Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(20-03-2015 02:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  You drown in irony when you accuse others of sophistry.

It would be ironical to drown in irony, yes, as you did when you AGAIN resorted to personal attacks, i.e. sophistry, instead of facts. No thank you. And yes, it is sophistry, that is, a fallacious argument, to accuse me of being less than sincere or learned.

It is a comment on reality, not a personal attack.

And it most certainly is not sophistry which is the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

You continue to display ignorance and misunderstanding of many words.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-03-2015, 02:56 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 03:25 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(16-03-2015 10:29 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-03-2015 04:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Q, all this nonsense about Jesus's blood and the atonement was made up by the noxious Paul.

If you examine the question of who Paul was and what he was trying to do and from where he sourced his ideas, you will realise that all of his ideas are utter nonsense.

I suggest you read the following, and I'll be interested in your comments.

The Source of Paul’s Theology

It cannot be assumed that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, since the evidence is quite to the contrary. Imagine going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell us how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual truth about the source of his ideas is embedded in his own writing.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters.

Here Paul specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself just a few years earlier, is never explained by Paul.

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He openly communicated that his God, with whom he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them. This style may have been a legitimate means of communication during his time and working with his patrons, yet it fails to pass the legitimacy test today.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:

“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.)

He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he castigated anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet today’s Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus).

Moreover, it is quite clear Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,

“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The actual source that Paul borrowed heavily from was

“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul merely replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology.

One of Paul’s main themes differentiating this theology from that of the Jews was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,

“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.)

However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html). As Paul would have known of Mithras, it is probable that he manufactured his Christ partly based on the Mithraic model.

It is not unreasonable to consider whether Paul’s Christ was also, in part, an invention to counter the political dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism and his own imagination. One could label him a master confabulator, a man who invented fictions and interpretations to support his own views.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of his Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He couldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people in ancient times who, judged by today’s standards, while obviously not unintelligent, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.

Interesting post, Mark, but it sure looks like you are critiquing the author rather than responding to my point - that Augustinian doctrine misinterprets Romans 5.

You're failing to see the big picture.

It's just not relevant whether Augustine misinterpreted Paul

The important thing is that Paul was a charlatan and had no legitimate authority, and he simply invented the ridiculous concept of Christ's atonement.

You seem to have no appreciation of the historical reality that Paul was a liar.

Has it occurred to you that he was working as a Roman government employee?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(21-03-2015 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has it occurred to you that he was working as a Roman government employee?

Or that he was just another delusional evangelical? There is no end to examples of this kind of person,
whereas there is a dire lack of examples of government employees embarked on religious conspiracies. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 07:26 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(21-03-2015 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 02:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Has it occurred to you that he was working as a Roman government employee?

Or that he was just another delusional evangelical? There is no end to examples of this kind of person,
whereas there is a dire lack of examples of government employees embarked on religious conspiracies. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Ah, but delusional evangelicals don't write things like the following unless they were affiliated with the Roman government authority....

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, who- ever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV.)

Tongue

PS... I could go on with at least a dozen other reasons why it is likely Paul was employed by the Roman government… if anyone is interested…
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-03-2015, 06:42 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(21-03-2015 07:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Or that he was just another delusional evangelical? There is no end to examples of this kind of person,
whereas there is a dire lack of examples of government employees embarked on religious conspiracies. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Ah, but delusional evangelicals don't write things like the following unless they were affiliated with the Roman government authority....

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, who- ever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV.)

Tongue

PS... I could go on with at least a dozen other reasons why it is likely Paul was employed by the Roman government… if anyone is interested…

Or he's just restating what Jesus was said to have said.
Mark 12:17 Wrote:And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

The idea that the whole thing was concocted by the Romans is an absurd stretch.
Did they co-opt something already existing? Maybe.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
It's certainly withing the realm of possibility that passages such as those were interpolations added by some unknown party for their own political purposes.
The bible is chock-full of such things.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(12-03-2015 03:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ... Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father, who was also himself, for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat?

The Marcionites had a very good answer to this:

They believed (and provided strong arguments in their writings, involving side-to-side comparisons of OT and NT passages) that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are DIFFERENT gods. Yes, the Marcionites believed in TWO gods.

In the Marcionite theology, the God of the OT created the world and all material things, and is evil. The God of the NT created all spiritual things and is good. Christ was not a man at all, but pure spirit (i.e. they rejected the duality of Jesus). According to the Marcionites, Christ was not really crucified at all: it was all an illusion, and a ruse to fool the OT god into accepting the supposed sacrifice and releasing mankind from the bond of Original Sin.

Thus, if you are a Marcionite, you don't even have to ask the question, because God didn't sacrifice his son/himself. He just put on a show with smoke and mirrors to fool the other god.

You really need to give the Marcionites credit for rejecting the preposterous notion that the OT and the NT were describing the same god. In the end the Trinitarians wiped them out. Nothing will get you murdered by Christians faster than being the "wrong" kind of Christian.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daniel1948's post
22-03-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(12-03-2015 04:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ... there was no such thing as a second covenant ...

Hell, there was no such thing as a first covenant either. Be fair: If the Jews have their make-believe covenant, the Christians should be able to have their make-believe covenant. I'd make up a covenant myself if I thought it would get me followers.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(21-03-2015 07:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Or that he was just another delusional evangelical? There is no end to examples of this kind of person,
whereas there is a dire lack of examples of government employees embarked on religious conspiracies. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Ah, but delusional evangelicals don't write things like the following unless they were affiliated with the Roman government authority....

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, who- ever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV.)

Tongue

PS... I could go on with at least a dozen other reasons why it is likely Paul was employed by the Roman government… if anyone is interested…

I agree with Chas. It seems a stretch to say the Romans had Paul write thousands of verses promoting Jews as chosen and Christianity as the fulfillment of Judaism, a religion antithetical to the Roman gods, to stick in four or five verses about obeying the government, moreover when the verses include subjects like "Yeah, pay the taxes and do anything not contrary to Jehovah's Laws..."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: