Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-27-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

This is getting too long winded.

Retracts head. The view of one's own heels isn't that thrilling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Believe whatever you want.

I try not to let beliefs get in the way, Shesh. You should try it.

Think whatever you want then.

I know what I think.

And sadly, so do we. You tend to put it out there, don't you? I'm sure your evidence and arguments would be better appreciated.

Sheshbazzar · 05-27-2013, 06:58 PM

Yes. 'I put it out there'.
Any evidence or arguments you don't want to hear, you simply deflect and don't hear.

Again, for the hard of hearing. It is not going to be my evidence and arguments that will bring 'Paul' and Earl's 'early 'Paul' theory down, and tossed into the dumpsters.

spin · 05-27-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yes. 'I put it out there'.
Any evidence or arguments you don't want to hear, you simply deflect and don't hear.

Ha. I'd love to get something tangible from you, Shesh. This negative bullsit riff of assertions and conjectures of yours gets dull when you wear out the bottom of the groove through overuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Again, for the hard of hearing. It is not going to be my evidence and arguments that will bring 'Paul' and Earl's 'early 'Paul' theory down, and tossed into the dumpsters.

That's for certain.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-27-2013, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Salvation in the Gospels was attained by 'keeping The Commandments' with not a hint of Paul's elaborate 'substitutionary sacrifice' theology.

What texts in the Pauline corpus would you appeal to as evidence that Paul had any kind of "substitutionary sacrifice" theology, let alone an "elaborate" one?

Quote:

'Paul' could not admit to knowing the content of the Gospel's because doing so would contradict and prove to be a lie his claim that he received his Gospel by exclusive revelation from the 'Lord Jesus'

Where exactly does Paul claim this?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-27-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Most Christians were illiterate, and the Church elders decided what would be taught and in what order it would be taught, and how it was to be interpreted.

How do you know this?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-27-2013, 07:57 PM

When one examines the entire Pauline corpus there is hardly anything that has any historical or corroborative value.

1. The Pauline claims of revelations cannot be corroborated whether or not Jesus did exist.

2. The Pauline claims about the meeting only apostle Peter and James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem is denied in Acts.

3. The claim that Paul went to Arabia is unknown in Acts.

4. The claim that Paul went to Damascus and then went to Jerusalem after three years is unknown in Acts.

5. The claim that after 14 years he went back to Jerusalem is denied by Acts.

6. The Pauline letters to seven Churches is unknown in Acts.

7. The Pastorals are unknown in Acts.

8. The claim that without the resurrection there would be no salvation is unknown in Acts.

9. The claim by Paul that over 500 people saw Jesus is unknown in Acts.

10. The claim that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus is DENIED in Acts.

11. The claim that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood is DENIED by Acts.

12. The claim by Paul that Peter was commissioned to preach to the circumcised is DENIED in Acts.

13. The claim that King Aretas was in control of Damascus is highly questionable.

14. No Pauline letters have been found and dated to the 1st century.

15. The claim that Paul was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised is DENIED in Acts.

Virtually everything in the Pauline writings are without corroboration, denied or questionable.

And, up to today, NO Pauline writings have found and dated to the 1st century.

It is hopeless for those who want to argue that the Pauline writings are credible because it is already known that the Pauline Corpus is without corroboration even within the Canon.

Sheshbazzar · 05-29-2013, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And, up to today, NO Pauline writings have found and dated to the 1st century.

And if any ever are, my bet is, they are going to be found to read a lot differently.

aa5874 · 05-29-2013, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And, up to today, NO Pauline writings have found and dated to the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And if any ever are, my bet is, they are going to be found to read a lot differently.

Let us not "bet" on the unknown and never seen but rather analyze the contents of the present available writings.

The present available DATA from antiquity suggest that the Pauline writings are not credible and without corroborative support even in the Canon.

The present available DATA from antiquity suggest that author of Corinthians actually lived AFTER the short gMark was composed or AFTER c 70 CE.

For example, the Pauline writer claimed he "received from the Lord Jesus" information about the Last Supper however the author of the earliest Jesus story contradicts what the Pauline writer "received".

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 11

Quote:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,

24 and after giving thanks he broke and said: This is my body which is for you; this do in remembrance of me.

25 In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, the death of the Lord you announce, till he come.

The Pauline writer is NOT credible--there was NO such command in the earliest story of the Last Supper in the short version of gMark.

The Pauline writer composed 1 Corinthians AFTER short gMark.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writer ADDED to the short gMark story.

1. this do in remembrance of me.

2. this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

The Jesus at the Last Supper in gMark did NOT say what Paul "received" of the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians.

