The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2015, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 02:57 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(16-04-2015 09:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, thank you both for your input. I'm aware that Hebrews is rejected as written by Paul. Evangelicals tend to think Paul wrote or it perhaps Apollos because of its stylistic review of OT doctrines. If Paul was a fringe fellow in terms of doing the things we're talking about here, but wrote, say, 5 epistles, what might be the motivation for others writing 10 or more fringe epistles using his name? I guess it could have been a Roman conspiracy but...

...Here's a partial list of places where Paul [or pseudo-Paul(s)] claims to have addressed synagogues, preached publicly, and witnessed to individuals... are you asking me to trust that this was the correct sequence...?

1. Paul writes regarding some Christ who is not Jesus, perhaps himself, some revolutionary Messiah-pretender or a spiritual metaphor Messiah, circa 55-60 CE. He says that the Christ has come, has preached and had fame in all Jerusalem, did miracles, etc.

2. Pseudo-Pauls write pseudepigrapha in Paul's name (letters from Paul) to specific people like "Timothy" or whomever, giving their location genealogy, etc. as part of a continuing Roman conspiracy to get the Jews to be obedient - and do so with some verses about obeying authorities but also hundreds of verses about judgment of Gentiles, Armageddon, the second return of Paul's Christ, the facts regarding Judaism as stemming from truth and Christ-ianity as the only true religion, the entire pantheon of Roman and Greek gods as nothing whatsoever--empty idols behind whom is the power of demonic forces as in 1 Corinthians, etc.

3. Some time later, gospels arise about another Christ, a certain Jesus. This Jesus appeared circa 30-33 CE before thousands of worshippers multiple times at multiple festivals including Passover et al where Jews would pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and did miracle works there--but no one still alive circa 65-85 CE denies that this Jesus existed.

4. Soon after, someone(s) redacts all extant copies of Paul's writings, both the ones in the conspirators' hands and the ones in the worshippers' congregations, however many true and false Pauline epistles, and then adds the name of Jesus to hundreds of verses.

5. Christianity spreads throughout some or all of the following locations, without dissent such as "Paul? That crazy guy? Never preached or did miracles in our town! Roman conspiracy..."

Not trying to be a dork here, I just want to understand your proposal... thanks!

Amphipolis
(Acts 17:1)
Caesarea
(Acts 9:30, 18:22,
21:8, 23:23)
Miletus
(Acts 20:15)
Rome
(Acts 28:16,
2Timothy 1:17)
Antioch (Pisidia)
(Acts 13:14)
Cenchrea
(Acts 18:18)
Mitylene
(Acts 20:14)
Salamis (Cyprus)
(Acts 13:5)
Antioch (Syria)
(Acts 11:26, 13:1,
15:22, 18:22 - 23)
Corinth
(Acts 18:1)
Myra
(Acts 27:5)
Seleucia
(Acts 13:4)
Antipatris
(Acts 23:31)
Cyprus
(Acts 13:4)
Neapolis
(Acts 16:11)
Sidon
(Acts 27:3)
Apollonia
(Acts 17:1)
Damascus
(Acts 9:19)
Nicopolis
(Titus 3:12, 15)
Spain
(Romans 15:22 - 25, 28)
Appian Way
(see Acts 28:13 - 15)
Derbe
(Acts 14:6, 16:1)
Paphos (Cyprus)
(Acts 13:6)
Syracuse (Sicily)
(Acts 28:12)
Appii Forum
(Acts 28:15)
Ephesus
(Acts 18:19)
Patara
(Acts 21:1)
Tarsus
(Acts 9:30)
Arabia
(Galatians 1:17)
Fair Havens (Crete)
(Acts 27:8)
Perga
(Acts 13:13)
Thessalonica
(Acts 17:1)
Assos
(Acts 20:13)
Iconium
(Acts 13:51)
Philippi
(Acts 16:12, 20:6)
Three Taverns
(Acts 28:15)
Athens
(Acts 17:16)
Jerusalem
(Acts 9:26, 18:21,
21:11 - 17, 23:11)
Ptolemais
(Acts 21:7)
Troas
(Acts 16:8, 20:6)
Attalia
(Acts 14:25)
Lystra
(Acts 14:6, 16:1)
Puteoli
(Acts 28:13)
Trogyllium
(Acts 20:15)
Berea
(Acts 17:10)
Malta
(Acts 28:1)
Rhegium
(Acts 28:13)
Tyre
(Acts 21:3)

Re "...but no one still alive circa 65-85 CE denies that this Jesus existed."

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. No one denied at that time that pink unicorns on Mars eat green cheese on Tuesday mornings either. That doesn't mean that this happens.

The surprising reality is that outside the gospels not a single first century person mentions the existence of Jesus in a written document. There are some mentions of Christ (as per Paul) in some of the the epistles in the New Testament but not about a flesh and blood human person. This is undeniably remarkable and throws considerable doubt over the existence of Jesus.

Re "4. Soon after, someone(s) redacts all extant copies of Paul's writings, both the ones in the conspirators' hands and the ones in the worshippers' congregations, however many true and false Pauline epistles, and then adds the name of Jesus to hundreds of verses."

No. Marcion turned up in Rome in the 140s carrying Paul's letters under his arm. Some of them were the pseudo Pauls. I think the Catholic Church in Rome marginalised Marcion and stole Paul's writings from him. They then morphed the already existing Jesus Gospels with Paul's writings. The gospels inherited a Christ. Paul's writings had the name 'Jesus "added. The Catholic Church then kicked Marcion out of Rome.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 02:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 04:03 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(16-04-2015 09:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, thank you both for your input. I'm aware that Hebrews is rejected as written by Paul. Evangelicals tend to think Paul wrote or it perhaps Apollos because of its stylistic review of OT doctrines. If Paul was a fringe fellow in terms of doing the things we're talking about here, but wrote, say, 5 epistles, what might be the motivation for others writing 10 or more fringe epistles using his name? I guess it could have been a Roman conspiracy but...

...Here's a partial list of places where Paul [or pseudo-Paul(s)] claims to have addressed synagogues, preached publicly, and witnessed to individuals... are you asking me to trust that this was the correct sequence...?

1. Paul writes regarding some Christ who is not Jesus, perhaps himself, some revolutionary Messiah-pretender or a spiritual metaphor Messiah, circa 55-60 CE. He says that the Christ has come, has preached and had fame in all Jerusalem, did miracles, etc.

2. Pseudo-Pauls write pseudepigrapha in Paul's name (letters from Paul) to specific people like "Timothy" or whomever, giving their location genealogy, etc. as part of a continuing Roman conspiracy to get the Jews to be obedient - and do so with some verses about obeying authorities but also hundreds of verses about judgment of Gentiles, Armageddon, the second return of Paul's Christ, the facts regarding Judaism as stemming from truth and Christ-ianity as the only true religion, the entire pantheon of Roman and Greek gods as nothing whatsoever--empty idols behind whom is the power of demonic forces as in 1 Corinthians, etc.

3. Some time later, gospels arise about another Christ, a certain Jesus. This Jesus appeared circa 30-33 CE before thousands of worshippers multiple times at multiple festivals including Passover et al where Jews would pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and did miracle works there--but no one still alive circa 65-85 CE denies that this Jesus existed.

4. Soon after, someone(s) redacts all extant copies of Paul's writings, both the ones in the conspirators' hands and the ones in the worshippers' congregations, however many true and false Pauline epistles, and then adds the name of Jesus to hundreds of verses.

5. Christianity spreads throughout some or all of the following locations, without dissent such as "Paul? That crazy guy? Never preached or did miracles in our town! Roman conspiracy..."

Not trying to be a dork here, I just want to understand your proposal... thanks!

Amphipolis
(Acts 17:1)
Caesarea
(Acts 9:30, 18:22,
21:8, 23:23)
Miletus
(Acts 20:15)
Rome
(Acts 28:16,
2Timothy 1:17)
Antioch (Pisidia)
(Acts 13:14)
Cenchrea
(Acts 18:18)
Mitylene
(Acts 20:14)
Salamis (Cyprus)
(Acts 13:5)
Antioch (Syria)
(Acts 11:26, 13:1,
15:22, 18:22 - 23)
Corinth
(Acts 18:1)
Myra
(Acts 27:5)
Seleucia
(Acts 13:4)
Antipatris
(Acts 23:31)
Cyprus
(Acts 13:4)
Neapolis
(Acts 16:11)
Sidon
(Acts 27:3)
Apollonia
(Acts 17:1)
Damascus
(Acts 9:19)
Nicopolis
(Titus 3:12, 15)
Spain
(Romans 15:22 - 25, 28)
Appian Way
(see Acts 28:13 - 15)
Derbe
(Acts 14:6, 16:1)
Paphos (Cyprus)
(Acts 13:6)
Syracuse (Sicily)
(Acts 28:12)
Appii Forum
(Acts 28:15)
Ephesus
(Acts 18:19)
Patara
(Acts 21:1)
Tarsus
(Acts 9:30)
Arabia
(Galatians 1:17)
Fair Havens (Crete)
(Acts 27:8)
Perga
(Acts 13:13)
Thessalonica
(Acts 17:1)
Assos
(Acts 20:13)
Iconium
(Acts 13:51)
Philippi
(Acts 16:12, 20:6)
Three Taverns
(Acts 28:15)
Athens
(Acts 17:16)
Jerusalem
(Acts 9:26, 18:21,
21:11 - 17, 23:11)
Ptolemais
(Acts 21:7)
Troas
(Acts 16:8, 20:6)
Attalia
(Acts 14:25)
Lystra
(Acts 14:6, 16:1)
Puteoli
(Acts 28:13)
Trogyllium
(Acts 20:15)
Berea
(Acts 17:10)
Malta
(Acts 28:1)
Rhegium
(Acts 28:13)
Tyre
(Acts 21:3)

"5. Christianity spreads throughout some or all of the following locations, without dissent such as "Paul? That crazy guy? Never preached or did miracles in our town! Roman conspiracy..."

Paul may or may not have gone to some or all of these places. It's largely irrelevant. Paul never performed any miracles, nor did his handkerchief.

There were all sorts of "Christianities" floating around in the second century. Catholic Christianity was not yet well-defined, there were Gnostics and there were Marcionites, and many others. I hope this addresses whatever point you're trying to make by the above statement.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
I sincerely appreciate your care in posting all of this information for my benefit. I have some comments. I'm wanting you to know, Mark, I'm open here. I'm not interested in shouting you down with my Christian faith and if I do learn data that nullifies what I believe, I will both deconvert and post regarding my deconversion here at TTA. But it's hard to help certain comments coming to mind.

Jewish people still well remember 70 AD now. They remember Bar Kochba's failed Messianic war, Masada, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I'm wondering how it is that Marcion, denounced by the church fathers, and personally rejecting the Hebrew god, is able to effectively promote "discovered" Pauline epistles emphasizing obedience of the Jews to the Romans in the diaspora...? I hear what you're saying about him being a good candidate for pseudo-Paul and loosening the uncomfortable Jewish Law from around the necks of the Jewish people, however, he would be considered a heretic by Jews whether they believed the Christ had come or not. Also, many of the burdens in the post-Temple period would be Talmudic in nature. It's not like Jews in diaspora were relieved the Christ eliminated the obligation to offer sacrifices at the Temple--a Temple that had been destroyed already--Jews were already moving to a modern synagogue system and wouldn't need "relief" from the Christ from ritual obligations in the diaspora. Remember that both Paul and pseudo-Paul have much to say regarding the Law and not Talmud. Much of the Law could simply not be performed on a literal basis without the Second Temple and Levite priesthood.

Marcion's denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ also demonstrates that Jesus was considered to have resurrected. Also, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger (man, I love that Pompeii account, too!) are part of the Roman machine that is anti-Semitic. Yet they mention that (some) Christ was in play among Jewish and proselyte believers. I understand what you mean about not seeing Jesus in 1st century literature, but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause.

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
17-04-2015, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2015 07:26 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(17-04-2015 10:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I sincerely appreciate your care in posting all of this information for my benefit. I have some comments. I'm wanting you to know, Mark, I'm open here. I'm not interested in shouting you down with my Christian faith and if I do learn data that nullifies what I believe, I will both deconvert and post regarding my deconversion here at TTA. But it's hard to help certain comments coming to mind.

Jewish people still well remember 70 AD now. They remember Bar Kochba's failed Messianic war, Masada, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I'm wondering how it is that Marcion, denounced by the church fathers, and personally rejecting the Hebrew god, is able to effectively promote "discovered" Pauline epistles emphasizing obedience of the Jews to the Romans in the diaspora...? I hear what you're saying about him being a good candidate for pseudo-Paul and loosening the uncomfortable Jewish Law from around the necks of the Jewish people, however, he would be considered a heretic by Jews whether they believed the Christ had come or not. Also, many of the burdens in the post-Temple period would be Talmudic in nature. It's not like Jews in diaspora were relieved the Christ eliminated the obligation to offer sacrifices at the Temple--a Temple that had been destroyed already--Jews were already moving to a modern synagogue system and wouldn't need "relief" from the Christ from ritual obligations in the diaspora. Remember that both Paul and pseudo-Paul have much to say regarding the Law and not Talmud. Much of the Law could simply not be performed on a literal basis without the Second Temple and Levite priesthood.

Marcion's denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ also demonstrates that Jesus was considered to have resurrected. Also, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger (man, I love that Pompeii account, too!) are part of the Roman machine that is anti-Semitic. Yet they mention that (some) Christ was in play among Jewish and proselyte believers. I understand what you mean about not seeing Jesus in 1st century literature, but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause.

Re "I sincerely appreciate your care in posting all of this information for my benefit."

That is nice of you to say. Although there haven't been many comments from others in the last few days there are other people too reading this and hopefully learning from our interaction. That can only be a good thing, provided we are both sincere.

Re "I'm wanting you to know, Mark, I'm open here. I'm not interested in shouting you down with my Christian faith and if I do learn data that nullifies what I believe, I will both deconvert and post regarding my deconversion here at TTA."

That is big of you to say. It is true that I would like you, for your own sake, and the sake of children and other people you interact with, to give up Christianity. However I have no ambition to be given credit for that. I want you to work it out for yourself. I would like you to get over Christianity by understanding it using your own reasoning. You don't need some guru telling you how things are. If you're a churchgoer you have suffered through years of that already. I think you need to start trusting yourself.

Re "I'm wondering how it is that Marcion, denounced by the church fathers, and personally rejecting the Hebrew god, is able to effectively promote "discovered" Pauline epistles emphasizing obedience of the Jews to the Romans in the
diaspora...?"


Well, I think the reality was that any new versions of Christianity were rather spectacularly unsuccessful at convincing Jews. This is not surprising. Imagine Christian missionaries going over to Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq. They may have the very odd success but they're doomed to fail. You can't change years and years of brainwashing except in the very odd person.

Also, Marcion was actually quite successful amongst gentiles (and not Jews) Despite the fact he left Rome, he continued spreading his version of Christianity all around the empire. In the second century he was more successful than Catholic Christianity, and his churches continued well into the third century. Don't forget it was the winners who wrote the history. Only the writings of the Catholic church fathers were kept... everything else was destroyed.

Re "Much of the Law could simply not be performed on a literal basis without the Second Temple and Levite priesthood."

Yes, there is some truth in that. Yet the Jewish priests were still around, Judaism would've disappeared if they weren't.

Please appreciate this is why the Abrahamic religions still exist today… they provide priests with a job, prestige, power and an income. If there was no money to be made, no one would bother. The singing, the handclapping, the praying, the ownership of schools, the ridiculously stupid traditions and beliefs would all just disappear into nothing. It's big business. Think of McDonald's. Do you imagine that McDonald's executives run their business because they're trying to improve the health of the people? Of course not. They are out to make a buck. Priests and preachers are in the same game, although rarely admit it.

Also there was still a lot about the law that hadn't been destroyed by the destruction of the Temple. Boys still had to be circumcised, people still had to eat a kosher diet, Jews were still only allowed to marry other Jews, they still had to keep holy the Sabbath etc.
Priests knew that if they regimented people's lives the people would be constantly reminded how special and different they were, and thereby keep lining priests' pockets.

Re.."I understand what you mean about not seeing Jesus in 1st century literature, but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause."

Look at the big picture. There is a lot of Roman literature that survives from the first century. Yet there is barely any mention of Christ, Jesus or Christianity. Any literature that does mention these things is extremely dubious i.e. it could easily have been manufactured by pious Christians. The reality is that the Roman world barely noticed Christianity in the first century. Please see my next comments.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 05:30 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and they bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.

What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet, it seems, nothing about Jesus. Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:

“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.”

Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If Jesus preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and rose from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, it is probable that a man named Yeshua did exist, and parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. The reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple respectively. This is unlikely to be a Christian interpolation, as Paul doesn’t write about James and Peter with much respect.

It can be argued that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.
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
19-04-2015, 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2015 05:31 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(17-04-2015 10:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I sincerely appreciate your care in posting all of this information for my benefit. I have some comments. I'm wanting you to know, Mark, I'm open here. I'm not interested in shouting you down with my Christian faith and if I do learn data that nullifies what I believe, I will both deconvert and post regarding my deconversion here at TTA. But it's hard to help certain comments coming to mind.

Jewish people still well remember 70 AD now. They remember Bar Kochba's failed Messianic war, Masada, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I'm wondering how it is that Marcion, denounced by the church fathers, and personally rejecting the Hebrew god, is able to effectively promote "discovered" Pauline epistles emphasizing obedience of the Jews to the Romans in the diaspora...? I hear what you're saying about him being a good candidate for pseudo-Paul and loosening the uncomfortable Jewish Law from around the necks of the Jewish people, however, he would be considered a heretic by Jews whether they believed the Christ had come or not. Also, many of the burdens in the post-Temple period would be Talmudic in nature. It's not like Jews in diaspora were relieved the Christ eliminated the obligation to offer sacrifices at the Temple--a Temple that had been destroyed already--Jews were already moving to a modern synagogue system and wouldn't need "relief" from the Christ from ritual obligations in the diaspora. Remember that both Paul and pseudo-Paul have much to say regarding the Law and not Talmud. Much of the Law could simply not be performed on a literal basis without the Second Temple and Levite priesthood.

Marcion's denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ also demonstrates that Jesus was considered to have resurrected. Also, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger (man, I love that Pompeii account, too!) are part of the Roman machine that is anti-Semitic. Yet they mention that (some) Christ was in play among Jewish and proselyte believers. I understand what you mean about not seeing Jesus in 1st century literature, but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause.

Re " but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause."

Q...if you write something like this, you should know by now that you are going to be asked to back it up. So please....fire away...

PS some "great biographers" from the first century would be really nice thanks.

PPS "great biographers" does not include anonymous biblical authors.
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
20-04-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: The Worst Religious Holiday - EVER!!!!!!
(19-04-2015 05:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 10:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I sincerely appreciate your care in posting all of this information for my benefit. I have some comments. I'm wanting you to know, Mark, I'm open here. I'm not interested in shouting you down with my Christian faith and if I do learn data that nullifies what I believe, I will both deconvert and post regarding my deconversion here at TTA. But it's hard to help certain comments coming to mind.

Jewish people still well remember 70 AD now. They remember Bar Kochba's failed Messianic war, Masada, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I'm wondering how it is that Marcion, denounced by the church fathers, and personally rejecting the Hebrew god, is able to effectively promote "discovered" Pauline epistles emphasizing obedience of the Jews to the Romans in the diaspora...? I hear what you're saying about him being a good candidate for pseudo-Paul and loosening the uncomfortable Jewish Law from around the necks of the Jewish people, however, he would be considered a heretic by Jews whether they believed the Christ had come or not. Also, many of the burdens in the post-Temple period would be Talmudic in nature. It's not like Jews in diaspora were relieved the Christ eliminated the obligation to offer sacrifices at the Temple--a Temple that had been destroyed already--Jews were already moving to a modern synagogue system and wouldn't need "relief" from the Christ from ritual obligations in the diaspora. Remember that both Paul and pseudo-Paul have much to say regarding the Law and not Talmud. Much of the Law could simply not be performed on a literal basis without the Second Temple and Levite priesthood.

Marcion's denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ also demonstrates that Jesus was considered to have resurrected. Also, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger (man, I love that Pompeii account, too!) are part of the Roman machine that is anti-Semitic. Yet they mention that (some) Christ was in play among Jewish and proselyte believers. I understand what you mean about not seeing Jesus in 1st century literature, but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause.

Re " but the great biographers of the 1st century speak of the upheaval the Christ had begun to cause."

Q...if you write something like this, you should know by now that you are going to be asked to back it up. So please....fire away...

PS some "great biographers" from the first century would be really nice thanks.

PPS "great biographers" does not include anonymous biblical authors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLF3-vGxsE
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: