FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2013, 11:14 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default Priority of Paul's letters vs the gospels split from credibility of St. Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The opposite is true of the 'Pauline Epistles' they know of the Gospels (and Revelations) 'KEEP the Commandments' sayings, and set out to deliberately overturn and supplant the words of 'Jesus', with the no Law antinomian theology of 'Paul'.
What verses would show that "Paul" knew of the canonical gospels?
'Paul' (and all of the pseudo-'Paul's') was careful not to provide much that could be traced to having knowledge of the Gospels content. As doing so would make a lie out of his claim that no man had taught him the Gospel of Jesus.
So you should not expect to find much in the way of obvious references to the Gospel stories.
Although the 1 Cor 11:23-24 communion ritual with its 'that same night in which he was betrayed' is plucked from Luke 22. (there is no story of Jesus ever being betrayed by anyone on some 'same night' in heaven. The story is set on earth with an earthly human 'betrayer', it is the story of Luke 22.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
'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' when in fact he had learned all about 'Jesus' from the Christian believers that were before him.
'Paul' would have gotten nowhere with such a claim if he had not been the invention and tool of the latter church orthodoxy Establishment.
Wouldn't inventing an early figure who received foundational knowledge and instructions through personal revelation render Jesus' teaching and comission to His apostles as a bit redundant?
The 'Pauline Epistles' gospel was forged by the corrupted late church to accomplish three major objectives.
The first being to contradict and replace Jesus' and Revelations express words to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of Jesus' (two things) with the antinomian teaching of the Popes and their paper puppet 'Paul'.
Second, to discredit and vilify those early Messianic believers who were continuing to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD' -and the testimony of Jesus'.
And third, to promote the Roman lie that Peter and Paul had traveled to Rome and had established 'the Holy Roman Catholic Church' and had instituted 'the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.
Nothing 'redundant' about that, when the proclamation of lies by paper 'Paul' facilitated the Roman power grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
If theology would be later revealed and spelt out to Paul it wouldn't have much mattered what Jesus did (other than His sacrafice and resurrection).
And that is about all the Roman Church wanted remembered, beyond that it was; 'WE will tell you what you will think'.

And 'WE will tell you what it is that you will believe',

And 'WE will tell you exactly what words it is that you will recite. ....or else'.


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2013, 11:54 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The opposite is true of the 'Pauline Epistles' they know of the Gospels (and Revelations) 'KEEP the Commandments' sayings, and set out to deliberately overturn and supplant the words of 'Jesus', with the no Law antinomian theology of 'Paul'.
What verses would show that "Paul" knew of the canonical gospels?
'Paul' (and all of the pseudo-'Paul's') was careful not to provide much that could be traced to having knowledge of the Gospels content. As doing so would make a lie out of his claim that no man had taught him the Gospel of Jesus.
Ya gotta like the ingenuity of this wacky notion. Paul shows almost no knowledge of the gospel, so somehow he musta known about it and was pretending not to know.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

This is along the lines of George Bush being so clever because he seemed so dumb. This is certainly getting past calling a spade a spade and calling it a nasally inserted brain stimulant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So you should not expect to find much in the way of obvious references to the Gospel stories.
'Cuz that'd give Shesh's game away. Paul can't show the world that he knew too much of the gospel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Although the 1 Cor 11:23-24 communion ritual with its 'that same night in which he was betrayed' is plucked from Luke 22.
Paul is supposed to be avoiding knowledge of the gospel, yet makes the blunder of using a literary reference to Luke's gospel.

This stuff is pretty daft, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
(there is no story of Jesus ever being betrayed by anyone on some 'same night' in heaven. The story is set on earth with an earthly human 'betrayer', it is the story of Luke 22.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
'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' when in fact he had learned all about 'Jesus' from the Christian believers that were before him.
'Paul' would have gotten nowhere with such a claim if he had not been the invention and tool of the latter church orthodoxy Establishment.
Wouldn't inventing an early figure who received foundational knowledge and instructions through personal revelation render Jesus' teaching and comission to His apostles as a bit redundant?
The 'Pauline Epistles' gospel was forged by the corrupted late church to accomplish three major objectives.
1. To make Paul anti-trinitarian;
2. To let Paul ridicule the bishop of Rome; and
3. To repudiate the apostles, whose succession the corrupted late church relies on.

Yes, Paul so well reflects the later church and its doctriners. This view that Shesh espouses is just plain old horseshit. And a little grasp on reality would allow him to see it.

