Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 05-21-2013, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The joke, Earl, is on your fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion speculation. That is a theory that has taken the ahistoricist/mythicist position and the search for early christian origins into a dead-end. That position, that theory, is the fundamentalist version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position. It is a position that has brought unnecessary disdain and ridicule upon that position.

The beauty of a DB is that everyone is entitled to express their opinions. The further beauty is that others are entitled to expose the absurdity of them. Ideally, both are done by presenting rational evidence and argument, a criterion I think I've met to a far greater degree than many others here.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-21-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The joke, Earl, is on your fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion speculation. That is a theory that has taken the ahistoricist/mythicist position and the search for early christian origins into a dead-end. That position, that theory, is the fundamentalist version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position. It is a position that has brought unnecessary disdain and ridicule upon that position.

The beauty of a DB is that everyone is entitled to express their opinions. The further beauty is that others are entitled to expose the absurdity of them. Ideally, both are done by presenting rational evidence and argument, a criterion I think I've met to a far greater degree than many others here.

Earl Doherty

Haha - I wonder what aa and Shesh would say to that......:Cheeky:

aa5874 · 05-21-2013, 12:15 PM

The Pauline corpus is a product of fraud, forgery and false attribution and were composed precisely to deceive the ancient world and even today into believing the Monstrous Fables called Gospels were the truth.

My ARGUMENT is based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity that there were NO Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire before c 70 CE and later.

1. In Galatians 1, A Pauline writer claimed he met and stayed in Jerusalem with an Apostle called Peter--No such person existed--The Apostle Peter was a fabricated character in the Myth Fables called Gospels.

2. In Galatians 1, A Pauline writer claimed he met an Apostle called James the Lord's brother--Jesus Christ the Lord was a Total Myth and there was not even an Apostle James a brother of Jesus Christ in the Myth Fables called Gospels.

3. In 1 Corinthians, a Pauline writer claimed he was seen of the Resurrected Jesus but such a statement is wholly fiction and could not have happened as described.

4. In 1 Corinthians, a Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 people was seen of the Resurrected Jesus and some were still alive--Such a claim is false even if Jesus did exist.

5. In Colossians, a Pauline writer claimed Jesus was in the image of the invisible God and was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth. Again, Jesus in the Pauline corpus was fabricated and could not have created heaven and earth.

6. In Philippians 2, a Pauline writer claimed the Resurrected Jesus was EQUAL to God, had a Name above every name and that every knee should bow before him the Roman Empire.

Nothing is known of Jesus Christ, the Lord in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius.

The Pauline writings have ZERO history in the Jesus cult of Christians.

Paul met the Apostles who did NOT ever exist in Jerusalem.

Paul got his revealed Gospel from the Resurrected who never did exist.

The Pauline writings are completely useless as history for the Jesus cult and do not represent early Jesus cult Christians.

Sheshbazzar · 05-21-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I will limit myself to this comment, which I've had to make more than once: This has already been addressed and answered, more than once.

As your alleged 'answer' was little more than a vacuous dismissal in favor of more peddling of your personal line of contrived horse crap, your 'answer' was unaccepted.

Quote:

This is the prime reason why certain posters eventually get ignored.

If you wish to plug your ears and wear blinders, that's your prerogative _and your loss.

Like I'm troubled by being ignored by the likes of you? Hell, I'd consider it to be an honor. Go for it.
Others here who are not so blinkered will still continue reading and sharing our criticisms of your bass-akwards theory.

Sheshbazzar

Shesh, when an answer is "unaccepted" it has to be demonstrated WHY it is unaccepted, with counter-argument presented. Simply calling it "horse-shit" is not the proper way to "unaccept" it on a discussion board.
~

"Sharing our criticisms"? You don't MAKE any criticisms of my arguments.

I criticized your methodology. You start out with "I suspect..." or 'It may be suspected...' and over the course of your presentation on virtually any subject, your 'suspicions' transform into hidebound assertions that you expect everyone reading to accept as being Gospel.

I'm not even going to attempt to shovel through that heap of assertions you make in your walls of text, quotations, and lengthy posts here.
As someone else once observed, it would take 250,000 pages to deal with the amount of asserted horse shit you have packed in 800 pages.

Quote:

except to call me names.

I call you 'Earl'.
.....given your reputation for bombast, and self-promotion, maybe that is bad enough.

Quote:

And you certainly don't engage with any of my counter-arguments against your positions. You are a disgrace to any DB.

<edit>

.

Toto · 05-21-2013, 01:09 PM

A little more decorum and less personal abuse, please

MrMacSon · 05-21-2013, 02:30 PM

The Pauline letters could have been produced in any number of ways; via any amount of editing with reference to each other, or with reference to other writers or their experiences.

The Pauline documents are without a historical basis other than the fact they exist in the christian Bible.

Toto · 05-21-2013, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

... No one is asking you to engage in any further dialog with Sheshbazzar,
....but I suspect a few are enjoying the ongoing comedy. Want to keep it up? I'm game, and will be till the day you drop.

.

Actually, this is getting painful to read. You all still have time to self edit some of the worst of your own posts before the moderators decide to do it.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-21-2013, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

When I pointed out that all of critical scholarship, based on the manuscript evidence, regards Luke’s Last Supper words as limited to “This is my body”

Is this really so?. All?

Quote:

From Metzger's Textual Commentary

22.17–20 {B}

The Lukan account of the Last Supper has been transmitted in two principal forms: (1) the longer, or traditional, text of cup-bread-cup is read by all Greek manuscripts except D and by most of the ancient versions and Fathers; (2) the shorter, or Western, text (read by D ita, d, ff2, i, l) omits verses 19b and 20 (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν … ἐκχυννόμενον), thereby presenting the sequence of cup-bread.1 Four intermediate forms of text, which appear to be compromises between the two principal forms, are the following: (a) two Old Latin manuscripts (itb, e) modify the shorter text by placing ver. 19a before ver. 17, thus securing the customary order of bread-cup; (b) the Curetonian Syriac reads the same, but is enlarged with the wording of 1 Cor 11.24 added to ver. 19a; (c) the Sinaitic Syriac is still further expanded, chiefly by the insertion of “after they had supped” at the beginning of ver. 17 and “this is my blood, the new covenant” (ver. 20b) between verses 17 and 18; and (d) the Peshitta Syriac lacks (perhaps due to homoeoteleuton) verses 17 and 18, as do also l32, two Sahidic manuscripts, and one Bohairic manuscript. For convenience of comparison the six forms of the text are set forth in parallel columns on p. 149.

It is obvious that the chief problem is concerned with the merits of the two principal forms of text, since each of the others can be accounted for more or less satisfactorily as modifications of either the shorter or the longer form.

Majority Text

17. καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ.

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

D ita, d, ff2, i, l

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε ἑαυτοῖς.

18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

itb, e

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε (τοῦτο. om. e) διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν (ὅτι, om. e) ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος (+ τούτου b) τῆς ἀμπέλου (+ ταύτης b) ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrc

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrs

19. καὶ λαβῶν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20a. καὶ μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι.

17. δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

20b. τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου ἡ διαθήκη ἡ καινή.

18. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrp

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20. καὶ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

Table of six forms of the text of Lk 22.17–20, reproduced (with a few minor modifications) from the chapter, “The Textual Data,” by Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg, in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley (London, 1937), pp. 284 f. By “Majority Text” at the head of the first column is meant the consensus of P75 א A B C K L Tvid W X Δ ΘΠ Ψ 063 f 1 f 13 apparently all minuscules itc, q, r1 vg syrpal copsa, bo arm geo. It will be understood that the Greek form given to the versions is in some details uncertain.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand. (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i. e. in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the shorter text include the following: (a) Generally in New Testament textual criticism the shorter reading is to be preferred. (b) Since the words in verses 19b and 20 are suspiciously similar to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11.24b–25, it appears that the latter passage was the source of their interpolation into the longer text. (c) Verses 19b–20 contain several linguistic features that are non-Lukan.

The weight of these considerations was estimated differently by different members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53). The majority, on the other hand, impressed by the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding.2 The similarity between verses 19b–20 and 1 Cor 11.24b–25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also for the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses 19b–20.

{B} {B} The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.

Quote:

v. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22:19-20

The interpretation of this section is closely linked with the problem of the establishment of the original text. Until about 1950 there was a strong tendency among scholars to adopt the shorter form of text, i.e. omitting vs. 19b-20, with D a d ff2 i l syh (and possibly the archetypes of c r 2 δ; cf. G. D. Kilpatrick*; Jeremias, Words, 142 n. 6; M. Rese*, 15 n. 4). The existence of this text is further attested by various authorities which rearrange the verse order (15, 16, 19a, 17, 18: b e; 15, 16, 19a: sy p bo pt; for details see Metzger, 174f.). It is accepted by WH App., 63f.; Diglot; RSV (earlier editions); NEB; Plummer, 496f.; Klostermann, 207f.; Creed, 263f.; Easton, 321; K. Th. Schäfer*; H. Chadwick*; Leaney, 72-75), and there has recently been some reaction in its favour (A. Vööbus*; M. Rese*). In favour of this shorter text it can be argued: 1. It is briefer and more difficult than the longer text. 2. The longer text can be explained as due to assimilation to 1 Cor. 11:24 and Mk. 14:24b, whereas it is hard to see why an original long text should have been abbreviated. 3. The style of vs. 19b-20 is not Lucan. 4. Luke’s aversion to ‘ransom’-theology (cf. 22:27, diff. Mk. 10:45) precluded him from incorporating sacrificial ideas into his understanding of the death of Jesus. 5. Redactional study suggests that the shorter text can be explained in terms of Lucan editing of Mk. to change an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper into an account of Jesus’ last Passover meal.

The case for the retention of the longer text has been put especially by Jeremias, Words, 139-159; Schürmann, Untersuchungen, 159-192; K. Aland*, 202f.; K. Snodgrass*; and it appears in Synopsis; UBS3; JB; and versions dependent on UBS. For a balanced discussion see Metzger, 173-177. In its favour may be argued: 1. The shorter text, supported as it is by only one Greek MS is extremely unlikely to be original. Only part of the western textual tradition supports the shorter text, and an interpolation throughout the rest of the entire textual tradition is highly improbable. 2. The longer text is not based on 1 Cor. 11. Linguistic analysis shows that it contains several differences from Paul’s text. These are pre-Lucan in style, and they reflect a more primitive version of the text. (Hence the un-Lucan features of the text do not point to a late interpolation.) 3. The omission produces a difficult narrative: Lk. 22:19a can hardly have stood on its own. 4. The omission in the shorter text may have been due to an attempt to preserve the secrecy of the words of institution (Jeremias, Words, 156-169) — although it is hard to see why this motif did not affect the text of Mt. and Mk. Or it may reflect liturgical practice in the second century (Schürmann, Untersuchungen, 185-190). Or again confusion may have arisen as a result of Luke’s earlier mention of a cup shared by the disciples. 5. Elsewhere Luke retains sacrificial ideas (Acts 20:28), and it is unlikely that 22:27 is due to theological editing of Mk. 10:45 to remove the ‘ransom’ element. The argument that the present text is due to redaction of Mk. fails to convince.

The external evidence for the longer text is overwhelming. The weakness in the argument lies in accounting for the origin of the shorter text (Ellis, 255), but this may be due simply to some scribal idiosyncrasy. On balance the longer text is to be preferred.

The longer text is thus similar to Mk. 14:22 and 1 Cor. 11:23-25, but is sufficiently different from them to make it improbable that it is a literary derivation from them; on the contrary, it represents a more primitive form of text than 1 Cor. 11:23-26 and stands closer to Mk. 14:22-25. As for the differences between Lk. and Mk. at this point, it is not possible to affirm with certainty that one is more primitive than the other. The Marcan form is more Semitic, and Jeremias, Words, 189-191, claims that it stands closest to the original form. On the other hand, the claims of the Lucan text to come closest to the original form have been defended by Schürmann, Einsetzungsbericht. Patsch, 87-89, confirms the view of Jeremias, but stresses that there can be no possibility of reconstructing ‘the oldest form’, and hence of regarding the sayings as ipsissima verba of Jesus. Nevertheless, the basic motifs expressed in the sayings can be shown to be in agreement with what we otherwise know of the teaching of Jesus (Patsch, 106ff.), and hence in our opinion a line can be drawn from the historical Last Supper to the sayings recorded here, even if it is impossible to be sure as to precisely what Jesus said. It is in our view less likely that the sayings represent the early church’s interpretation of the meaning of the Supper (pace E. Schweizer*, 26). There is certainly nothing in the sayings that cannot go back to Jesus who viewed his ministry in terms of the suffering Servant and who expected to die as a martyr (cf. J. Jeremias, TDNT V, 712-717; France, 110-135).

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. Includes indexes. The New international Greek testament commentary (799). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.

Quote:

(2) The interpretation of the meal itself depends first of all upon how the textual question of vv. 19b-20 is settled. The Western Text omits the words, “ ‘which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” These words are included by most other manuscript evidence. The external evidence for the longer text is overwhelming. The weakness in its claim to originality is in accounting for the origin of the shorter text. Until about 1950 there was widespread scholarly agreement in favor of accepting the shorter form (e.g., NEB and RSV [1959] followed Codex Bezae and omitted vv. 19b-20 from Luke 22. G. D. Kilpatrick, 42, continues this emphasis). Since then P75 (the Bodmer papyrus of Luke dating from about ad 200) has strengthened the argument in favor of the longer text, as has careful examination of the Lukan style in both the context and the institution text itself (Petzer). It is the longer text that will be accepted here.

Talbert, C. H. (2002). Reading Luke : A literary and theological commentary on the third Gospel (Rev. ed.). Reading the New Testament series (233). Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Publishing.

Among other sources.

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-21-2013, 05:45 PM

It is most amusing that so-called Scholars and Experts write books for the ordinary non-experts to read and to accept their arguments about Jesus but still think that they have no ability to point out their errors.

If non-experts have no ability to comprehend experts then why do they write books ?

Now, it is well known universally that ordinary people can examine written statements, examine evidence and draw conclusions that are completely reasonable.

We have thousands of texts about a Jesus Christ of Nazareth born of a Ghost perhaps far more than any other character real or imagined.

It is claimed that Jesus was born of a Ghost, baptized by John, did miracles in Galilee, crucified under Pilate and Resurrected in Jerusalem in antiquity in hundreds of Apologetic writings dated as early as the 2nd century.

If Jesus did exist, whether or not he actually did miracles, he was WELL-KNOWN based on the stories in and out the Canon.

In the earliest stories, Jesus had thousands of people following him during the time of Pilate.

For example, even if Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King did no miracles they were all WELL-KNOWN.

But, there are massive problems for the Jesus character.

We cannot find Jesus of Nazareth and his thousands of followers in the 1st century.

They all vanished without a trace.

All we have left are hundreds upon hundreds of Forgeries or Falsely Attributed Texts under the name of the disciples of Jesus including one called the Apostle Paul written Hundreds of years after the time period of the story.

By c 62 CE Jesus Christ of Nazareth was supposed to be a household name in the Roman Empire-- the NEW GOD.

Paul was so fascinated by Jesus that he claimed Jesus Christ was God's Own Son and was EQUAL to God.

Not one convert of Paul is recorded in non-Apologetic writings.

Not one non-apologetic writer argued Against Paul.

The argument that the Pauline writings were early cannot be maintained.

There were NO Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century in or out Jerusalem.

The NT Canon is nothing but a compilation of Myth Fables with the propaganda that the Evil Jews delivered up Jesus the Son of God to be crucified even though he did nothing wrong.

All the recovered and dated evidence today do NOT, I repeat, do NOT corroborate the Canon.

The inclusion of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings in the Canon have destroyed any claim for early Jesus cult Christians since before c 70 CE based on non-apologetic writings like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Iskander · 05-21-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most amusing that so-called Scholars and Experts write books for the ordinary non-experts to read and to accept their arguments about Jesus but still think that they have no ability to point out their errors.

If non-experts have no ability to comprehend experts then why do they write books ?

Now, it is well known universally that ordinary people can examine written statements, examine evidence and draw conclusions that are completely reasonable.

We have thousands of texts about a Jesus Christ of Nazareth born of a Ghost perhaps far more than any other character real or imagined.

It is claimed that Jesus was born of a Ghost, baptized by John, did miracles in Galilee, crucified under Pilate and Resurrected in Jerusalem in antiquity in hundreds of Apologetic writings dated as early as the 2nd century.

If Jesus did exist, whether or not he actually did miracles, he was WELL-KNOWN based on the stories in and out the Canon.

In the earliest stories, Jesus had thousands of people following him during the time of Pilate.

For example, even if Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King did no miracles they were all WELL-KNOWN.

But, there are massive problems for the Jesus character.

We cannot find Jesus of Nazareth and his thousands of followers in the 1st century.

They all vanished without a trace.

All we have left are hundreds upon hundreds of Forgeries or Falsely Attributed Texts under the name of the disciples of Jesus including one called the Apostle Paul written Hundreds of years after the time period of the story.

By c 62 CE Jesus Christ of Nazareth was supposed to be a household name in the Roman Empire-- the NEW GOD.

Paul was so fascinated by Jesus that he claimed Jesus Christ was God's Own Son and was EQUAL to God.

Not one convert of Paul is recorded in non-Apologetic writings.

Not one non-apologetic writer argued Against Paul.

The argument that the Pauline writings were early cannot be maintained.

There were NO Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century in or out Jerusalem.

The NT Canon is nothing but a compilation of Myth Fables with the propaganda that the Evil Jews delivered up Jesus the Son of God to be crucified even though he did nothing wrong.

All the recovered and dated evidence today do NOT, I repeat, do NOT corroborate the Canon.

The inclusion of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings in the Canon have destroyed any claim for early Jesus cult Christians since before c 70 CE based on non-apologetic writings like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

I have in front of me Earl Doherty’s magnificent book, JNGNM and in page 49 he writes:

Quote:

Luke 22:19—“ This is my body”
We cannot quote any further words in Luke, because what follows—about “for you, remembrance and the cup—is not found in some manuscripts

.

Have you read JNGNM?

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

05-21-2013, 12:15 PM	#323
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Pauline corpus is a product of fraud, forgery and false attribution and were composed precisely to deceive the ancient world and even today into believing the Monstrous Fables called Gospels were the truth. My ARGUMENT is based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity that there were NO Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire before c 70 CE and later. 1. In Galatians 1, A Pauline writer claimed he met and stayed in Jerusalem with an Apostle called Peter--No such person existed--The Apostle Peter was a fabricated character in the Myth Fables called Gospels. 2. In Galatians 1, A Pauline writer claimed he met an Apostle called James the Lord's brother--Jesus Christ the Lord was a Total Myth and there was not even an Apostle James a brother of Jesus Christ in the Myth Fables called Gospels. 3. In 1 Corinthians, a Pauline writer claimed he was seen of the Resurrected Jesus but such a statement is wholly fiction and could not have happened as described. 4. In 1 Corinthians, a Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 people was seen of the Resurrected Jesus and some were still alive--Such a claim is false even if Jesus did exist. 5. In Colossians, a Pauline writer claimed Jesus was in the image of the invisible God and was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth. Again, Jesus in the Pauline corpus was fabricated and could not have created heaven and earth. 6. In Philippians 2, a Pauline writer claimed the Resurrected Jesus was EQUAL to God, had a Name above every name and that every knee should bow before him the Roman Empire. Nothing is known of Jesus Christ, the Lord in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius. The Pauline writings have ZERO history in the Jesus cult of Christians. Paul met the Apostles who did NOT ever exist in Jerusalem. Paul got his revealed Gospel from the Resurrected who never did exist. The Pauline writings are completely useless as history for the Jesus cult and do not represent early Jesus cult Christians.

05-21-2013, 01:09 PM	#325
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A little more decorum and less personal abuse, please

05-21-2013, 02:30 PM	#326
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	The Pauline letters could have been produced in any number of ways; via any amount of editing with reference to each other, or with reference to other writers or their experiences. The Pauline documents are without a historical basis other than the fact they exist in the christian Bible.

05-21-2013, 05:45 PM	#329
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is most amusing that so-called Scholars and Experts write books for the ordinary non-experts to read and to accept their arguments about Jesus but still think that they have no ability to point out their errors. If non-experts have no ability to comprehend experts then why do they write books ? Now, it is well known universally that ordinary people can examine written statements, examine evidence and draw conclusions that are completely reasonable. We have thousands of texts about a Jesus Christ of Nazareth born of a Ghost perhaps far more than any other character real or imagined. It is claimed that Jesus was born of a Ghost, baptized by John, did miracles in Galilee, crucified under Pilate and Resurrected in Jerusalem in antiquity in hundreds of Apologetic writings dated as early as the 2nd century. If Jesus did exist, whether or not he actually did miracles, he was WELL-KNOWN based on the stories in and out the Canon. In the earliest stories, Jesus had thousands of people following him during the time of Pilate. For example, even if Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King did no miracles they were all WELL-KNOWN. But, there are massive problems for the Jesus character. We cannot find Jesus of Nazareth and his thousands of followers in the 1st century. They all vanished without a trace. All we have left are hundreds upon hundreds of Forgeries or Falsely Attributed Texts under the name of the disciples of Jesus including one called the Apostle Paul written Hundreds of years after the time period of the story. By c 62 CE Jesus Christ of Nazareth was supposed to be a household name in the Roman Empire-- the NEW GOD. Paul was so fascinated by Jesus that he claimed Jesus Christ was God's Own Son and was EQUAL to God. Not one convert of Paul is recorded in non-Apologetic writings. Not one non-apologetic writer argued Against Paul. The argument that the Pauline writings were early cannot be maintained. There were NO Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century in or out Jerusalem. The NT Canon is nothing but a compilation of Myth Fables with the propaganda that the Evil Jews delivered up Jesus the Son of God to be crucified even though he did nothing wrong. All the recovered and dated evidence today do NOT, I repeat, do NOT corroborate the Canon. The inclusion of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings in the Canon have destroyed any claim for early Jesus cult Christians since before c 70 CE based on non-apologetic writings like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.