The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

Some of the images your posts conjure UP are very striking, dejudge. Hordes of liars (madmen and PERJURERS too, you forgot to add) all wandering ABOUT later than the second century, EACH one claiming to be Paul, and all SPOUTING monstrous blatant fiction.

Robert Price raises a question similar to the one I brought up:

"Had Paul known of the teaching of Jesus, why did he not quote it when it would have settled this and that controversial question (e.g., paying Roman taxes, celibacy for the Kingdom, congregational discipline)? Why does he seem to refer to occasional “commands of the Lord” in a manner so vague as to suggest charismatic revelations to himself? Why does he never men- tion Jesus having healed the sick or done miracles? How can he say the Roman Empire never punishes the righteous, only the wicked?" - The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems

He goes into further detail:

"Wells reasons that, if the writers of the New Testament epistles had access to anything like the sayings tradition of the Synoptics, they must surely have cited them when the same subjects came up in the situations they addressed. Is celibacy at issue (1 Corinthians 7:7, 25-35)? Why not quote Matthew 19:11-12? Tax-evasion (Romans 13:6)? Mark 12:17 would surely come in handy. Dietary laws (Romans 14:1-4; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2:20-21) in contention? Mark 7:15 would made short work of that. Controversy over circumcision (Romans 3:1; Galatians 5:1-12)? Thomas 53 ought to settle that one fast. On the other hand, if there were originally no dominical sayings to settle the question, it is not hard to imagine that soon people would be coining them (as they still do today in illiterate congregations where debaters try to gain points by pulling a Jesus saying or a Bible verse out of their imaginations. No one can check to prove them wrong!)"

 

[IanS]

Again, you repeat STRAWMAN accusations.

You have UTTERLY FAILED to show that I have accused you of anything in post #229 which was a RESPONSE to an excerpt of your post #228.

I ASKED you QUESTIONS and made statements about Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Please, identify what I accused you of.

On the contrary - I have shown very clearly where you replied to me as if accusing me of both the statements that I just asked you to quote, and which you are completely unable to quote ... because I had never said any such thing.

You made a very direct reply to my posts quoting part of it and saying this to me -


1. "We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later."

2. "There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate."


Why did you reply addressing me with those two statements? Where do you think my post said anything different to that?

If you were not accusing me of saying anything at all different to 1 and 2, then why did you reply to me as if had ever said anything different to 1 & 2?

 

[dejudge]

Robert Price raises a question similar to the one I brought up:

"Had Paul known of the teaching of Jesus, why did he not quote it when it would have settled this and that controversial question (e.g., paying Roman taxes, celibacy for the Kingdom, congregational discipline)? Why does he seem to refer to occasional “commands of the Lord” in a manner so vague as to suggest charismatic revelations to himself? Why does he never men- tion Jesus having healed the sick or done miracles? How can he say the Roman Empire never punishes the righteous, only the wicked?" - The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems

He goes into further detail:

"Wells reasons that, if the writers of the New Testament epistles had access to anything like the sayings tradition of the Synoptics, they must surely have cited them when the same subjects came up in the situations they addressed. Is celibacy at issue (1 Corinthians 7:7, 25-35)? Why not quote Matthew 19:11-12? Tax-evasion (Romans 13:6)? Mark 12:17 would surely come in handy. Dietary laws (Romans 14:1-4; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2:20-21) in contention? Mark 7:15 would made short work of that. Controversy over circumcision (Romans 3:1; Galatians 5:1-12)? Thomas 53 ought to settle that one fast. On the other hand, if there were originally no dominical sayings to settle the question, it is not hard to imagine that soon people would be coining them (as they still do today in illiterate congregations where debaters try to gain points by pulling a Jesus saying or a Bible verse out of their imaginations. No one can check to prove them wrong!)"

Had the author of Acts known of the Pauline teachings why didn't he use them? The author of Acts mentioned Paul over a hundred times but not one verse from a letter under the name of Paul.

Had the author of the short gMark known of the Pauline post-resurrection narratives and commission to preach the Gospel why didn't he use them?

The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told that Jesus was resurrected by the visitors to the empty tomb and make no mention that OVER 500 persons were seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Had the authors of the General Epistles known of the Pauline Revealed Gospel why didn't they use it?

The author the Epistle of James claimed "Faith without Works is dead" which contradicts the Pauline Corpus and mentioned nothing about the miracles of Jesus [ just like ALL ESPISTLES in the NT Canon].

It can be easily shown that EPISTLES in the NT Canon are NOT "biographical" accounts of the Jesus character [the Lord from heaven] but deal specifically with doctrine or teachings of the Church.

The miracles of Jesus in the Gospels are MISSING in ALL EPISTLES whether or not they were assumed to be earlier or later than the Gospels.

In any event, Acts of the Apostles supposedly is an account of the activities of the Apostles and Paul.

Acts of the Apostles does not mention the acts of Paul where he wrote Epistles to Churches or Pastorals.

Acts of the Apostles claimed Paul Preached the Gospel around the Roman Empire but did NOT acknowledge a single ACT of writing letters by Paul.

Saul/Paul is NOT a letter writer in Acts.

The Pauline Corpus was INVENTED AFTER Acts of the Apostles or no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" c 175 CE.

 

[dejudge]

On the contrary - I have shown very clearly where you replied to me as if accusing me of both the statements that I just asked you to quote, and which you are completely unable to quote ... because I had never said any such thing.

You made a very direct reply to my posts quoting part of it and saying this to me -


1. "We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later."

2. "There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate."


Why did you reply addressing me with those two statements? Where do you think my post said anything different to that?

If you were not accusing me of saying anything at all different to 1 and 2, then why did you reply to me as if had ever said anything different to 1 & 2?

You have now exposed your fallacious claims. You seem not to know the difference between "facts" and "accusations".

I HAVE STATED THE FACTS FROM ANTIQUITY.


1."We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later."

2. "There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate."


Let me state some more FACTS.

Writings of antiquity do NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Based on writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus and Arnobius if we could go back in time we would not find Paul PREACHING the Gospel to the world.

Based on Hierocles, Julian and Macarius Magnes if we could go back in time we would find men who were LIARS like Paul and Peter fabricating stories of Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.

 

[maximara]

Had the author of Acts known of the Pauline teachings why didn't he use them? The author of Acts mentioned Paul over a hundred times but not one verse from a letter under the name of Paul.

How many works on the Civil War directly quote from Ulysses S. Grant memoirs? Same situation.

Had the author of the short gMark known of the Pauline post-resurrection narratives and commission to preach the Gospel why didn't he use them?

The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told that Jesus was resurrected by the visitors to the empty tomb and make no mention that OVER 500 persons were seen of the resurrected Jesus.

We must remember that our oldest versions of gMark end at Mark 16:8 and the logic here is a little wonky. Ok I can understand being afraid of some weirdo dressed in white who likes hanging out in tombs but not to tell anyone? Of course they come to the tomb to anoint the body without any idea on how to move the stone so we are not exactly dealing with the sharpest knives in the shed here.

The author the Epistle of James claimed "Faith without Works is dead" which contradicts the Pauline Corpus and mentioned nothing about the miracles of Jesus [ just like ALL ESPISTLES in the NT Canon].

No surprise there given how fragmented Christianity is known to have been. As I have said before what we have is one sect grabbing from several others and trying to hammer what they have into a cohesive narrative.

The Pauline Corpus was INVENTED AFTER Acts of the Apostles or no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" c 175 CE.

This is nonsense because the Apostolikon (10 of the "Pauline" epistles) existed c140 CE

 

[IanS]

You have now exposed your fallacious claims. You seem not to know the difference between "facts" and "accusations".

I HAVE STATED THE FACTS FROM ANTIQUITY.


1."We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later."

2. "There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate."


Let me state some more FACTS.

Writings of antiquity do NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Based on writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus and Arnobius if we could go back in time we would not find Paul PREACHING the Gospel to the world.

Based on Hierocles, Julian and Macarius Magnes if we could go back in time we would find men who were LIARS like Paul and Peter fabricating stories of Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.

OK, here is your entire post #229 (the post we are in disagreement about) -

So I think it probably is true to say that if any of us could travel back to the time when Paul and others were preaching their messiah beliefs, we would find almost unimaginable levels of ignorance and superstition amongst almost all of the people almost all of the time.

Paul??? Which Paul are you talking about?? The Paul who WITNESSED that God raised Jesus from the dead?? The Paul who wrote the Pastorals to Timothy??

The Pauline Corpus contains unimaginable levels of forgeries or false attribution, fiction, mythology, ignorance and superstition.

The Pauline Corpus was composed by a GROUP of persons or a Church Falsely claiming to be a single character called "Paul"

The Pauline Corpus is NOT history.

