Paul being the last to be visited does not, in anyway, push what Paul wrote beyond 70.

Quote:

It was the Pauline writer who REJECTED the early Jesus stories

Bravo! Now you admit that a Christian author could reject Christian texts written earlier.
But wait, there is more. You are contradicting yourself because you wrote before: "Did I NOT show that the Pauline writer was AWARE of WRITTEN sources of the Jesus story where Jesus died, was BURIED and Resurrected on the THIRD day in 1 Cor. 15???"
So now Paul was aware of the Jesus story but rejected it.
Bravo again! You agreed with me that a Christian author can be aware of a Christian text even if he rejected it.

Quote:

ONLY Christian Scriptures claim Jesus died for OUR SINS and was resurrected on the THIRD day.

So What! Do you expect non-Christian writings to claim that?
By the way "for our sins" might be an interpolation (on an interpolation!) according to Tertullian's writings:
Against Praxeas (186):"[Paul] testifies that "He died according to the Scriptures,""
Against Praxeas (409): "For even the apostle, to his declaration-which he makes not without feeling the weight of it-that "Christ died," immediately adds, "according to the Scriptures,""

andrewcriddle · 02-29-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Bernard, Jerusalem wasn't destroyed. After the end of the revolt, the city was badly damaged but still livable; there were still Jews there. Hence references to the community in Jerusalem cannot date Paul's letters.

Vorkosigan

I doubt if Paul would have phrased 1 Corinthians 9:13 in the way he does if he was writing after the destruction of the temple.

Quote:

Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 02-29-2012, 11:47 AM

How do you know that he is referring to the temple in Jerusalem, and how do you know he isn't just make a generic point in his metaphor or analogy? How do you know he is making a statement of fact in his own time?

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Bernard, Jerusalem wasn't destroyed. After the end of the revolt, the city was badly damaged but still livable; there were still Jews there. Hence references to the community in Jerusalem cannot date Paul's letters.

Vorkosigan

I doubt if Paul would have phrased 1 Corinthians 9:13 in the way he does if he was writing after the destruction of the temple.

Quote:

Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 02-29-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

..I doubt if Paul would have phrased 1 Corinthians 9:13 in the way he does if he was writing after the destruction of the temple.

Quote:

Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?

Well, tell us what you IMAGINE he would say.

andrewcriddle · 02-29-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that he is referring to the temple in Jerusalem, and how do you know he isn't just make a generic point in his metaphor or analogy? How do you know he is making a statement of fact in his own time?

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I doubt if Paul would have phrased 1 Corinthians 9:13 in the way he does if he was writing after the destruction of the temple.

Andrew Criddle

I think it is obvious that Paul is arguing from Jewish sacrificial practice not Pagan ritual. The word used for (sacrificial) altar is found only in Jewish and Christian writers, but apart from linguistic arguments it is wildly improbable that Paul would use Pagan ritual as a justification of anything.

It is possible that Paul might refer to past Jewish practices as a justification for contemporary Christian practices but I would expect such an argument to be phrased differently.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 02-29-2012, 12:49 PM

Not at all, he is simply using a metaphor for the gospel.
"Just as.........so is......."

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that he is referring to the temple in Jerusalem, and how do you know he isn't just make a generic point in his metaphor or analogy? How do you know he is making a statement of fact in his own time?

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

I think it is obvious that Paul is arguing from Jewish sacrificial practice not Pagan ritual. The word used for (sacrificial) altar is found only in Jewish and Christian writers, but apart from linguistic arguments it is wildly improbable that Paul would use Pagan ritual as a justification of anything.

It is possible that Paul might refer to past Jewish practices as a justification for contemporary Christian practices but I would expect such an argument to be phrased differently.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 02-29-2012, 08:34 PM

Let us NOT get diverted from the issue at hand.

The Pauline writer cannot be corroborated by non-apologetic sources and to show that Paul could NOT be found Forged letters between Seneca and Paul were Fabricated.