:horsecrap: :horsecrap:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The first being to contradict and replace Jesus' and Revelations express words to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of Jesus' (two things) with the antinomian teaching of the Popes and their paper puppet 'Paul'.
Second, to discredit and vilify those early Messianic believers who were continuing to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD' -and the testimony of Jesus'.
And third, to promote the Roman lie that Peter and Paul had traveled to Rome and had established 'the Holy Roman Catholic Church' and had instituted 'the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.
Nothing 'redundant' about that, when the proclamation of lies by paper 'Paul' facilitated the Roman power grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
If theology would be later revealed and spelt out to Paul it wouldn't have much mattered what Jesus did (other than His sacrafice and resurrection).
And that is about all the Roman Church wanted remembered, beyond that it was; 'WE will tell you what you will think'.

And 'WE will tell you what it is that you will believe',

And 'WE will tell you exactly what words it is that you will recite. ....or else'.


.
spin is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:39 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The opposite is true of the 'Pauline Epistles' they know of the Gospels (and Revelations) 'KEEP the Commandments' sayings, and set out to deliberately overturn and supplant the words of 'Jesus', with the no Law antinomian theology of 'Paul'.
What verses would show that "Paul" knew of the canonical gospels?
'Paul' (and all of the pseudo-'Paul's') was careful not to provide much that could be traced to having knowledge of the Gospels content. As doing so would make a lie out of his claim that no man had taught him the Gospel of Jesus.
Ya gotta like the ingenuity of this wacky notion. Paul shows almost no knowledge of the gospel, so somehow he musta known about it and was pretending not to know.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Once the lie was asserted that 'Paul' had received direct communications and an exclusive 'gospel' from 'Jesus' and that;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Once he had laid that whopper he could not very well admit that he had ever learned anything about 'Jesus' from THE APOSTLES and 'that WAY' ....which 'Paul' admits to having persecuted beyond measure.

1Cr 1:2, 15:9, Gal 1:13, 1:23, 1 Th 2:14-15 must zoom right over your head.

The Apostolic congregations in Judea were already -in Christ Jesus- before 'Paul' ever 'converted' or had any of his wonky claimed 'visions' and conversations with a dead and risen 'Jesus'.
The congregations in Judea already had, and had long been preaching 'the Gospel of 'Jesus', and upsetting the Jewish establishment.
That is the reason why 'Paul' was persecuting them. (according to the story.)

Do you have some other reason for 'Saul/Paul' to be hunting down, 'persecuting and wasting' the church "beyond measure" ?
Let's hear it.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So you should not expect to find much in the way of obvious references to the Gospel stories.
'Cuz that'd give Shesh's game away. Paul can't show the world that he knew too much of the gospel.
No, it would give the paper 'Paul's' deceiving game away.
Unlike 'Paul', old Sheshbazzar has no game. no followers, no intentions to build an organization that will set up statues in his memory, 'collects' no money from no one, and being anonymous, has nothing to gain or to lose by calling the shots as he sees them.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Although the 1 Cor 11:23-24 communion ritual with its 'that same night in which he was betrayed' is plucked from Luke 22.
Paul is supposed to be avoiding knowledge of the gospel, yet makes the blunder of using a literary reference to Luke's gospel.

This stuff is pretty daft, isn't it?
With God alone knows how many pseudo-Paul's, its little wonder that one would blunder, and this ritual was something the Catholic church wanted badly, and to be able to exert her 'official' control over, forcing all to come to her 'apostolic' 'bishops' for this ritual communion, ...and fleecing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
(there is no story of Jesus ever being betrayed by anyone on some 'same night' in heaven. The story is set on earth with an earthly human 'betrayer', it is the story of Luke 22.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
'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' when in fact he had learned all about 'Jesus' from the Christian believers that were before him.
'Paul' would have gotten nowhere with such a claim if he had not been the invention and tool of the latter church orthodoxy Establishment.
Wouldn't inventing an early figure who received foundational knowledge and instructions through personal revelation render Jesus' teaching and comission to His apostles as a bit redundant?
The 'Pauline Epistles' gospel was forged by the corrupted late church to accomplish three major objectives.
1. To make Paul anti-trinitarian;
Not every 'orthodox Catholic Doctrine' was yet settled when the 'Pauline epistles' were being forged.
Quote:
2. To let Paul ridicule the bishop of Rome;
There was still vying for power and authority over the church going on in Rome
when the 'Pauline epistles' were being forged, the forgers evidently were not pleased with the bishop then in power, and got their 'dig' in.
Quote:
and 3. To repudiate the apostles, whose succession the corrupted late church relies on.
The latter church only wanted to claim succession from THE Apostles, this corrupt latter church however DID NOT want The DOCTRINE of THE Apostles of the assemblies in Judea, which was and remains "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of 'JESUS'; "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS"

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Yes, Paul so well reflects the later church and its doctriners. This view that Shesh espouses is just plain old horseshit. And a little grasp on reality would allow him to see it.
You have my pity spin. Maybe if you prayed more, 'JESUS' would heal your blindness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The first being to contradict and replace Jesus' and Revelations express words to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of Jesus' (two things) with the antinomian teaching of the Popes and their paper puppet 'Paul'.
Second, to discredit and vilify those early Messianic believers who were continuing to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD' -and the testimony of Jesus'.
And third, to promote the Roman lie that Peter and Paul had traveled to Rome and had established 'the Holy Roman Catholic Church' and had instituted 'the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.
Nothing 'redundant' about that, when the proclamation of lies by paper 'Paul' facilitated the Roman power grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
If theology would be later revealed and spelt out to Paul it wouldn't have much mattered what Jesus did (other than His sacrafice and resurrection).
And that is about all the Roman Church wanted remembered, beyond that it was; 'WE will tell you what you will think'.

And 'WE will tell you what it is that you will believe',

And 'WE will tell you exactly what words it is that you will recite. ....or else'.


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:42 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The claim that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed is actually stated or implied by Church writers and in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John his predecessor.

It is really of no use for people to give the impression that the Pauline writings must be early when the very Church supplied the data to place Paul in the 2nd century or later.

The earliest mention of a gospel according to Luke is in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

1. Origen's "Commentary on Matthew"
Quote:
And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
2. Church History 3.4.
Quote:
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
3. Jerome's De Viris Iluustribus
Quote:
... Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. An adherent of the apostle Paul, and companion of all his journeying, he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, “We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches”
4. The Muratorian Canon
Quote:
....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name...
The Muratorion Canon corroborates Justin Martyr who mentioned Revelation by John but NOT a single Pauline letter.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

At one time it is claimed Paul died under Nero and simultaneously that he KNEW of gLuke.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 07:57 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Thank you aa.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 08:06 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

I am most intrigued by the reference to the gospel "COMPOSED" by Paul without pointing at all to WHAT gospel was "composed." Then there is the reference to the predecessor named "JOHN."

The author of the Muratorian Canon must have forgotten that no one named John as a predecessor of Paul is mentioned anywhere in the epistles. And the same author surely must have known that by virtue of his revelation Galatians Paul could never have had a "predecessor" anyway.

And what gospel did Paul "compose." Did the author going under the name of Origen have access to the Gospel according to Paul?! It's really a huge stretch to argue that the gospel of Luke was Paul's gospel when nowhere does "Paul" cite verses from the gospel known subsequently as the gospel of Luke.

Well, these people who claimed to all be on the same page evidently didn't check through things clearly enough to avoid these problems.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The claim that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed is actually stated or implied by Church writers and in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John his predecessor.

It is really of no use for people to give the impression that the Pauline writings must be early when the very Church supplied the data to place Paul in the 2nd century or later.

The earliest mention of a gospel according to Luke is in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

1. Origen's "Commentary on Matthew"
Quote:
And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
2. Church History 3.4.

3. Jerome's De Viris Iluustribus

4. The Muratorian Canon
Quote:
....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name...
The Muratorion Canon corroborates Justin Martyr who mentioned Revelation by John but NOT a single Pauline letter.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

At one time it is claimed Paul died under Nero and simultaneously that he KNEW of gLuke.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 08:16 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Christianity is a screwed up religion Duvduv.

...but you don't me to tell you that fact.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:33 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Shesh, let's think this through. Why would an author who has access to the complete set of the NT (including Acts and the epistles) refer to someone named John as the predecessor to "blessed Paul" who had no predecessor, and who is never mentioned in those same texts? And even if this means that the author of Revelation wrote to seven churches, where do we have an indication that "Paul" wrote to the seven churches because of John? And if he was Paul's predecessor in this respect, then he must have been so in other respects, but this is never mentioned in the epistles or Acts.

What is DOES HINT AT is that the the author(s) or redactors of the epistles put together their epistles using the general idea of Revelation as a model. But the author of the Muratorian Canon should certainly have known that readers would wonder about his comment, unless he assumed people believed that "Paul" was simply an ordinary apostle following John. But that is only begging the question, of course.

And why would the author of the Muratorian Canon refer explicitly to the idea of a gospel written by Paul when nothing of the sort is mentioned in that same set of Pauline texts? Why would those authors want their readers to be confused?!

I mean, someone if not those authors had to crosscheck the statements at the outset. After all, everyone knew from the epistles and Acts that "Paul" did not write a gospel that was part of the canon, and even if he had, he doesn't quote it anywhere. And if GLuke was intended, then certainly at least once mention would have been made of a Gospel of Paul. But that itself is problematic because the epistles say that his gospel was not simply one of 4 or 5, but was THE gospel. (Yes, I realize the contradiction with Paul's own statements about others being in Christ before him, meaning they had no access to his unique gospel).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Christianity is a screwed up religion Duvduv.

...but you don't me to tell you that fact.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:44 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Who needs the Trinity when we have Shesh, aa, and Duvduv?
Adam is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 09:45 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Allahu Akbar!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Who needs the Trinity when we have Shesh, aa, and Duvduv?
Duvduv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.