• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Historical Jesus II

Status
Not open for further replies.
God is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Son was God and God is a Ghost.

Jesus of NAZARETH is ONE and the same substance as God and the Ghost.

The TRINITY is a stupid Ghost/God/Jesus doctrine --NOT history.
The Trinity is not history, dejudge. The Trinity is not geography. Do you know what else it's not? It's not mathematics! You can't say: Jesus is God. The Ghost is God. Therefore Jesus is a Ghost. The Church doesn't say that. It says the opposite. If you've got problems tell the Pope. Not me.

The Pope is a human being. You are a human being. Therefore you are the Pope. So you can ask yourself.
 
What about "Richard Carrier says Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh"? You missed that argument.

Considering the John Frum-Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh connection has formally been known since the 1950s this is a clear attempt at dodging the point.

To date you haven't addressed Worsley, IC Jarvie, Derrett, or James Crossley who are all Anthropologists who also saw similarities between Early Christianity and the Cargo Cults.

Sylvia Lettice Thrupp in 1970 "Millennial Dreams in Action" described a variant Cargo Cult where "There will be a Great Night, after which Jesus will arrive with the Ancestors and with a supply of merchandise."

"But, Sam, it is nineteen years since John say that the cargowill come. He promise and he promise, but still the cargo does not come. Isn't nineteen years a long time to wait?'

Sam lifted his eyes from the ground and looked at me. 'If you can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ to come an' 'e no come, then I can wait more than nineteen years for John." - Royston Pike (1966) The strange ways of man

"If so many ' cargo cults ' have assimilated Christian millenarist ideas, it is because the natives have rediscovered in Christianity their old traditional eschatological myth." - 1964 Oceania - Volume 34

How about actually addressing the point rather then shoving out snarky comments about Carrier?
 
Last edited:
Considering the John Frum-Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh connection has formally been known since the 1950s this is a clear attempt at dodging the point.

To date you haven't addressed Worsley, IC Jarvie, Derrett, or James Crossley who are all Anthropologists who also saw similarities between Early Christianity and the Cargo Cults.

Sylvia Lettice Thrupp in 1970 "Millennial Dreams in Action" described a variant Cargo Cult where "There will be a Great Night, after which Jesus will arrive with the Ancestors and with a supply of merchandise."

"But, Sam, it is nineteen years since John say that the cargowill come. He promise and he promise, but still the cargo does not come. Isn't nineteen years a long time to wait?'

Sam lifted his eyes from the ground and looked at me. 'If you can wait two thousand years for Jesus Christ to come an' 'e no come, then I can wait more than nineteen years for John." - Royston Pike (1966) The strange ways of man

"If so many ' cargo cults ' have assimilated Christian millenarist ideas, it is because the natives have rediscovered in Christianity their old traditional eschatological myth." - 1964 Oceania - Volume 34

How about actually addressing the point rather then shoving out snarky comments about Carrier?

This John Frum argument boils down to this: No one can find a specific historical individual named "John Frum", therefore there was never a "John Frum". If there was never a "John Frum", there also was never a "Jesus".

It is useless. The existence or not of John Frum says nothing about a possible Historical Jesus. If early Christianity was like the cargo cults, Jesus would have been a Roman soldier, not a poor Jew from Galilee. He certainly wouldn't have had a Jewish brother called "James" running his organisation in Jerusalem after he died.

It may be that "John Frum" was an invention of the Islanders, or maybe he was one of the US Servicemen who organised the building of airstrips during the war. But none of that is really comparable to what was happening in Judea before the Jewish revolt.
 
Considering the John Frum-Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh connection has formally been known since the 1950s this is a clear attempt at dodging the point.
I have stated the point. All you do is say, John Frum. Or John Frum and Ned Ludd. Or Carrier says ...

My point is that saying John Frum proves very little, except that imaginary people can be invented, which we know. The situation with regard to Melanesia and Judaea are so different that no conclusions can safely be drawn from a comparison.

Moreover, Christianity is not a cargo cult.
 
Craig said:
By pagans, not by Philo the Jew

Craig, in my opinion, you misunderstood my point in mentioning Philo and Herakles.

I was not seeking to persuade you or anyone else, that Philo believed this or that about anything.

I sought, and evidently failed, to persuade you that the quantity of attestations regarding the existence of a person or his reputed meritorious deeds does not affirm that individual's historicity.

It is not WHAT Philo wrote about Herakles, that is important, nor what Philo believed about the supposed divinity of that demigod, but rather the fact that Philo is a genuine person, writing about a fictitious character, as though he had been real.

It is of no importance whether you or I or anyone else believes that text shows about Philo's opinion of Herakles, for that is not the issue here.

The point I sought to make, and clearly failed to accomplish, was that the evidence pointing to a genuine person called Herakles, is of the same sort, same character, same quality, same ambiguity, same imprecision, same inutility as the letter from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Tiberius.

I did not ask you to affirm or reject the content of Philo's letter. I asked you to affirm its existence, and to contrast, if possible, that letter to a Roman emperor, with Pliny the Younger's letter to a Roman Emperor, concerning "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Chrestians", or whatever it is that he wrote. Both letters cite, apparently, (I haven't read the Pliny letter, it is in Latin I suppose), demigods, as if they had been living humans. Then, why should we give any credence to either letter's claim regarding those fictional characters?
 
Thanks, but no thanks....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger#Epistle_concerning_the_Christian_Religion
In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Giocondo
As a young priest, Friar Giovanni was a learned archaeologist and a superb draughtsman. He visited Rome, sketched its ancient buildings, wrote the story of its great monuments, and recorded, deciphered and explained many defaced inscriptions. He stimulated the revival of classical learning by making transcriptions of ancient manuscripts, one of which, completed in 1492, he presented to Lorenzo de' Medici.

Well, that's interesting. Let me rewrite that, in English of today. During the worst phase of the Inquisition, when the Catholics were murdering Jan Hus and Michael Servetus, as "heretics", an Italian priest, renowned as a "superb draughtsman", instructor of Latin and Greek, who deciphered, and "explained" defaced inscriptions, made a "transcription" of an ancient manuscript, and subsequently "discovered" this Latin text from Pliny in France, where Trajan lived.
 
The point I sought to make, and clearly failed to accomplish, was that the evidence pointing to a genuine person called Herakles, is of the same sort, same character, same quality, same ambiguity, same imprecision, same inutility as the letter from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Tiberius.
I don't agree. The character of the references is obviously important. If a work purports to be fiction, or purports to be an account of the insanity of a deranged ruler's imagination, the reality of things noted in such works is neither here nor there. They can be ignored as evidence.

(Here's the Pliny letter translated, and Trajan's reply.
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

You may see that it in no way resembles, as regards character, either Philo's references to the divine pretensions of Gaius, or the fictional characters in the Count of Monte Christo. With regard to Philo, you should have read also part XIII
But the madness and frenzy to which he gave way were so preposterous, and so utterly insane, that he went even beyond the demigods, and mounted up to and invaded the veneration and worship paid to those who are looked upon
by pagans like Gaius, not by Jews like Philo
as greater than they, as the supreme deities of the world, Mercury, and Apollo, and Mars. And first of all he dressed himself up with the caduceus, and sandals, and mantle of Mercury, exhibiting a regularity in his disorder, a consistency in his confusion, and a ratiocination in his insanity.
The hypothesis that pagan gods exist receives no support from Philo's writings. And your other example is intended as pure fiction of course.

But the gospels are in a different genre, are they not? Here's Luke.
1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Against the opinion of dejudge I assert that they were not composed as fiction. Thus, they may contain some real historical data, overlaid with material derived from the OT, and inserted as soon as people concluded that Jesus was the Messiah.