Sinaiticus Mark

Quote:

22 And as they ate, having taken bread and blessed, he broke and gave to them and said: Take: this is my body.

23 And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave to them; and they all drank of it.

24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

25 Verily I say to you that I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, till that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

The Jesus at the Last Supper in gMatthew did NOT say what Paul "received" of the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians.

Sinaiticus Matthew 26

Quote:

26 But as they were eating, Jesus took bread and having blessed he broke, and giving to the disciples he said: Take, eat: This is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and having given thanks he gave to them, saying: Drink of it, all of you;

28 for this is my blood of the New Covenant, that is shed for many for remission of sins.

29 But I say to you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, till that day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is NOT credible and composed AFTER the Jesus story was known and circulated.

Sheshbazzar · 05-29-2013, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Let us not "bet" on the unknown and never seen

aa my friend, I live in horse country, just a short half-hour drive to the Kentucky Horse Park and home of world famous Kentucky Derby.
'Betting on the horses' is a common pass-time around here. The end of the race is never seen while the bets are being placed.
Spectators may celebrate with the winners, but the 'bet' has to be placed in advance by a speculator in order to become a winner.
Savvy bettors study the horses well in advance, and acquaint themselves with their strengths and weaknesses.
It is amazing how often the top pick will falter or go lame in the homestretch and be overtaken and passed.

I respect your very astute analysis of the present available DATA, and certainly agree with your present conclusions that are based on that available data.
...but I am still betting that in the race presently underway, the Horse presently leading is going to stumble and fall before the finish line, tripped up and brought down by a bit of presently buried additional data that is soon going to work its way back to the surface.

Either way, we both agree in foreseeing the leading theory as going down and biting the dirt, placing our respective confidence (bets) on a less popular mount.

Not much of an actual difference of views, only of the way of expressing those views.

aa5874 · 05-29-2013, 10:29 AM

The Pauline writers are NOT credible and fabricated stories after the Jesus story was already known and circulated.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers added to the earliest story of Jesus.

Sinaiticus Epistle Romans

Quote:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart to the gospel of God,

2 which he announced beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures,

3 concerning his Son, who was born of the posterity of David according to the flesh,

4 who was constituted Son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness, from the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord...

No such thing is in the earliest stories of Jesus. Paul is an inventor.

In fact, the visitors FLED in fear and told no-one Jesus was resurrected in Sinaiticus gMark

The claims in Romans 1 are late inventions by the Pauline writer that were unknown in Sinaiticus Mark.

Sinaiticus Mark 16

Quote:

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

It is extremely easy to detect what the Pauline writers fabricated. They attempted to change the early story about the resurrection.

After the supposed Jesus died in Sinaiticus gMark none of the so-called 12 disciples even heard or saw the resurrected Jesus.

We know EXACTLY what the Pauline writers invented. It is documented that the Pauline writers are not credible..

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

05-27-2013, 06:58 PM	#22
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Yes. 'I put it out there'. Any evidence or arguments you don't want to hear, you simply deflect and don't hear. Again, for the hard of hearing. It is not going to be my evidence and arguments that will bring 'Paul' and Earl's 'early 'Paul' theory down, and tossed into the dumpsters.

05-27-2013, 07:57 PM	#26
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	When one examines the entire Pauline corpus there is hardly anything that has any historical or corroborative value. 1. The Pauline claims of revelations cannot be corroborated whether or not Jesus did exist. 2. The Pauline claims about the meeting only apostle Peter and James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem is denied in Acts. 3. The claim that Paul went to Arabia is unknown in Acts. 4. The claim that Paul went to Damascus and then went to Jerusalem after three years is unknown in Acts. 5. The claim that after 14 years he went back to Jerusalem is denied by Acts. 6. The Pauline letters to seven Churches is unknown in Acts. 7. The Pastorals are unknown in Acts. 8. The claim that without the resurrection there would be no salvation is unknown in Acts. 9. The claim by Paul that over 500 people saw Jesus is unknown in Acts. 10. The claim that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus is DENIED in Acts. 11. The claim that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood is DENIED by Acts. 12. The claim by Paul that Peter was commissioned to preach to the circumcised is DENIED in Acts. 13. The claim that King Aretas was in control of Damascus is highly questionable. 14. No Pauline letters have been found and dated to the 1st century. 15. The claim that Paul was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised is DENIED in Acts. Virtually everything in the Pauline writings are without corroboration, denied or questionable. And, up to today, NO Pauline writings have found and dated to the 1st century. It is hopeless for those who want to argue that the Pauline writings are credible because it is already known that the Pauline Corpus is without corroboration even within the Canon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.