jakejonesiv

Hello aa5784,

Have you really considered what you have just written? I don't necessarily disagree, but your requires explanation.

Why do you believe that "Marcion's Phantom Son of God" was believed to have to come from Capernaum from heaven without birth in the 15th of the reign of Tiberius?" Did a Ghost and a Virgin tell you or can you supply a text that supports your beliefs? When was this text written, by whom, and why do you believe it accurately represents your assertions?

Jake Jones IV

Doug Shaver

My claim is that they both matter. If JWs have never said that their founder was resurrected, then they do not constitute a counterexample to my argument.

If you're fishing for an algorithm that says contemporary historians will mention a person X if and only if (A and B) or (C and D unless E), then I don't have one. No two historical situations are so exactly similar that anyone could come up with such an algorithm.

But there is such a thing as intellectual inertia, and it has had nearly 2,000 years to work on the notion that Jesus was a real man who was really crucified by Pontius Pilate. Here in the West, even secular historians have simply taken that for granted for as long as the West has had secular historians, even when they couldn't agree about anything else regarding Christianity's origins. That, and that alone, is the primary reason for the consensus that nobody should be surprised by the failure of any first-century historian to mention either him or the religion allegedly founded by his disciples.

aa5874

It is you who believe "Paul". I told you "Paul" is an ADMITTED liar. Have you forrgotten?

Even when "Paul" admitted he LIED for the Glory of God you STILL refuse to accept his confession.

What else must "Paul" say to prove he was a LIAR?

Again, although "Paul" claimed he received information form a resurrected Christ which is false you still believe "Paul".

And when "Paul" claimed he was the LAST to SEE the resurrected Christ which is FALSE you still believe "Paul".

But, you tell me that Justin Martyr lied and was a part of the lie because there is historical evidence for what Justin Martyr wrote about the 12 disciples forgetting that there is NO historical evidence for what "Paul" wrote about Jesus and the apostles.

You seem to forget that, based on your own words, that "Paul" must be liar and a part of the lie.

You keep on forgetting that you are claiming that "Paul" was Simon Magus.

Can't you see your own ERROR?

"Paul" is a LIE".

There is ABSOLUTE SILENCE on "Paul" and the "Pauline Jesus" of the NT in the histories of antiquity.

gurugeorge

Non-responsive. Please deal with this:-

Your interpretation of the text doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense that a fictional character would lie - furthermore, that a fictional character would be made out to lie by his creators, and that you'd believe the fictional character, is utterly ridiculous.

aa5874

Well, if you don't necessarily disagree with me then it is not really necessary for me to offer any explanation.

You do not appear to understand the difference between WRITTEN INFORMATION from antiquity and BELIEF.

An accurate description of Superman does not require that I BELIEVE in Superman or the Superman stories.

The description of Superman in any comic book CANNOT be altered or changed. It is cast in STONE



A description of Marcion's phantom does not require that I believe in Marcion's MYTH fable.

The description of Marcion's PHANTOM in any version cannot be altered or changed.

You must undestand that MYTH characters have CLEAR descriptions that cannot be ALTERED even though considered fiction.

That is why Superman is different to Spiderman even though fictional.

It is the UNIQUE characteristics and unique attributes of each MYTH character that makes them different to other MYTHS.

Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin and the PHANTOM as a Son of a God that ONLY seemed real.

I considered that Jesus was just a MYTH Fable as described in the NT Canon just as the Phantom was a Myth fable from Marcion.

An "historical Jesus" cannot be historicized from SILENCE.

aa5874

Any one can write "Non-responsive".

You Believe "Paul" even though you have NO idea if "early Paul" or "late Paul" is the "real Paul" and after "Paul" confessed he lied for the Glory of God.


I can deal with anything you post. Now no matter what translation or interpretation you use it is clear "Paul" confessed he LIED for the Glory of God.

These are your words or interpretation. Why is "Paul" condemned as a sinner when his FALSEHOODS increases the glory of God?

The Pauline writings are PERFECT examples of FLASEHOODS that attempted to increase the glory of God.

“ Well, why do STILL believe "Paul" AFTER he was made out to be a LIAR.

According to your own words "PAUL" was Simon Magus.

Why did NOT "Paul" claim he was really Simon Magus?

Justin Martyr wrote about Simon Magus.

You KNOW who is lying if "Paul" was Simon Magus.

It was "PAUL".

gurugeorge

Yes, well, I wrote it because you were, in fact, not responding to my counter-argument, that the passage denies the validity of the tactic of "lying for God", which is quite clear in the translation I used.

Or it seems so to me. Maybe you think the translation is wrong? Arguing that would have been one way of responding appropriately, but you didn't do that, or anything like it - hence "non-responsive".

But as the passage shows, he doesn't say that. He's saying that falsehoods would not increase the glory of God, just as doing evil would NOT result in good.

As I say, it's possible the NIV is mis-translating the passage, but if it isn't, the meaning seems to be clear: he's not saying he lied for the glory of God, he's saying precisely the opposite, that "lying for the glory of God" would be an error comparable to the error of "doing evil that good may result".

No, the liars are the orthodox writers who took some writings of Simon Magus, whose nickname was Paulos, interpolated them to look more orthodox, and bookended them with the Pastorals which are thoroughly orthodox, and then to clinch the deal wrote Acts, which is based partly on Simon, and partly made up.

Thereby, they created the semi-fictional Jewish character, "Saul/Paul", who shares enough similarities with the heretics' apostle for them to recognize their actual founder, while making him out to be more orthodox (and Jewish) than he actually was (he was actually a Samaritan).

IOW, the general idea of the orthodox rescension of the Epistles, and of Acts, is that the orthodox are saying something like: "Look, we know your "Paulos", we respect him, but you haven't been told the whole story - he actually did know our Peter, and while he wasn't one of our Twelve, he was friendly with Peter and taught the same things, so he's alright by us; but of course he never considered himself superior to our Peter, he deferred to our Peter. Don't mix him up with that "Simon" though, they did some similar things, preached in some of the same places, but that guy was a bad 'un, he fought our Peter at every step, only heretics follow him."

(The above reconstruction basically follows Robert Price's noticing of the similarities in biography between the Simon Magus of the Pseudo-Clementines and the Paul of Acts, plus some of Detering's investigations re. a "late Paul". Yes, the Epistles, as collated by the orthodox as part of the NT, are fairly late, but they're based in part on something earlier, and genuine, that had to be included in the Canon somehow, as it was the only genuine history they had of anything resembling Christianity prior to 70 CE, and was well-enough known that it had to be factored in somehow.)

aa5874

Do you even understand what you are NOW doing? You appear to be INVENTING your OWN history to DEFEND "Paul".

Please show me the source of antiquity that state Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos"?

There is NO source of antiquity that made such a claim.

Please explain why you are any different to the "orthodox writers"?


Please explain why you are any different to the orthodox writers? I can't anything that you wrote in any source of antiquity and you want me to BELIEVE your IMAGINATION.

So, you are ADMITTING that the "ORTHODOX writers" had to LIE about "Paul".

The "orthodox writers" had to put FALSE information in the NT Canon about "PAUL" even though PEOPLE of antiquity would have KNOWN it was FALSE and would have KNOWN the genuine history of "Paul".

Your argument has COLLAPSED.

The Pauline writings MUST be part of the LIE and the name "PAUL" was used to LIE for the Glory of God once it is admitted that writings under the name "PAUL" were ALTERED in the NT CANON.

gurugeorge

Whoa, hold up there, you don't get to slip out of it that easily aa.

First deal with my counter-argument against your "Paul lied" argument. You seem to be running scared from that. I want you to deal with it before I go into my reasoning behind the above.

Do you admit that the "Paul" writer may not have been saying that he lied, but rather may have been using the example of "lying for God" and denying its validity as a tactic, putting it on a par with "doing evil that good may result"?

aa5874

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Please show me the source of antiquity that state Simon Magus was NICKNAMED "Paulos"?

Your diversion tactics won't work anymore.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Please show me the source of antiquity that state Simon Magus was "Paul" of the NT CANON.

I have ALREADY dealt with you.

I have ALREADY showed you EVIDENCE that "PAUL" LIED.

Look at some of the LIES of "PAUL" in 1 Cor. 11.

1. "Paul" MUST have FIRST known about the BETRAYAL of Jesus by either a WRITTEN or ORAL source BEFORE [he claimed he "received it from the Lord".

2. "Paul" MUST have FIRST known about the LAST SUPPER by either a WRITTEN or ORAL source BEFORE he claimed he "received it from the Lord".

3. "Paul" MUST have FIRST known about the CONVERSATION of Jesus at the Last Supper BEFORE he claimed he "received it from the Lord".

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 - In the same NT Canon, "Paul" was NOT present at the LAST SUPPER with the 12 disciples and Jesus. "Paul" started to preach the FAITH AFTER Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

"PAUL" MUST have gotten the information of the BETRAYAL, and the LAST SUPPER from a WRITTEN or ORAL source, not from a RESURRECTED NON-HISTORICAL entity.

"PAUL" has been DEDUCED to be a LIAR by his OWN words.

Now, You are RUNNING away from PROVIDING EVIDENCE of antiquity that 1 Cor. 11.23-25 is truthful.

Please do not waste my time.

Please SHOW that 1 Cor. 11.23-25 is TRUTHFUL.

The Church has provided evidence that "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke.

Church History 3.4.8
It can be SHOWN that the words "this do in remembrance of me. " is ONLY found in gLuke.

Lu 22:19 - How many times MUST I show you that "PAUL" was a LIAR in 1 Cor.11.23-25 using the very NT Canon and the writings of the Church?

Now, Please, Please SHOW that "PAUL" was truthful in 1 Cor 11.23-25 when he was NOT with Jesus and the 12 disciples at the LAST SUPPER and the BETRAYAL.