If any of us could travel back in time we would not find any characters called Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus and the twelve disciples of Galilee.

We would probably find Valentinus, Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, Carpocrates, Menander, Simon Magus and other so-called Heretics.

In your quoted reply (it's directly above) you are most definitely disputing the post that you quote from me. You begin by emphatically disputing my use of the name "Paul", incredulously putting not one, but three question marks against it ...

1. "Paul???"

... then you immediately follow that up by incredulously asking (as if I had said anything different) -

2. "Which Paul ??"

And then further disputing it for a third time with -

3. "The Paul who WITNESSED that God raised Jesus from the dead??"

And then even further disputing it for a fourth time with -

4. "The Paul who wrote the Pastorals to Timothy?? "


And then you write a second reply #232 disputing it even further by saying this -

Who was "whoever"?

When did "whoever" actually live?

When did "whoever" actually preach?

We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later.

The time period for Papyri 4 [gLuke], Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] , Papyri 46 [the Pauline Corpus] is c175-225 CE---not 100 BCE.

There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate.

In that post you are continuing to dispute what my posts #228 & #231 had said by further incredulously and insistently asking me -

5. "Who was "whoever"?"

6. "When did "whoever" actually live?"

7th time - "When did "whoever" actually preach?"

And to emphasise your dispute and disagreement with my posts #228 & #231, you make these two insistent claims opposing what my posts #228 & #231 had said -

A. "We have writings under the name of Paul and writings called gLuke and gJohn but they are dated to a time period in the 2nd century or later."
B. "There is simply no corroborative evidence from antiquity] to show that Jesus and Paul were figures of history in the time of Pilate."

OK, so for the third time - you are most definitely writing there to dispute my posts #228 and #231, so if you think my posts said anything different from A and B (directly highlighted above) - please quote from any of my posts where they ever disputed either A or B ...

... just quote where any of my posts ever said anything disputing either A or B.

Can you quote that from my posts? Yes or No?

 

[dejudge]

Had the author of Acts known of the Pauline teachings why didn't he use them? The author of Acts mentioned Paul over a hundred times but not one verse from a letter under the name of Paul.

How many works on the Civil War directly quote from Ulysses S. Grant memoirs? Same situation.

Your statement is not logical and without evidence. You cannot present a shred of credible historical data to support the ASSUMPTION of the historicity of Paul but there is historical data for Ulysses S Grant.

Had the author of the short gMark known of the Pauline post-resurrection narratives and commission to preach the Gospel why didn't he use them?

The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told that Jesus was resurrected by the visitors to the empty tomb and make no mention that OVER 500 persons were seen of the resurrected Jesus.

We must remember that our oldest versions of gMark end at Mark 16:8 and the logic here is a little wonky. Ok I can understand being afraid of some weirdo dressed in white who likes hanging out in tombs but not to tell anyone? Of course they come to the tomb to anoint the body without any idea on how to move the stone so we are not exactly dealing with the sharpest knives in the shed here.

Your response is bizarre. You have utterly failed to show that the author of gMark knew of the post-resurrection narrative in the Pauline Corpus where it is claimed OVER 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

The author the Epistle of James claimed "Faith without Works is dead" which contradicts the Pauline Corpus and mentioned nothing about the miracles of Jesus [ just like ALL ESPISTLES in the NT Canon].

No surprise there given how fragmented Christianity is known to have been. As I have said before what we have is one sect grabbing from several others and trying to hammer what they have into a cohesive narrative.

Again, you have failed to show that the Pauline Corpus was known to the author of the James Epistle.

The author of the James Epistle did not HAMMER a single verse from the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus was INVENTED AFTER Acts of the Apostles or no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" c 175 CE.

This is nonsense because the Apostolikon (10 of the "Pauline" epistles) existed c140 CE

Your ASSUMED NONSENSE is void of evidence.

The same source which mentions the Apostolikon is the very same source which provided ALL BOGUS authors of the NT.


Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies" states that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but the writings of EMPEDOCLES.

In addition, Ephraem's "Against Marcion" shows that Marcion knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus which corroborates the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon by Marcion in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon by Marcion in "Refutation Against All Herersies" attributed to Hippolytus.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon in "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage and was FABRICATED by a GROUP to FALSELY give primacy to the Church over the so-called Heretics.

The writings and teachings of the so-called Heretics most likely PREDATED the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

Essentially, the Pauline Corpus contains the LAST version of the FICTIONAL Jesus story in the NT.

