EarlDoherty

You are not doing yourself any favors, Shesh. It doesn't matter how you wish to read my exact words, my meaning is clear because I could not possibly have meant what you are claiming I meant. And everyone, including you, knows that.

And I referred to a common scholarly thread which regards Paul as having believed that he was in receipt of communications from Christ in heaven. That was obviously meant in parallel to my own meaning. Those scholars hardly are saying that they themselves believe that Christ communicated with Paul from heaven, just as I am hardly saying that.

And don't tell me you are yet another who claims that I cannot draw on certain opinions from mainstream scholars because they don't subscribe to everything in my theories.

You have become as impossible as aa, Shesh, and I am hereby putting you on the same ignore notice as I've done him. It's long overdue. In fact, with the deterioration of the quality of posters these days, FRDB just isn't worth the effort.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

Hey Earl you are just doing me a favor if you do that, because I and others here are going to stay right here and keep right on addressing and opposing your suspicion based assertions.
You know, there is none so blind as he who will not see. And you will be the one hiding in the dark.

And speaking of the quality of FRDB posters, and not worth the effort, The old saying is, 'If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen'.
....and take your horse shit with you.

maryhelena

Earl, putting people who question your theories on ignore does not accomplish anything for your theories. As you post your imaginative speculation and assertions on this forum they will get the treatment they deserve - in this case negative, rough, treatment. FRDB is no safe haven for your theories - if that is what you seek - then perhaps the more genteel environment of JesusMysteries would suit your theories better.

aa5874

Earl needs this forum to promote his theory so it is impossible for him to ignore any poster who exposes his errors. You will notice every time he claims he ignores any one he immediately responds to their posts. The problem with Doherty's argument is that he relies on the very Pauline letters that he himself argues is corrupted. And not only that, the Entire Pauline corpus is a product of multiple authors without corroboration in the very Canon.

maryhelena

Ironic really - what Earl seems to think is his strength - his interpretation of the Pauline epistles - is his downfall. Earl has allowed his interpretation of the Pauline epistles to influence, to cloud, his interpretation of the gospel JC story. i.e. an interpretation of Pauline theology/philosophy is being used, by Earl, to interpret a JC story set in real time; a JC story set in historical time.

An historical time frame, an historical setting, does not grant the story set within it any historical value. That does not mean that the historical time frame was irrelevant to the creator's of the story. An author makes a conscious decision where to place a story. Consequently, in the case of the historical setting of the gospel JC story - that historical setting has to be addressed as to it's relevance for the creator of the JC story.

Theological or philosophical interpretations of the Pauline epistles cannot do that. They have nothing to offer for an investigation into the historical source, the ground zero, of the gospel JC story.

However grand ones interpretation of the Pauline epistles; whatever deep insights one may discern within those epistles - these are not avenues through which advances into the historical origins of early christianity can move forward.

The Pauline writer may well have developed and advanced the theology/philosophy of the early christians - that writer did not create the fountainhead that supplied the 'water' that enabled him to develop, to 'grow', a theological/philosophical movement. What the Pauline writer got from 'no man' was his own insights, his developments, of a JC story that was set in real historical time. The Pauline writer interpreted that JC story as having a relevance for a timeless theological/philosophical context.

Earl has the NT story back to front. The story is what it is. Ground Zero is a historical context. Ground Zero is not a Pauline magic carpet ride to a fleshly sub-lunar.

Sheshbazzar

The words of 'Paul' do not appear within the Gospels, but the words of the Gospels do appear in the writings of 'Paul'.
Without the Gospels known first 'Paul's' alleged Jesus quotations are entirely without context, and would be nonsensical.

'The horse' -'ha'sooce', -goes before 'Paul's' religious cart, and 'Paul' looks to 'the horse's ass' to see where ha'sooce 'Jesus' has walked, to see where he is going.




The letter ה 'heh' (H) of the Hebrew alpahbet became the letter 'E' of the latter Greek and Latin alphabets.
הסוס > ha'sooce > ea'sooce > Ea'sooce > Iasus > Jesus > still pronounced as 'ea'sooce' and 'hey'sooce' in several languages.

You may read in the Scriptures the mockery of 'The Horse'; "Worthless is The Horse (ha'sooce) for Salvation, and in his great strength no escape" (Psa 33:17)

"Dan' ('judgment') shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth (the) Horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward." (Gen 49:17)

"(The) Horse is prepared against the day of battle: but Salvation is of YHWH." (Prov. 21:31)

"neither shall he that rideth The Horse escape with his life." (Amo 2:15)

"with thee will I break in pieces (the) Horse and his rider; and with thee will I break in pieces the cart and his rider;" (Jer 51:21)

....there are several more.

Funny coincidences. but appropriate for anyone that does not buy 'The Horse' shit of Christianity, or ride 'Paul's' cart',
or not of that 'rechabim' that retinue following The Horse.

(When the Torah was being penned, the 'Trojan' war was recent history. The Torah writers would have been familiar with the famous 'Trojan Horse' ...)




.

maryhelena

Yep, Earl wants the cart to pull the horse.....and fails to grasp why the NT scholars reject his theories outright...At least the NT scholars seek a foothold on history (whatever the JC image they imagine they see..) but Earl is wandering in his fleshly sub-lunar seeking phantoms....

aa5874

When jurors go to a court trial they do not really go to hear just experts--they go to hear the EVIDENCE from the witnesses or examine the physical evidence.

It is no different with the matter before us.

We can examine the CONTENTS of the writings of antiquity whether they are copies of copies of copies or were recovered and dated.

The existing copies of copies of manuscripts and the recovered dated texts do show that the Pauline letters were unknown and that there were NO Pauline Churches or teachings when the Jesus story was fabricated.

In other words, ALL the authors of the Canonised Gospels and Non-Pauline letters were Not ever influenced by Pauline writings and did NOT attend Pauline Churches.

No author of the Jesus cult Canon emulated the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Not even a single 10 word phrase.

The Pauline writings do not represent the earliest story of Jesus based on the very words of the authors.

1. The authors of Galatians and Corinthians claimed they Persecuted the Church of Christ.

2. The author of Romans claimed there were people who believed in Christ Before him.

3. Apologetic writers, Origen and Eusebius, claimed or implied Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

4. An Apologetic writer, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John.

5. In Acts of the Apostles, it is claimed that Jesus had already ascended to heaven and Peter was preaching about the Resurrected Jesus before Paul's conversion.

6. In Corinthians, the author admitted he was Last to be seen of the resurrected Jesus after OVER 500 persons.

7. In Corinthians, the author admitted that there were ALREADY written sources that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, was buried and resurrected on the third day.

8. The author of Acts did not mention the Pauline letters even though he claimed to have traveled with Paul.

9. No letters of Paul have been found and dated to the 1st century.

10. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not make mention of Jesus and Paul.

11. Up to the mid 2nd century Apologetic writers showed that the Jesus cult developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters.

12. Apologetic writings that mention Paul, the Pauline letters and Pauline revealed Gospel are themselves questionable and found to be forgeries or false attribution.

The Pauline corpus is extremely unreliable and cannot be accepted without corroboration but there is none.

There are writings that appear far more credible than the Pauline corpus and are compatible with non-Apologetic writings.

Non-Apologetic writers do not mention the Jesus cult of Christians until some time after the mid 2nd century.

It simply cannot be coincidence that Non-Apologetic writings and the Recovered dated manuscripts do not corroborate the chronology of the Jesus cult Canon.

The Canon of the Jesus cult is chronologically unattested. There is no history at all of the Jesus cult of Christians until the second century

The writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Origen's "Against Celsus" and Arnobius show that the Jesus cult of Christians was developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters, that there was no known history of the Acts of the Apostles up to the 3rd century and no known Bishops of the Jesus cult.

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

The differing positions in Greek and Syriac of both the passage about the origin of the Jews and the passage about the origin of the Christians seem related.

The Syriac has a set of brief introductions to the different ethnic groups followed by a more detailed discussion. In the Greek these brief introductions are abbreviated with some of the material moved from the introductions into the detailed discussions.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

The claim by Doherty that Aristides "Apology" was manipulated cannot help his argument that the early Jesus cult Christians believed the crucified Jesus was never on earth.

If Jesus was Not believed by people of antiquity to be God who came down from heaven and lived in the belly of Mary and was Pierced by the Jews then we simply cannot trust writings attributed to Aristides.

Doherty still would not have any corroborative evidence for his crucified heavenly Jesus.