Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 11-28-2012, 02:28 AM

..

Duvduv · 11-28-2012, 04:35 AM

AA, in addition to everything else, including your lack of original manuscripts of your hallowed Josephus and Justin, what evidence or even rationale do you have to argue against the possibility that the texts of Acts and the epistles reflect the incorporation on paper of two DIFFERENT oral "traditions" floating around about someone named Paul, i.e. one involving the two names of this fellow etc. and the other not??
For that matter how do you know that the epistles did not simply include some story material about the Christ that were floating around BEFORE they were incorporated into any actual gospel texts with more story material?!

After all, if you insist that the author(s) of the epistles came after the writing of GMark, you still need to ask yourself why those epistles do not include so much material from GMark, i.e about Herod, Mary, the Baptist, Jerusalem, Galilee, Nazareth, Pilate, etc.
There's that mention of James without even a mention in the
Paulines of the Baptist or even "Mary the mother of the Lord. "

Ironically, EVEN the Acts story does not flesh out anything about "John the Baptist" that shows that the author of Acts may have had a few oral stories but never even knew any canonical gospels because they hadn't been written yet.

Steve Weiss · 11-28-2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

Galatians 2:20 KJV

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[

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.

You are willing to expend a huge amount of time and effort tracing the origins of myths, but myths they remain. It's like chasing one's tail; it's exercise if that is what one is after. There should be a movement to have religious books reclassified in librariies and bookstores as fiction or mythology, not as if they were non-fictional, serious works.

aa5874 · 11-28-2012, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

You are willing to expend a huge amount of time and effort tracing the origins of myths, but myths they remain. It's like chasing one's tail; it's exercise if that is what one is after. There should be a movement to have religious books reclassified in librariies and bookstores as fiction or mythology, not as if they were non-fictional, serious works.

In order to have religious books re-classified as fiction or mythology then one has to expend a vast amount of time tracing the origins of the Jesus stories in the NT.

So far, the preponderance of evidence support my claim that Jesus and his disciples were Myths and that the Pauline writings are historically bogus and was most likely composed some time after writings atrributed to Aristides and Justin Martyr or after the mid 2nd century.

For hundreds of years the Jesus cult writers could not determine the nature of Jesus or claimed he was Fathered by a Ghost of God and the Pauline writings had ZERO influence on the early authors of the Jesus stories.

aa5874 · 11-28-2012, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, in addition to everything else, including your lack of original manuscripts of your hallowed Josephus and Justin, what evidence or even rationale do you have to argue against the possibility that the texts of Acts and the epistles reflect the incorporation on paper of two DIFFERENT oral "traditions" floating around about someone named Paul, i.e. one involving the two names of this fellow etc. and the other not??
For that matter how do you know that the epistles did not simply include some story material about the Christ that were floating around BEFORE they were incorporated into any actual gospel texts with more story material?!

After all, if you insist that the author(s) of the epistles came after the writing of GMark, you still need to ask yourself why those epistles do not include so much material from GMark, i.e about Herod, Mary, the Baptist, Jerusalem, Galilee, Nazareth, Pilate, etc.
There's that mention of James without even a mention in the
Paulines of the Baptist or even "Mary the mother of the Lord. "

Ironically, EVEN the Acts story does not flesh out anything about "John the Baptist" that shows that the author of Acts may have had a few oral stories but never even knew any canonical gospels because they hadn't been written yet.

The fact that Herod, Mary, the Baptist, Galilee, Nazareth and Pilate are NOT mentioned in all writings to Churches under the name of Paul is CONSISTENT with virtually ALL LATE Epistles.

The LATE Epistles 1 Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, 1 John, 2nd John, 3rd John and Jude do NOT mention Herod, Mary, the Baptist, Galilee, Nazareth and Pilate.

Only 1 Timothy mentioned Pilate once.

The Pauline letters to CHURCHES are compatible with ALL LATER Epistles.

It is most illogical to assume the Pauline LETTERS to Churches of the Jesus were composed BEFORE the Jesus story was known in the very Churches themselves especially when Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church of God.

1.The Pauline writer claimed he persecuted those who PREACHED and TAUGHT the Jesus story.

2. Churches of God EXISTED BEFORE a single Pauline writer was composed.

3. Scriptures about the death, burial and resurrection were ALREADY written and known to the Pauline writer.

4. Over 500 PEOPLE knew about the story of the resurrection of Jesus BEFORE the Pauline writer in 1 Corinthians.

5. Events in the Gospels were REVEALED to Paul--the events of the LAST Supper in the Gospels.

6. The Pauline writer knew people who believed the Jesus story BEFORE Him.

7. No manuscript of the Pauline writings have been recovered and dated in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

8. Accuracy of the Pauline writings MATCH and at times Exceed ALL later epistles.

9. There were Jesus cult writers who knew the Jesus story and did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters to Churches.

10. In the Canon, the Church of God was ESTABLISHED WITHOUT the Pauline letters.

aa5874 · 11-28-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

No, I am arguing that Saul the Pharisee's writings were early, and were originally written before 'christianity',
and that latter 'christianity' co-opted and rewrote them to reflect their own theological beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you just claimed 'Paul's' writings were the oldest, can't you remember??But SAUL wrote ZERO, NIL, NO letters to Churches in Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Acts of The Apostles is fabricated religious horse shit. It doesn't make any difference what The Acts of The Apostles says.

The "religious horseshit" in Acts matters to you because ONLY Acts of the Apostles mentions a character called SAUL.

