Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 12:57 AM

It would seem that Acts turned the anonymous "Small One" into an actual individual, even without knowing the teachings of the epistles. ..
Acts doesn't even teach about the indwelling of the Christ....Acts never talks about it or even about the slightest detail of the life of Jesus! Heck, Paul never visits Bethlehem or Golgotha or even places where the historical Jesus walked!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I also still think that the name Paulus as the author of letters of varied ideology was originally not intended as a personal name but as a descriptive pseudonym "the Small One" used by more than one personof a non-gospelist sect. Indeed, so much of the literature well into the 4th century shows no interest in the worldly teachings and life of the Gospel Christ at all.

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 01:05 AM

Why were epistles distributed far and wide meticulously preserved but not even shreds from books dealing with the big bogeyman which had tremendous theological significance? Why are the claims of Eusebius accepted at face value? He ends up as the creator of the background of Christianity, and so many scholars won't take it all to task.

aa5874 · 12-19-2011, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

On the contrary, which literature did care about such information? The Pauline epistles? The creeds? The letters of Arius? Or of Alexander? The Clementines? The Ignatians?
Who reminded and discussed about the Baptist or the Sermon on the Mount?
Who goes into detail about the parables? Do the so-called early apologists? Who talk about the lives of the so-called apostles?.....

I asked you to "name some of the "literature well into the 4th century" which "shows no interest in the wordly teachings of Jesus Christ of the NT" and you attempted to "answer" with ELEVEN Questions.

1. ...which literature did care about such information?

2.The Pauline epistles?

3.The creeds?

4. The letters of Arius?

5. Or of Alexander?

6. The Clementines?

7. The Ignatians?

8. Who reminded and discussed about the Baptist or the Sermon on the Mount?

9. Who goes into detail about the parables?

10. Do the so-called early apologists?

11. Who talk about the lives of the so-called apostles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvDuv

...And it goes without saying that no one cares about salvation through faith and the indwelling of the Christ in the believer and vice versa.

Please name the sources that cared about the "indwelling of the Christ"?

The Earliest Gospel gMark does NOT contain the Sermon on the Mount and the "INDWELLING of the Christ".

The EARLY gMark Jesus was NOT even known as Christ but was a supposed Fantastic Miracle worker, prophet and Phantom.

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 07:20 AM

At the beginning of my reply I said "On the contrary...." meaning the evidence can be demonstrated from all the silence. Meaning evidence that available texts show that the authors did not know or did not care about the historical stories and parables contained within the gospels that they held sacred. I asked "questions" as a rhetorical device and it should not bother you in the least.
Finally, I made the point that the same "early" sources do not speak at all about salvation through faith and the indwelling of the Christ and vice versa.

Now, if all the texts were actually finalized at a late date, i.e. in the 4th century, or even later, my question is WHY did the authors not arrange the texts in a premeditated manner to correspond to each other theologically if they were crafting a new religion?

WHY do the gospels contradict each other, and why do epistles contradict each other, and why do epistles and gospels contradict each other? HOW did it get like this? IF they had been put together by a committee of the same agenda in the same period, presumably the texts would not have shown such lack of symmetry.
I am sorry if you don't like my presentation of questions, a5874, but that's how I am.

aa5874 · 12-19-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

At the beginning of my reply I said "On the contrary...." meaning the evidence can be demonstrated from all the silence. Meaning evidence that available texts show that the authors did not know or did not care about the historical stories and parables contained within the gospels that they held sacred. I asked "questions" as a rhetorical device and it should not bother you in the least....

Well, I really don't understand why you are using so much rhetorical questions and do NOT present the actual written statements or evidence from antiquity.

I asked you:

1. to NAME the sources that Speak of the Indwelling of the Christ.

2. to "name some of the "literature well into the 4th century" which "shows no interest in the wordly teachings of Jesus Christ of the NT".

It can be shown by going through The Earliest gMark verse by verse that it does NOT mention the Sermon on the Mount and the Indwelling of the Christ.

Please, tell me the sources for an INDWELLING of the Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvDuv

...Now, if all the texts were actually finalized at a late date, i.e. in the 4th century, or even later, my question is WHY did the authors not arrange the texts in a premeditated manner to correspond to each other theologically if they were crafting a new religion?...

When the books are "COOKED" even by the "same" person they still DON'T add up.

