Sheshbazzar

There may have once been an early Christian writing behind 1 Clement, but what remains has been so heavily 'cooked' to support orthodox history, that short of actually discovering an authentic 2nd century manuscript, we will never know what originated with 'Clement', what was purged, and and what was doctored in by latter church hands.
To me '1 Clement' and 'Ignatius' are little more than testaments to either orthodox meddling or outright inventions, so I am not in the least impressed by your citation of such questionable 'sources'.

EarlDoherty

And just exactly where in this thread have my errors been pointed out? You and others don't seem to understand that simply condemning my points of view without exposing the faults in them on the basis of your own counter-argument which actually rebuts those points of view does nothing. Simply declaring that I am wrong, or declaring your own theories as though they are self-evidently superior to mine and automatically destructive of them, as you and someone like Sheshbazzar regularly do, is not exposing my errors, because you haven't revealed them as errors.

If I choose to knock down your theories on a thread where you are present advocating them, that is not an evasion of your criticisms of me, especially when you don't actually give me anything to respond to and counter-argue.

But if you have an "appropriate thread" here on FRDB, then I will go to it and repeat the questions I have asked on this one. Hopefully, I will get more in the way of answers to them than I have so far.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Of course they do, right in the 1 Cor. passage we are examining. That is exactly what it implies, and I have laid out the case for seeing it that way, and even appealed to scholarly viewpoints from the mainstream to support me. This is a case you have done nothing to discredit. It may come as a surprise to you, but simply labelling an opponent's argument "horse shit" is not actually a rebuttal, at least one acceptable in scholarly circles, although it tends to be in fashion on DBs like this one.

If Paul knows of the "Twelve" as those followers of Jesus during his earthly ministry, why is there not another mention of those Twelve anywhere in the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline corpus? Why does he fail to acknowledge anywhere that there were apostles of Jesus on earth who thereby are owed some respect and privilege for having been so? Why does no one else in dispute with him bring that point up, something he would have to counter by addressing it? And why can you not conceive of this one reference to the "Twelve" as referring to some kind of administrative body of the sect, an idea that gains some support from Acts 6?

And would you like to itemize for us any other information that Paul (even in your post-180 form) has gleaned from earlier written Gospels, let alone presented it as such? Be careful here, Shesh, because I won't let you get away with any misrepresentation.

No, Shesh, I have already denied this claim of yours that this represents MY religious belief. All I have said, and all that critical scholars who agree with me have said, is that this was PAUL'S belief, that Jesus in heaven was communicating with him, such as in 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14, and which he states directly for even YOU to see in 1 Cor. 11:23-26. This you have failed to rebut in any way, instead making the ridiculous claim that I am saying a real heavenly Christ really communicated with Paul.

No wonder you are forced into making such bizarre responses to my statements. It's the only way you can even pretend to support such a stance in the face of everything I have presented about the Pauline literature.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

Hundreds of Earl Doherty's statements are began with or include "I suspect..."

What Earl seems incapable of comprehending or admitting, is that anything by anybody, that is founded upon suspicions, is itself always suspect.

In his Books, and in these threads BC&H threads Earl tries to foist off the castle he has constructed on his suspicions as being the established facts.
His oft made claims and assertions are very suspect.

Sheshbazzar

If you don't like it, you are most welcome to pack up your horse shit and move on.

This is supposed to constitute some kind of an argument or rebuttal? Paul knows of 'the twelve' because he is acquainted with the trope from its many repetitions in the earlier written Gospels. The evidence is on my side.

Sheshbazzar

You wrote what you wrote. It is there in black and white for anyone to read. This was what you wrote to counter my argument. A statement that you belive 'Paul' received his Gospel directly from a dead and resurrected 'heavenly' Jesus.
and further that YOU believe 'Jesus' ....was now in communication with the entire sect of early Christians."
Those are YOUR words, about what YOU claim to 'believe', not mine.

aa5874

Let me make my position clear.

1. The author of 2nd Peter mentioned Paul in 2nd Peter 3.

2 Pet. 3
2. The author of 2nd Peter claimed he and others saw Jesus on the mount in 2nd Peter 1.17
2 Pet. 1Again, authors who claimed to know of the Pauline writings and wrote about Jesus claimed that Jesus was on earth.

Again, you are not logical. The author of 2nd Peter is claiming that he and others were with Jesus on the mount so it must be obvious he believed or wanted people to believe that Jesus was on the mount with Peter whom the author pretends to be.