You actually BELIEVE there was a character called SAUL who is mentioned in the "religious horse shit" called Acts.

Now, not even the "religious horse shit" claimed SAUL wrote anything.

Again where did you get your story about the writings of SAUL??

You MADE it up.

Duvduv · 11-28-2012, 08:03 AM

You are repeating your recorded message and sound like a loyal member of the church. As usual you are not addressing my points at all. Too bad.I guess you still aren't interested in exchanges and discussions, but only restating your doctrines like a broken record.

aa5874 · 11-28-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You are repeating your recorded message and sound like a loyal member of the church. As usual you are not addressing my points at all. Too bad.I guess you still aren't interested in exchanges and discussions, but only restating your doctrines like a broken record.

You are repeating your two lines without any supporting evidence.

What do you expect to gain by writing four sentences?? You have Not even attempted to support your argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century.

You seem to be terrified by the fact that the Jesus story and Church of God PREDATED the Pauline letters and that the Church of God was ESTABLISHED WITHOUT any input from the Pauline letters.

In fact, the Pauline writer implied that he ATTEMPTED to WIPE OUT those who believed the Jesus story and the Church of God.

Galatians 1:13 KJV

Quote:

For 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

Duvduv · 11-28-2012, 09:08 AM

Engaging in diversion, AA, doesn't help you. The statement does not TELL US what the "church" was, who they were, where they were, and WHAT the "church" believed!!!

This is the case for both Galatians and Acts. You simply read into the stories and project into the stories your own hypotheses about what the "church" was and what it believed. "Paul" does not tell us virtually anything about the content of their beliefs, and for all the hoopla of his persecutions as Saul, all we know of the contents such persecution of "all the churches" is a speech of ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL named Stephen which is obviously inserted for didactic purposes. For all we know the "Christians" in Judea and Jerusalem believed that Jesus was really an alien from Vulcan who lived a thousand years earlier.

But more importantly, you do not reply to the question of how you can be so sure that the elements in the epistles were derived from a knowledge coming after GMark when you have no evidence of this causal linear relationship, and cannot disprove the possibility that the epistles were recording a few elements of oral stories about the Christ that were also eventually included in GMark with other stories as the Christ religion was emerging.

Despite the fact that you believe in a causal and linear link between GMark and the epistles, you also will not explain why those who came after GMark in the epistles forgot to tell us stories referring to the Baptist, Galilee, Jerusalem, Herod, Pilate, Mary, and the rest of the gang.

aa5874 · 11-28-2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Engaging in diversion, AA, doesn't help you. The statement does not TELL US what the "church" was, who they were, where they were, and WHAT the "church" believed!!!

Your claim is UTTERLY erroneous. We have the Canonised Acts of the Apostles and writings under the name of Paul that CLEARLY made claims about how the Jesus cult was STARTED, WHO started the cult, WHAT was PREACHED in the Churches, Where it started, the Number of Converts on the First Day and where the Churches were LOCATED.

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

11-28-2012, 02:28 AM	#821
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	..

11-28-2012, 04:35 AM	#822
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	AA, in addition to everything else, including your lack of original manuscripts of your hallowed Josephus and Justin, what evidence or even rationale do you have to argue against the possibility that the texts of Acts and the epistles reflect the incorporation on paper of two DIFFERENT oral "traditions" floating around about someone named Paul, i.e. one involving the two names of this fellow etc. and the other not?? For that matter how do you know that the epistles did not simply include some story material about the Christ that were floating around BEFORE they were incorporated into any actual gospel texts with more story material?! After all, if you insist that the author(s) of the epistles came after the writing of GMark, you still need to ask yourself why those epistles do not include so much material from GMark, i.e about Herod, Mary, the Baptist, Jerusalem, Galilee, Nazareth, Pilate, etc. There's that mention of James without even a mention in the Paulines of the Baptist or even "Mary the mother of the Lord. " Ironically, EVEN the Acts story does not flesh out anything about "John the Baptist" that shows that the author of Acts may have had a few oral stories but never even knew any canonical gospels because they hadn't been written yet.

11-28-2012, 08:03 AM	#827
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You are repeating your recorded message and sound like a loyal member of the church. As usual you are not addressing my points at all. Too bad.I guess you still aren't interested in exchanges and discussions, but only restating your doctrines like a broken record.

11-28-2012, 09:08 AM	#829
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Engaging in diversion, AA, doesn't help you. The statement does not TELL US what the "church" was, who they were, where they were, and WHAT the "church" believed!!! This is the case for both Galatians and Acts. You simply read into the stories and project into the stories your own hypotheses about what the "church" was and what it believed. "Paul" does not tell us virtually anything about the content of their beliefs, and for all the hoopla of his persecutions as Saul, all we know of the contents such persecution of "all the churches" is a speech of ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL named Stephen which is obviously inserted for didactic purposes. For all we know the "Christians" in Judea and Jerusalem believed that Jesus was really an alien from Vulcan who lived a thousand years earlier. But more importantly, you do not reply to the question of how you can be so sure that the elements in the epistles were derived from a knowledge coming after GMark when you have no evidence of this causal linear relationship, and cannot disprove the possibility that the epistles were recording a few elements of oral stories about the Christ that were also eventually included in GMark with other stories as the Christ religion was emerging. Despite the fact that you believe in a causal and linear link between GMark and the epistles, you also will not explain why those who came after GMark in the epistles forgot to tell us stories referring to the Baptist, Galilee, Jerusalem, Herod, Pilate, Mary, and the rest of the gang.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.