Writings atrributed to the "same" JEROME don't add up.

"Against Jovinianus" 1 attributed to JEROME

Quote:

......These are they to whom Clement, who was the successor of the Apostle Peter, and of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention....

"De Viris Illustribus" 15 attributed to JEROME

Quote:

.....Clement, of whom the apostle Paul.......says With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life, the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter.....

The very "same" Jerome claimed Clement was the successor of Peter in one book and ALSO claimed he was FOURTH in another.

We have at least TWO Jeromes.

It is clear that many writings attributed to Apologetic sources were "COOKED" either wholly or in part with FAKE authors, Fake dates of authorship and even Fake Contents.

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 11:44 AM

You can see many places in the epistles, such as Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Timothy.

aa5874 · 12-19-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You can see many places in the epistles, such as Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Timothy.

What!!!! ALL Those writings were attributed to Paul and it has been deduced that writings attributed Paul have MULTIPLE authors and Have different dates of authorship.

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 12:08 PM

aa5874, wouldn't you like to venture some answers to my questions? After you make strong cases for invented texts long after the alleged datws of composition.
I am specific about serking the context of who wrote what whwn and why. It's not enough to wave one's hand at my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

At the beginning of my reply I said "On the contrary...." meaning the evidence can be demonstrated from all the silence. Meaning evidence that available texts show that the authors did not know or did not care about the historical stories and parables contained within the gospels that they held sacred. I asked "questions" as a rhetorical device and it should not bother you in the least.
Finally, I made the point that the same "early" sources do not speak at all about salvation through faith and the indwelling of the Christ and vice versa.

Now, if all the texts were actually finalized at a late date, i.e. in the 4th century, or even later, my question is WHY did the authors not arrange the texts in a premeditated manner to correspond to each other theologically if they were crafting a new religion?

WHY do the gospels contradict each other, and why do epistles contradict each other, and why do epistles and gospels contradict each other? HOW did it get like this? IF they had been put together by a committee of the same agenda in the same period, presumably the texts would not have shown such lack of symmetry.
I am sorry if you don't like my presentation of questions, a5874, but that's how I am.

Duvduv · 12-19-2011, 12:11 PM

I know!! But they represent a school of thought that is never expressed in the texts I mentioned, so if we're discussing history we want to find out why and when this happened this way!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You can see many places in the epistles, such as Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Timothy.

What!!!! ALL Those writings were attributed to Paul and it has been deduced that writings attributed Paul have MULTIPLE authors and Have different dates of authorship.

aa5874 · 12-19-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

aa5874, wouldn't you like to venture some answers to my questions? After you make strong cases for invented texts long after the alleged datws of composition.
I am specific about serking the context of who wrote what whwn and why. It's not enough to wave one's hand at my questions....

I really don't deal with RHETORICAL questions. You will have to answer your own rhetoric.

I PRESENT the written statements of antiquity, the written evidence as stated by apologetic and non-apologetic sources, not mere rhetoric.

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

12-19-2011, 01:05 AM	#22
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Why were epistles distributed far and wide meticulously preserved but not even shreds from books dealing with the big bogeyman which had tremendous theological significance? Why are the claims of Eusebius accepted at face value? He ends up as the creator of the background of Christianity, and so many scholars won't take it all to task.

12-19-2011, 07:20 AM	#24
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	At the beginning of my reply I said "On the contrary...." meaning the evidence can be demonstrated from all the silence. Meaning evidence that available texts show that the authors did not know or did not care about the historical stories and parables contained within the gospels that they held sacred. I asked "questions" as a rhetorical device and it should not bother you in the least. Finally, I made the point that the same "early" sources do not speak at all about salvation through faith and the indwelling of the Christ and vice versa. Now, if all the texts were actually finalized at a late date, i.e. in the 4th century, or even later, my question is WHY did the authors not arrange the texts in a premeditated manner to correspond to each other theologically if they were crafting a new religion? WHY do the gospels contradict each other, and why do epistles contradict each other, and why do epistles and gospels contradict each other? HOW did it get like this? IF they had been put together by a committee of the same agenda in the same period, presumably the texts would not have shown such lack of symmetry. I am sorry if you don't like my presentation of questions, a5874, but that's how I am.

12-19-2011, 11:44 AM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You can see many places in the epistles, such as Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Timothy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.