2nd Peter does not support your claim that the Jesus cult Christians believe the crucified Jesus was never on earth,

If you do not want to present the evidence for your arguments then that your choice. So far, you have no corroborative support in or out the Canon.

Your statement is most amusing.

Anyone familiar with manuscripts of antiquity should know that no writings have been found with stories of Jesus or Paul that have been dated to the 1st century.

Stories of Jesus and Paul have been found and dated from the 2nd -3rd century.

Your presumptions about the early Pauline letters are without corroboration in the very Canon by those who mentioned Paul.
You keep saying the same thing over and over but it is impossible for you not to read what I write. You have been reading my posts for years.

You must read what I write but appear terrified to respond.

Now, you very well know that Scholars think your never on earth crucified Jesus is bizarre so why can't I agree with them??

My argument is extremely simple and does not require a Ph.D--It is the short gMark Jesus story--Not the Pauline letters-- that PREDATES all the writings in the Canon.

Only the Jesus story in the short gMark had a major impact on authors of the Canon--Not Paul.

Not a single 10 word sentence of the Entire Pauline Corpus was used in any of the Synoptics. It is as if Paul and the Pauline letters did not exist at all.

How is it possible for all of the other authors of the ENTIRE Canon to have ignored the Entire Pauline Corpus.

Paul supposedly started Churches and documented his teachings yet all the authors completely forgot about the Pauline letters and did not attend a Pauline Church.

However, the Jesus story of an unknown writer, the author of the short gMark, was copied virtually 100% by multiple authors in the Canon.

The short version of gMark must have been or most likely was the original story that was later manipulated.

1. The author of the long version of gMark added the post resurrection visit and great commission of the resurrected Jesus.

2. The author of gMatthew added the birth narrative.

3. The author of gLuke reconfigured stories in gMatthew and gMark.

The original story of Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Salvation by crucifixion or the resurrection-- those elements were added LATER by gJohn and the Pauline letters.

Sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE a story was fabricated that the Jewish Temple Fell because the Jews killed the Son of their God and the Jews must repent because the Kingdom of God was at hand.

People of antiquity believed the story was true.

The story in the short gMark, from Baptism by John to the Empty Tomb, is corroborated by virtually all Apologetic writers.

The Jesus cult of Christians believed that the Jews killed the Son of God called Jesus and that the Kingdom of God was near.

Apologetic writers from the 2nd century and beyond did claim Christians believed such a story.

All the writings under the name of Paul do NOT belong in the Canon.

They were composed precisely to deceive.

Sheshbazzar

Wish I had written that :thumbs:

EarlDoherty

Only a complete idiot would think that I was saying that "I" personally currently believed that Paul had actually received communications from an existing heavenly Jesus, rather than that being what PAUL believed. And you are not a complete idiot, Shesh. (Please don't prove me wrong.) So one has to recognize that you are using this ridiculous counter to avoid the issue that my statement addressed.

So let's stop this juvenile nonsense, and have you behave like something resembling a scholar and address the argument I was clearly making.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

To refresh your short term memory Earl, in post #192 it was you yourself that used this claim;
There it is. You want to use that kind of argument against my position, you got nothing to complain about when your own damn stupid words are turned right back on you.
You don't like being reminded of what you write like this? then don't try to use such horse shit when replying to others.

Cause 'Paul' most certainly DID NOT get those words from any 'Jesus who resided in heaven'. He got them right straight out of the written Gospel called 'Luke'.

You have thus far dodged a dozen questions about the content of this text, where your 'it was done 'in heaven' interpretation makes no sense at all,
and would not have made sense even in the 1st century.
As is demonstrated by these texts themselves, the writers were extremely literate and knew how to express cogent and complete thoughts. If they had wanted the crapola you are attempting adding on, they most certainly could have clearly so expressed themselves. You are reading your imaginations (suspicions) into these texts, against their sense.

Your Jesus was never crucified on earth interpretation of these texts is, as aa stated, bizarre, and as you well know, is an interpretation that is rejected or outright laughed at by the majority of Bible and History scholars.

You may quote snippets from credible scholars and reference materials to prop up your suspicions, but the scholars that wrote the material you are so selectively picking through do not at all endorse the bizarre suspicions and outlandish speculations you make in your books, or here in this Forum.