Again, every single source of antiquity that mentioned Paul is either fiction, forgeries or heavily manipulated.

Sheshbazzar · 02-29-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Not at all, he is simply using a metaphor for the gospel.
"Just as.........so is......."

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that he is referring to the temple in Jerusalem, and how do you know he isn't just make a generic point in his metaphor or analogy? How do you know he is making a statement of fact in his own time?

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

I think it is obvious that Paul is arguing from Jewish sacrificial practice not Pagan ritual. The word used for (sacrificial) altar is found only in Jewish and Christian writers, but apart from linguistic arguments it is wildly improbable that Paul would use Pagan ritual as a justification of anything.

It is possible that Paul might refer to past Jewish practices as a justification for contemporary Christian practices but I would expect such an argument to be phrased differently.

Andrew Criddle

Just a way for the much latter syncretised pagan Christian hierarchy to capitalize on their usurpation of the former position of the Jewish priesthood.

'Ya done paid them fer protection, so's ya damn well better be'ah a'forken it over to us now, if'n ya know's whats' good fer ya.

You do remember what it was happened to yer old pals Ananias and his broad don'cha?

We still agot'sa a'lotsa young men a'ready to 'take care' of you's all. Fork over that protection now. Capice? Capice?'

Organized Roman religion in action.

mountainman · 03-01-2012, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that he is referring to the temple in Jerusalem, and how do you know he isn't just make a generic point in his metaphor or analogy? How do you know he is making a statement of fact in his own time?

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I doubt if Paul would have phrased 1 Corinthians 9:13 in the way he does if he was writing after the destruction of the temple.

Andrew Criddle

I think it is obvious that Paul is arguing from Jewish sacrificial practice not Pagan ritual. The word used for (sacrificial) altar is found only in Jewish and Christian writers, but apart from linguistic arguments it is wildly improbable that Paul would use Pagan ritual as a justification of anything.

Eusebius acknowledges Apollonius of Tyana as an authority on sacrifices, and cites him as such.

Quote:

The Mystic Rites or Concerning Sacrifices.

[The full title is given by Eudocia, Ionia; ed. Villoison (Venet 1781) p 57]

This treatise is mentioned by Philostratus (iii 41; iv 19),
who tells us that it set down the proper method of sacrifice
to every God, the proper hours of prayer and offering.
It was in wide circulation, and Philostratus had come across
copies of it in many temples and cities,
and in the libraries of philosophers.

Several fragments of it have been preserved, [See Zeller, Phil d Griech, v 127]
the most important of which is to be found in Eusebius,
[Præparat. Evangel., iv 12-13; ed Dindorf (Leipzig 1867), i 176, 177]
and is to this effect:

“ ‘Tis best to make no sacrifice to God at all,
no lighting of a fire,
no calling Him by any name
that men employ for things to sense.

For God is over all, the first;
and only after Him do come the other Gods.
For He doth stand in need of naught
e’en from the Gods,
much less from us small men -
naught that the earth brings forth,
nor any life she nurseth,
or even any thing the stainless air contains.

The only fitting sacrifice to God
is man’s best reason,
and not the word
that comes from out his mouth.

“We men should ask the best of beings
through the best thing in us,
for what is good -
mean by means of mind,
for mind needs no material things
to make its prayer.
So then, to God, the mighty One,
who’s over all,
no sacrifice should ever be lit up.”

Noack [Psyche, I ii.5.] tells us that scholarship
is convinced of the genuineness of this fragment.
This book, as we have seen, was widely circulated
and held in the highest respect, and it said that
its rules were engraved on brazen pillars
at Byzantium. [Noack, ibid.]

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

02-29-2012, 08:34 PM	#428
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Let us NOT get diverted from the issue at hand. The Pauline writer cannot be corroborated by non-apologetic sources and to show that Paul could NOT be found Forged letters between Seneca and Paul were Fabricated. Again, every single source of antiquity that mentioned Paul is either fiction, forgeries or heavily manipulated.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.