But some other of the material fits ill with the messianic claims. A baptised Messiah? An executed messiah? Where did this stuff come from?
 
The Trinity is not history, dejudge. The Trinity is not geography. Do you know what else it's not? It's not mathematics! You can't say: Jesus is God. The Ghost is God. Therefore Jesus is a Ghost. The Church doesn't say that. It says the opposite. If you've got problems tell the Pope. Not me.

The Pope is a human being. You are a human being. Therefore you are the Pope. So you can ask yourself.

You attempted to trick me. Your farce has been exposed.

You did NOT present the doctrine of the Trinity but an explanation of the DIAGRAM of the SHIELD of the TRINITY.

The explanation of the LATE MEDIEVAL Shield of the Trinity is complete stupidity and at EVERY level.

It is totally impossible to use a "VISUAL" symbol to explain Ghosts and Gods.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

The Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei is a traditional Christian visual symbol which expresses many aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity, summarizing the first part of the Athanasian Creed in a compact diagram. In late medieval England and France, this emblem was considered to be the heraldic arms of God (and of the Trinity).

The 13th century Shield of the Trinity is irreconcilable contradictory stupidity void of all logic and reason.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity


The Shield of the Trinity is not generally intended to be any kind of schematic diagram of the structure of God, but instead is merely a compact visual device from which the above statements (contained in or implied by the Athanasian Creed) can be read off.


What utter nonsensical diagram!!

The Shield of the Trinity is pure irreconcilable contradictory LATE MEDIEVAL idiocy.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

The particular phrase "Shield of the Trinity", which is now the most common name for the diagram in English, didn't come into regular use until the 20th century.

Jesus of Nazareth is just a Ghost story.

People of antiquity actually believed the Holy Ghost was a REAL PERSON.

People of antiquity actually believed the Holy Ghost was a figure of history.

People of antiquity actually believed the Holy Ghost was God.

That is why the NT states Jesus of the Nazareth was the Son of the Holy Ghost.

That is why we have the doctrine of the TRINITY.

The HOLY Ghost is GOD and Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus of Nazareth is the product of a Holy Ghost .

Virtually ALL Christian writers of antiquity ADMITTED their Jesus was Born of the GHOST and was God.

The irreconcilable and contradictory explanation of the DIAGRAM of the Shield of the Trinity is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any history up to at least the 13th century.
 
Last edited:
You attempted to trick me. Your farce has been exposed.

You did NOT present the doctrine of the Trinity but an explanation of the DIAGRAM of the SHIELD of the TRINITY.
No, dejudge, that silly shield really represents the doctrine as expounded by the Church.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons ... Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?
No not that, and not just Jesus sometimes being a Ghost and sometimes being a Man and sometimes being a God either.
The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.
That's what Christians say, so the shield does reflect the doctrine.
 
Well, that's interesting. Let me rewrite that, in English of today. During the worst phase of the Inquisition, when the Catholics were murdering Jan Hus and Michael Servetus, as "heretics", an Italian priest, renowned as a "superb draughtsman", instructor of Latin and Greek, who deciphered, and "explained" defaced inscriptions, made a "transcription" of an ancient manuscript, and subsequently "discovered" this Latin text from Pliny in France, where Trajan lived.
I missed this post of yours. I have seen errors in your posts before, but I can't let this one go. It wasn't Catholics who murdered Servetus. It was John Calvin. But Catholics did their fair share of murdering, including of course Jan Hus. And they would have murdered Servetus too, if Calvin hadn't got him first.

Explain to me how the murder of Jan Hus would prevent a scholar from finding and copying letters from Pliny and Trajan. Here's a history of the mss of Pliny the Younger. I had already looked at it. Nothing particularly remarkable about it. These letters seem to be generally accepted by the scholarly world as authentic, despite the Inquisition, and Calvin bumping people off in Geneva.
New Testament critic Hermann Detering has questioned the authenticity of Book 10, a position that has not found acceptance within the mainstream scholarly community.

As I've pointed out to dejudge, the earliest extant ms of Caesar's Gallic War is mediaeval; and Tacitus and Lucretius survived in single copies if I remember correctly. Many or most ancient writers have been entirely lost.
 
Craig B said:
As I've pointed out to dejudge, the earliest extant ms of Caesar's Gallic War is mediaeval; and Tacitus and Lucretius survived in single copies if I remember correctly. Many or most ancient writers have been entirely lost.
And, add Justin Martyr's three extant works to that list of single manuscripts emerging from an Italian monastery in the middle ages.
Craig B said:
I missed this post of yours. I have seen errors in your posts before, but I can't let this one go. It wasn't Catholics who murdered Servetus. It was John Calvin. But Catholics did their fair share of murdering, including of course Jan Hus. And they would have murdered Servetus too, if Calvin hadn't got him first.
Yes, Craig, You are correct, Calvin and Luther agreed to burn, the scientist and Christian scholar, Michael Servetus, (former instructor of medicine at University of Paris, first person in the west at least, to publish an account of the pulmonary circulation), at the stake, in Geneva, where he had fled from persecution by the Catholics in France. He had sought refuge in Switzerland, to avoid being burned alive as an heretic, a result of the warrant for his execution signed by the Catholic Inquisition. Calvin and Luther beat them to it. Some master criminals just need to burn, and be done with it.

His "crime" had been inclusion in his publication, an essay criticizing the Christian practice of infant baptism, as contrary to the Greek gospels, and the notion of trinitarianism, as hostile to the ancient Hebrew texts. Servetus, a Spaniard, was fluent in both Greek and Hebrew. I have long suspected that he had also known of the famous texts of Avicenna and the other Arabic medical pioneers, and therefore knew, before traveling to University of Paris, about the pulmonary circulation, from having read the original texts in Arabic, but that is just a guess on my part.

The issue, however, is not whether the Pliny letters are genuine, or fabricated. I don't know the answer. I don't know whether or not Tertullian's reference to them, is genuine, or also fabricated? My prejudice is to view the entire lot as having been forged, but, for sake of argument, let us accept your idea, that the letters of Pliny are all, 100% legitimate.

Pliny, let us say, met some Christians, not chrestians, and then Pliny witnessed first hand their devotion to a man who had been executed by Pontius Pilate, and whose title had been "Christ". Let us say, these earliest Christians chose martyrdom, and torture, rather than abandon their "Christ".

(I don't believe it, but, for sake of discussion, let's suppose this were correct.)

That "fact", in no way, changes Jesus' parentage, nor his DNA. Pliny doesn't comment on the man, these "Christians" worship as a deity.

Philo openly proclaims that Herakles is a demigod, in his letter to Caligula. How is that any different than the parentage of this deity, worshipped by the folks Pliny describes?

The issue, here, is not genuineness or fraudulence of the extant manuscripts, because for sure, we don't have the originals, so we can only offer opinions on that point. However, in the case of Jesus, presumably the "Christ" mentioned by Pliny, we know his parentage, don't we Craig? The teenager, Mary, was "visited" by the "holy spirit", and he impregnated her, and her son was born, "according to the law", i.e. 9 months later, thus making Jesus, like Herakles, a demigod, whose paternal DNA is supernatural. That is the sole significance of the Pliny letters, attesting to the belief of people living in modern day Turkey, where he worked as Roman governor of the province, in the divinity of a man called "Christ", or, since those folks spoke Greek, Mr. oily.
 
This John Frum argument boils down to this: No one can find a specific historical individual named "John Frum", therefore there was never a "John Frum". If there was never a "John Frum", there also was never a "Jesus".

No it doesn't.

The John Frum argument really boils down to the movement cannot be traced back to a definitive founder even though that founder supposedly existed within living memory. More over John Frum became the brother of a man who only has sisters.

Ned Ludd similarly is a trip to nowhere...you get only so far and then it is brick wall time. The idea that these people could have exited and not a single person wrote anything about them for at least 20 years is insane.
 
dejudge said:
You attempted to trick me. Your farce has been exposed.

You did NOT present the doctrine of the Trinity but an explanation of the DIAGRAM of the SHIELD of the TRINITY.
Craig B said:
No, dejudge, that silly shield really represents the doctrine as expounded by the Church.

You write fiction.

The explanation you posted is specifically and directly for the LATE MEDIEVAL DIAGRAM of the Shield of the Trinity.

The explanation you posted is utter irreconcilable illogical nonsense about Ghosts and Gods.

The Diagram of the Shield of the Trinity is total stupidity at any level.

Craig B said:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons ... Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The Father, the Son and the Ghost are ONE and the same substance in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, the Son and the Ghost are ONE God in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, the Son and the Ghost are INDIVISIBLE in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

1. Augustine of Hippo "On the Holy Trinity---therefore they are not three Gods, but one God.

2. Thaumaturgus "On the Trinity"---All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity.

3. Gregory of Nyssa "On the Holy Trinity"-----the identity of operation in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shows plainly the undistinguishable character of their substance.

Your posted explanation of the 12th or 13th century Diagram of the Shield of the Trinity is hopelessly void of logic, history, maths and theology.

In other words, your posted explanation for the Diagram of the Shield of the Trinity does NOT add up.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a Ghost/God story up to at least the 13th century Diagram of the Shield of the Trinity.

The Son is God, the Father is God and the Holy Ghost is God .

The Son, the Father and the Ghost are ONE and the same.

Your posted diagram of the 12th or 13th century Shield of the Trinity is TOTAL illogical nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Craig, You are correct, Calvin and Luther agreed to burn, the scientist and Christian scholar, Michael Servetus ... the warrant for his execution signed by the Catholic Inquisition. Calvin and Luther beat them to it. Some master criminals just need to burn, and be done with it.
Luther's got an alibi. He died in 1546. Servetus was burned in 1553.
Philo openly proclaims that Herakles is a demigod, in his letter to Caligula. How is that any different than the parentage of this deity, worshipped by the folks Pliny describes?
I have stressed the importance of the character and purpose of any text adduced as evidence of anything. The Count of Monte Christo is a novel. It was written as fiction and its readers are aware of this, and do not believe in the historical accuracy of the tale it tells.

Philo did not write a letter TO Caligula. He did not describe that ruler's insanity and crimes in a letter TO him. Philo did not say TO him that
But the madness and frenzy to which he gave way were so preposterous, and so utterly insane ...
Indeed I think it is recorded that when in the Emperor's presence he said something disparaging, he did so in Aramaic rather than Greek, so as not to be understood.

But in any event he is simply describing the extravagances of another person's imaginary religious world. It is a description of somebody dressing up in god costume and pretending or hallucinating a divine character.

Luke claims to be describing events which occurred in the recent past.
1:3 ... I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
We must consider the character of the text. I don't think you attach enough significance to the difference between an avowed (even if not accurate) history, on one hand, and an avowed fiction, or a description of insanity, on the other.
The issue, here, is not genuineness or fraudulence of the extant manuscripts, because for sure, we don't have the originals, so we can only offer opinions on that point. However, in the case of Jesus, presumably the "Christ" mentioned by Pliny, we know his parentage, don't we Craig? The teenager, Mary, was "visited" by the "holy spirit", and he impregnated her, and her son was born, "according to the law"
This is a muddle. The expression "according to the law" (NIV) occurs in the NT only once, in Acts 23:3, in the context of Paul's trial before the Sanhedrin. Perhaps you mean Galatians 4:4
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law

Paul, however, knows nothing of any virgin birth. He doesn't mean anything about divine DNA. To him Son of God is a messianic designation, as I have argued lots of times, using Psalms 2 and other sources as evidence. Whether that be right or wrong, the virgin story appears only in Matthew and Luke, and the two versions are so contradictory that they are evident additions independently inspired by a misreading of Isaiah 7:14.