 

[IanS]

Your statement is not logical and without evidence. You cannot present a shred of credible historical data to support the ASSUMPTION of the historicity of Paul but there is historical data for Ulysses S Grant.


Your response is bizarre. You have utterly failed to show that the author of gMark knew of the post-resurrection narrative in the Pauline Corpus where it is claimed OVER 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.


Again, you have failed to show that the Pauline Corpus was known to the author of the James Epistle.

The author of the James Epistle did not HAMMER a single verse from the Pauline Corpus.

Your ASSUMED NONSENSE is void of evidence.

The same source which mentions the Apostolikon is the very same source which provided ALL BOGUS authors of the NT.

Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies" states that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but the writings of EMPEDOCLES.

In addition, Ephraem's "Against Marcion" shows that Marcion knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus which corroborates the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon by Marcion in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon by Marcion in "Refutation Against All Herersies" attributed to Hippolytus.

There is no mention of an Apostolikon in "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage and was FABRICATED by a GROUP to FALSELY give primacy to the Church over the so-called Heretics.

The writings and teachings of the so-called Heretics most likely PREDATED the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

Essentially, the Pauline Corpus contains the LAST version of the FICTIONAL Jesus story in the NT.

Dejudge - as far as the existence of Jesus is concerned (which is the actual subject of this thread), does it really matter whether or not Paul was a real person?

The fact is, someone who did exist, did write the letters that we now have under the name "Paul".

What matters most about those letters is surely not who the real writer (or writer's) was/were, but what the letters say about the writers messiah beliefs.

And what they say about that, is that the writers messiah beliefs came from scripture and from divine revelation, not through the writer ever meeting any human Jesus, and nor through the writing saying he ever met anyone else who claimed to have ever met a human Jesus.

IOW - some person or persons really did write those letters at that time, regardless of whether the writers name was "Paul" or anyone else. But whoever the writer was, those letters contain no evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone. They only contain the writers faith beliefs in a messiah foretold in scripture and revealed by heavenly messages from Yahweh.

 

[Stone]

Your post is utter strawman nonsense!!! You are not credible. Your post is totally fallacious. You have NOTHING to contribute in the HJ argument but "name calling".

You had the simplest of simplest tasks--present credible historical data for the HJ argument.

And what the hell is this?! --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10559502&postcount=148

JESUS H. CHRIST! (to coin a phrase........)

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge - as far as the existence of Jesus is concerned (which is the actual subject of this thread), does it really matter whether or not Paul was a real person?

What a bizarre question!! It is extremely important to find out if there was an historical Paul since the Pauline Corpus mentions a character called Jesus who was KILLED by the Jews.

In the Pauline Corpus an author under the name of Paul claimed he was in Damascus in the time of King Aretas, that he PERSECUTED Believers, that he preached Christ crucified and resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER he was buried.

The Pauline writers are claiming to be CONTEMPORARIES of Jesus the Christ and the Apostles and state that "Paul" actually stayed with Apostle Peter for 15 days and also met the Apostle James in Jerusalem.

It should be obvious that if the character called Paul had no real existence in the time of Aretas that the NT Canon is historical GARBAGE.

The fact is, someone who did exist, did write the letters that we now have under the name "Paul".

What you say may not be the facts.

It is argued by Scholars the Pauline Corpus is a product of MULTIPLE Persons.

The Pauline Corpus appears to be a compilation of forgeries or false attribution.

Essentially, the Pauline writers appear to be FALSE WITNESSES--they NEVER preached Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas and were NOT contemporaries of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius or Nero.

What matters most about those letters is surely not who the real writer (or writer's) was/were, but what the letters say about the writers messiah beliefs.

What matters most is the VERACITY of the Pauline Corpus.

The historicity of the Pauline writers and PROVENANCE of the Pauline Corpus are EXTREMELY significant.

The Pauline Corpus is WITHOUT corroboration by ALL NON-apologetic sources which mentioned events in the 1st century

And what they say about that, is that the writers messiah beliefs came from scripture and from divine revelation, not through the writer ever meeting any human Jesus, and nor through the writing saying he ever met anyone else who claimed to have ever met a human Jesus.

Why do keep on repeating the same fallacies over and over? Don't you realise that other people can READ the Pauline Corpus?

The Pauline Corpus does state that the JEWS KILLED the Lord Jesus and that the Pauline writers are WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead on the THIRD day.

The Pauline writers were INVENTED as WITNESSES of the Resurrected Jesus and the Apostles.

IOW - some person or persons really did write those letters at that time, regardless of whether the writers name was "Paul" or anyone else. But whoever the writer was, those letters contain no evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone. They only contain the writers faith beliefs in a messiah foretold in scripture and revealed by heavenly messages from Yahweh.

Again, what "TIME" are you talking about?

Which "Paul" are you talking about?

You keep repeating the same fallacies.

The Pauline Corpus does STATE that the JEWS KILLED the Lord Jesus and that "Paul" met Apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem.

The VERACITY of the Pauline Corpus is extremely important.

If the Pauline writers had NO real existence and the writings are NOT historical accounts then Jesus and the Jesus cult are UNEVIDENCED.

The INTERNAL evidence from writings of antiquity show that Paul and the Pauline Corpus were FABRICATED in the 2nd century or later.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus is NOT evidence for an historical Jesus and NOT evidence for a Jesus cult since the time of King Aretas.

The Pauline Corpus is really historical GARBAGE.

 

[Stone]

And what they say about that, is that the writers messiah beliefs came from scripture and from divine revelation, not through the writer ever meeting any human Jesus, and nor through the writing saying he ever met anyone else who claimed to have ever met a human Jesus.
<Snip> But whoever the writer was, those letters contain no evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone.

WRONG! This is a common lie that has become part of the myther cant and is as unscrupulous as it is inexcusable.


He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.


Stone

 

[IanS]

WRONG! This is a common lie that has become part of the myther cant and is as unscrupulous as it is inexcusable.


He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.


Stone

Yeah. The above is simply not true though. And we have been all over those points in excruciating detail at least 100 times before in this thread and it's predecessors (literally more than 100 times).

The actual fact is that the one single never again repeated half-sentence which appears in a circa.200AD Christian copy named P46, that says "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother", is more likely to be a reference only to a brother in religious belief and not a claim of anyone being an actual family brother of Jesus.

Similarly, only quite recently in this thread we have been over in detail the description of the so-called "last supper", and in Paul's letter he gives that description saying his source for the last supper story was that he got it from the dead heavenly speaking spirit of the lord (from memory - "for I received of the lord what I now pass on to you"). So "Paul" explicitly says that his last supper story came to him as a revelation from the heavenly spirits.

The other points you mention have similarly been discussed to death and they certainly do not show that Paul ever claimed to know any human Jesus, or even that he ever claimed that anyone else had ever even told him that anyone had ever met a human Jesus.

There is simply nothing at all anywhere in any of Paul's "genuine" letters that claims anyone at all ever met any human messiah called "Jesus". All mention there of "the lord" and "Christ" and "Jesus" is always a description only of religious belief according to revelation and according to scripture.

 

[Craig B]

... It should be obvious that if the character called Paul had no real existence in the time of Aretas that the NT Canon is historical GARBAGE.

I've pointed out this fallacious reasoning many times before, but why not do it again?

Here is the Mythicist logic.

1. If Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas, the NT canon is historical GARBAGE.
2. The NT canon is historical GARBAGE
3. Therefore Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas.

 

[dejudge]

... It should be obvious that if the character called Paul had no real existence in the time of Aretas that the NT Canon is historical GARBAGE.

I've pointed out this fallacious reasoning many times before, but why not do it again?

Here is the Mythicist logic.

1. If Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas, the NT canon is historical GARBAGE.
2. The NT canon is historical GARBAGE
3. Therefore Paul had no real existence in the days of Aretas.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

You have no credible historical data to support your HJ argument and waste your time making all sorts of ridiculous statements.

There is a MASSIVE amount of INTERNAL evidence in writings of antiquity which show that the Pauline Corpus was FABRICATED no earlier than AFTER "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

The very NT Canon is evidence that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN to ALL the other authors of the Canon.

NOT a single verse from the Pauline Corpus can be found in any Non-Pauline NT writing.

The Synoptics are perfect examples and evidence that the Pauline Corpus was a LATE INVENTION.

If the Pauline Corpus was fabricated since 50-60 CE and "Paul" preached to NON-Jews about Jesus since the time of Aretas then we would expect that the NON-Jewish authors of the Gospels would RELY on the Pauline Corpus.

NOT one writer of the Gospels used the post-resurrection narratives of the Pauline Corpus.

Not one author mentioned the Revealed Gospel of the Pauline Corpus.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus had NO effect on the supposed EARLY Synoptic Gospel writers.

It was the Short gMark or a similar source that INFLUENCED the EARLY Synoptic Gospels.

The short gMark or a similar source was COPIED almost entirely and word for word by the supposed EARLY SYNOPTIC Gospel.

If the Pauline Corpus and the Preaching of "Paul" did predate the Synoptics then we would EXPECT the supposed early Gospels to be HEAVILY influenced by the Pauline Corpus just like the short gMark or a similar source.

Incredibly, the character called Paul supposedly PREACHED around the Roman Empire, supposedly DOCUMENTED his teachings which were written to the CHURCH itself yet NO-ONE in the very NT Canon WROTE a single verse from the Pauline Corpus.

It would appear that NO author of the NT Canon attended a PAULINE Church or ever "Paul" preach about the post-resurrection visit by Jesus of OVER 500 persons

It is clear that an early "Paul" and early Pauline writings are historical nonsense.

Jesus and Paul are figures of fiction/myth in the historical garbage called the NT.

 

[dejudge]

WRONG! This is a common lie that has become part of the myther cant and is as unscrupulous as it is inexcusable.

Christian writings of antiquity have ALREADY stated that Jesus of Nazareth was BORN of a GHOST and a Virgin and that he was God Creator an Ascending Resurrecting Water Walker--the Lord God from heaven.

It is a complete waste of time to use the discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source.

 

[Craig B]

Christian writings of antiquity have ALREADY stated that Jesus of Nazareth was BORN of a GHOST and a Virgin and that he was God Creator an Ascending Resurrecting Water Walker--the Lord God from heaven.

It is a complete waste of time to use the discredited Christian Bible as a credible historical source.

You mean, it's better to use the bigoted writings of Christians polemicists, who have already become imbued with later orthodox dogma? This is one of the odd things you say from time to time, dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

You mean, it's better to use the bigoted writings of Christians polemicists, who have already become imbued with later orthodox dogma? This is one of the odd things you say from time to time, dejudge.

You use the very same bigoted writings of Christian polemicists to argue that Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was the brother of the apostle James.

In fact, you use LATE "BIGOTED" manuscripts which state that Jesus was born of a Ghost to argue that Jesus was really real with a human father called Joseph.

 

[Craig B]

You use the very same bigoted writings of Christian polemicists to argue that Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was the brother of the apostle James.

In fact, you use LATE "BIGOTED" manuscripts which state that Jesus was born of a Ghost to argue that Jesus was really real with a human father called Joseph.

Dejudge, you know I don't regard the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts are being those of composition of texts. You know that, so your post is monstrous blatant fiction. For the sake of your reputation for robust scholarship and intellectual consistency, I prefer to think that it was written in your name by a pack of insane forgers.

 

[dejudge]

You use the very same bigoted writings of Christian polemicists to argue that Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was the brother of the apostle James.

In fact, you use LATE "BIGOTED" manuscripts which state that Jesus was born of a Ghost to argue that Jesus was really real with a human father called Joseph.

Dejudge, you know I don't regard the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts are being those of composition of texts. You know that, so your post is monstrous blatant fiction. For the sake of your reputation for robust scholarship and intellectual consistency, I prefer to think that it was written in your name by a pack of insane forgers.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Can you recall claiming that Joseph was the father of Jesus based on gMatthew and gJohn?

Can you recall stating that the Holy Ghost conception and that Jesus was God were Later additions?


You use the same LATE BIGOTED Christian writings to argue for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

gMark and the Pauline Corpus state that Jesus is GOD'S SON--not Joseph.

You have mis-represented yourself.

 

[maximara]

WRONG! This is a common lie that has become part of the myther cant and is as unscrupulous as it is inexcusable.


QUOTE=Stone;10575318]He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

As shown before this doesn't mean anything:


I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all... - 1 Corinthians 1:10


My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. - 1 Corinthians 1:11

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. - 1 Corinthians 1:26

I think you get the point.

Paul uses brother and sister in the spiritual sense so if he was speaking of a actual biological brother he would have been a little mire precise. Also as mentioned before the strange structure of 2 Cor. 11:32-33 had led some to conclude it is "a marginal "gloss" that was later woven into the text.

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

That is NOT how that passage starts and you know it.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread...

Ie this is a vision and no more historical then the one George Washington supposedly had at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-78

He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

Paul certainly believed that...and people believed for decades that Hitler escaped his bunker and was living in South America. Your point?