So if we do know his parentage, he was the son of a carpenter, as Mark tells us. The son of Joseph as John tells us twice. gMark and gJohn, like Paul (whom you unwarrantedly involve in the virgin birth myth) in fact know and say nothing about the circumstances of Jesus birth. Neither do any of the other Epistles or Revelation. We can easily identify the Bethlehem story as an addition, and we know why it was put there.

Be it noted, that Pliny refers to
Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years.
If accurate, that chronology indicates the early appearance of the religion, and calls for an explanation of its origin in a historical period close to the time traditionally given as the lifetime of Jesus.
 
Ned Ludd similarly is a trip to nowhere...you get only so far and then it is brick wall time. The idea that these people could have exited and not a single person wrote anything about them for at least 20 years is insane.
Good. You are getting the point. It is insane in the eighteenth or twentieth centuries. It is NOT insane as regards first century Judaea, that no such account was written, or if one was written, that it did not survive the utter destruction of that country that occurred a few decades later.

That is why repeated invocations of John Frum or the Duke of Edinburgh prove nothing at all as regards HJ.
 
Last edited:
...Paul, however, knows nothing of any virgin birth.

Paul knows NOTHING of Mary, Joseph and Nazareth.

Paul wrote that the Parents of Jesus were God and a woman.

Craig B said:
...the virgin story appears only in Matthew and Luke, and the two versions are so contradictory that they are evident additions independently inspired by a misreading of Isaiah 7:14

Well, well, well!!! What a big joke!! Mary and Joseph are additions inspired by mis-reading of Isaiah 14.

The Pauline writers knew NOTHING of Joseph, Mary and Nazareth.

Craig B said:
So if we do know his parentage, he was the son of a carpenter, as Mark tells us.

Paul knows NOTHING of a carpenter's son called Jesus.

Only in gMark there is a question about Jesus as the son of a carpenter.

The question about Jesus as the son of the carpenter is an addition.

Craig B said:
We can easily identify the Bethlehem story as an addition, and we know why it was put there.

Paul knows NOTHING of Nazareth.

We can easily identify Nazareth as an addition and why it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.



The entire Pauline Corpus is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

If Jesus was a mere man and an obscure preacher who NEVER resurrected then the existing Pauline Corpus are NOT historically credible.

If Paul was an Heretic and preached that Jesus did NOT resurrect and was NOT God of God then the existing Pauline Corpus is a compilation of forgeries or false attribution.

1. There are NO manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus dated to pre 70 CE.

2. There are NO manuscripts written by Paul if Paul lived and died in the 1st century.

3. The Pauline Corpus accounts of Jesus in the Pauline Corpus are NOT credible

4. In Galatians 4.4 the parents of Jesus are God and a woman.

5. In Galatians 1 Jesus of Paul is NOT a man.

6. In 1 Corinthians 15 Jesus is the Lord from heaven.

7. 1n 1 Corinthians 15 Jesus is a Spirit.

8. In Romans Jesus is God's own Son.

9. In Colossians Jesus is God Creator.

10.In ALL THE PAULINE Corpus Jesus is GOD.

The NT and the Pauline Corpus are in agreement with the CREED of the Church that Jesus is God of God and born of a Ghost.
 
Last edited:
Paul knows NOTHING of Mary, Joseph and Nazareth. ...
The Pauline writers knew NOTHING of Joseph, Mary and Nazareth ...
Paul knows NOTHING of Nazareth ...
We can easily identify Nazareth as an addition and why it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth ...
Who mentioned Nazareth? What new absurdities are you cooking up, dejudge? Time will tell!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom