Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2012, 02:15 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2012 02:19 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(15-11-2012 09:58 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Comparing gospel quotes, to support each other, or anything else, as though they were independent, to support each other, when in fact they had a common source, is evidence of nothing.
Quote:We know they had a common source. It is evidence only that the common source may or or may not have been wrong. The "lexicon, idiom, prose, as well as how the 1st century people would/could possibly embellsih the life of a mere human being for the purpose of prpagating their beliefs." is proof of nothing, except that it was written in those days. Not one example of anything was offered.

It's evidence of their existence before AD 95 When Ignatius and Clement quoted them. From the many numerous quotes of those gospels by Ignatius and Clement, it is evidence that what we have today is markedly similar to what they had in the first century. Neither Ignatus nor Clement quoted anything that was not in the gospels that we currently have, which is evidence that nothing has changed.

Ignatius and Clement also quoted much of what Paul wrote, and also detailed his journey as he spread his message. This is evidence that Paul's works, and his view of Jesus as a human being, are virtually the same as what we have today.

Therefore, it is evidence of what we call a "chain of evidence," which is evidence that links what we have today all the way back to what they had in the 1st century.

Also, what do you think of the following verse from Paul?

Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

So here we have Paul providing yet another piece of evidence that Jesus had a brother named James. What is also interesting is that it demonstrates that Paul believed in a living human being named Jesus, since Jesus had a living human brother named James.

We now have both Paul and Josephus from the 1st century saying the exact same thing; Jesus has a brother named James. So, with two different testaments to the exact same thing- which have no known common source whatsoever- how can you say with a straight face that it "is evidence of nothing?" And if per chance that some things witten about this Jesus fellow in the gospels were true, then we have yet another testament to Jesus having a brother names James, as it is listed in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

That's three distinct references to Jesus having a brother named James, from 3 different sources (counting the Synoptics as a single source).


Anyways, been a long long day. Talk tomorrow, and stay civil so I don't get bored with this crap.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 02:20 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2012 07:56 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I'll try that again....


Hi Free..

Re "It's evidence of their existence before AD 95 When Ignatius and Clement quoted them."

Um... did you get my point that the four gospel "authors" didn't appear till Irenaeus mentioned them circa 180 CE? Ignatius and Clement don't quote any gospel author, they quote "Jesus". There were scores of "Jesus's" in the early second century. "Ignatius" is a messy collection of forgeries. "Clement" is not much better. His 2nd letter (and he only has two) is universally regarded as aforgery. "He" didn't sign the first letter.

BTW, Bucky's post about how unreliable these early church commentators are is not just Bucky firing bullets...it is very well established. Google George Bethune or Joseph Wheless who have written classic books on this topic.

I agree there was a James, and he was a very important figure and probably the brother of Yeshua. Read his letter in the babble. He was clearly a fundamentalist Jew, not a Christian, just like his (probable) brother Yeshua.

Re "What is also interesting is that it demonstrates that Paul believed in a living human being named Jesus"

I concede you have a point here, yet this smells of Christian forgery. Please consider carefully the following very important points.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t say than what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly
mythical.
If Paul had been a genuine fan of Yeshua, he would surely have written about Yeshua's exploits, but he barely does.

Paul’s Christ figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is very obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 08:58 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 02:20 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'll try that again....


Hi Free..

Re "It's evidence of their existence before AD 95 When Ignatius and Clement quoted them."

Um...didyou get my point that the four gospel "authors" didn't appear till Irenaeus mentioned them circa 180 CE? These authors don't quote any gospel author, they quote "Jesus". There were scores of "Jesus's" in theearly second century. "Ignatius" is a messy collection of forgeries. "Clement" is not much better. His 2nd letter is universally regarded as a
forgery. "He" didn't sign the first letter.

BTW, Bucky's post about how unreliable these early church commentators are is not just Bucky firing bullets...it is very well established. Google George Bethune or Joseph Wheless who have written classic books on this topic.

Iagree there was a James, and he was a very important figure and probably the brother of Yeshua. Read his letter in the babble. He was clearly a fundamentalist Jew, not a Christian, just like his (probable) brother Yeshua.

Re "What is also interesting is that it demonstrates that Paul believed in a living human being named Jesus"

Iconcede you have a point here, yet this smells of Christian forgery. Please consider carefully the following very important points.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, ordescribed him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t saythan what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly
mythical.


Paul’sChrist figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is very obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.
I would submit for consideration :

There seems to be a glaring omission in James' letter. No resurrection mentioned. Isn't it odd that if, for the first time in human history, one's own brother actually rose from the dead, he doesn't even say one word about it. Seems very strange.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I finished reading this thread this morning, and I have to say that it's one of the best I've ever seen. I haven't learned this much since I finished Ehrman's "Forged" earlier this year. I thought I was pretty well-informed about this topic, but holy cow, you guys are well-read.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pianodwarf's post
16-11-2012, 02:23 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 02:18 PM)pianodwarf Wrote:  I finished reading this thread this morning, and I have to say that it's one of the best I've ever seen. I haven't learned this much since I finished Ehrman's "Forged" earlier this year. I thought I was pretty well-informed about this topic, but holy cow, you guys are well-read.
I second that. I wish I knew this much about the topic so I could actually participate in a debate like this. For the time being, I'm only able to chime in once in a while to say a thing or two, but that's about it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
16-11-2012, 05:03 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 02:18 PM)pianodwarf Wrote:  I finished reading this thread this morning, and I have to say that it's one of the best I've ever seen. I haven't learned this much since I finished Ehrman's "Forged" earlier this year. I thought I was pretty well-informed about this topic, but holy cow, you guys are well-read.
Thankyou...It's nice to get some encouragement!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 02:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 02:18 PM)pianodwarf Wrote:  I finished reading this thread this morning, and I have to say that it's one of the best I've ever seen. I haven't learned this much since I finished Ehrman's "Forged" earlier this year. I thought I was pretty well-informed about this topic, but holy cow, you guys are well-read.
I second that. I wish I knew this much about the topic so I could actually participate in a debate like this. For the time being, I'm only able to chime in once in a while to say a thing or two, but that's about it.
Thankyou too Vosur. Please comment whenever you feel like it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2012 05:20 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 08:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 02:20 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'll try that again....


Hi Free..

Re "It's evidence of their existence before AD 95 When Ignatius and Clement quoted them."

Um...didyou get my point that the four gospel "authors" didn't appear till Irenaeus mentioned them circa 180 CE? These authors don't quote any gospel author, they quote "Jesus". There were scores of "Jesus's" in theearly second century. "Ignatius" is a messy collection of forgeries. "Clement" is not much better. His 2nd letter is universally regarded as a
forgery. "He" didn't sign the first letter.

BTW, Bucky's post about how unreliable these early church commentators are is not just Bucky firing bullets...it is very well established. Google George Bethune or Joseph Wheless who have written classic books on this topic.

Iagree there was a James, and he was a very important figure and probably the brother of Yeshua. Read his letter in the babble. He was clearly a fundamentalist Jew, not a Christian, just like his (probable) brother Yeshua.

Re "What is also interesting is that it demonstrates that Paul believed in a living human being named Jesus"

Iconcede you have a point here, yet this smells of Christian forgery. Please consider carefully the following very important points.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, ordescribed him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t saythan what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly
mythical.


Paul’sChrist figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is very obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.
I would submit for consideration :

There seems to be a glaring omission in James' letter. No resurrection mentioned. Isn't it odd that if, for the first time in human history, one's own brother actually rose from the dead, he doesn't even say one word about it. Seems very strange.
I agree Bucky! As we've been encouraged by Pianodwarf and Vosur, I'll do another cut and paste about James' letter...

Many Christians are not aware that Yeshua’s brother may have his very own letter in the Bible. Yet it is there, tucked inconspicuously under the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. The Catholic Encyclopedia has no doubt who the author was:

“Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord’s brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; he exactly, and he alone, fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle.” It is surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, yet deny it elsewhere in the same publication by calling him a cousin. The authors deliberately call James a bishop, thereby implying he was a Christian, which he most definitely wasn’t. There has never been a Jewish bishop. Nor were there Christian bishops anywhere until (at earliest) the 90’s CE, thirty years after James died.

I don’t think we can be sure Yeshua’s brother wrote James’ letter, but even if he didn’t, it is from an early Jewish source, one probably close to Yeshua.Many scholars date it to about 60 CE, although the Catholic Encyclopedia states “about A.D. 47.”

The letter is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the dispersion, so was to be distributed outside Jerusalem. It has a mildly authoritarian tone, as one would expect from a leader.

The author didn’t mention the word “church.” The communities he wrote to (outside Jerusalem) worshipped in synagogues:
“Now suppose a man comes into your synagogue…” (James 2:2, NJB).

James knows nothing about his famous brother’s exploits. He doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. Let’s pause for a moment and imagine ourselves in James’ sandals. If you thought your own brother was the son of God, and you knew he had risen from the dead, there wouldn’t be much else worth talking about! Your correspondence would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter isn’t, because bullshit about his brother was yet to be invented.

James was a pious Jew. A central theme of the letter is that it is important to obey “the Law.”
“You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all” (James 2:10 JB).


“But the man who looks steadily at the perfect law of freedom and makes that his habit - not listening and then forgetting, but actively putting it into practice - will be happy in all that he does” (James 1:25 JB). He was referring to the Jewish Law, which the Jerusalem Bible admits in a footnote. This is the opposite of Paul’s proposition that salvation
is secured by releasing oneself from obedience to the Law, an admission also admitted in the Jerusalem Bible.


James wrote that faith was pointless without good works:
“Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead” (James 2:14–17, NJB). He emphasized the importance of action: “If there are any wise or learned men among you, let them show it by their good lives, with humility and wisdom in their actions” (James 3:13, NJB). It is obvious James had heard Paul’s preaching about faith, and quite rightly rebutted it as nonsense.

Consider the following:
“Remember this, my dear brothers, be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper, God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger.” (James 1:19–20, NJB). James was cut from a different cloth to the self righteous, angry Paul, who never listened to others.

James wrote

“Above all, my brothers, do not swear by heaven or by earth, or use any oaths at all. If you mean ‘yes,’ you must say ‘yes;’ if you mean ‘no,’ say ‘no’. Otherwise you make yourselves liable to judgment” (James 5:12, NJB). This is refreshingly real, although one might hope to hear something more profound from the brother of the Son of God!


James believed in Jewish scripture. He didn’t tolerate hypocrisy. He probably had some humanist, almost socialist ideals, which were Essenian. Yeshua, who never wrote down his own teachings, may have had these traits too.


There was nothing in James’ letter to suggest an anti-Roman stance, but the letter may have been edited. It’s also possible James knew that if any anti-Roman literature found its way into the government’s hands he would be in trouble, just like John and Yeshua.


James’ letter only just made it into the canon. In the fourth century, its status was disputed. Augustine and Jerome accepted it very reluctantly, so probably others at the time could not ignore the connection with Yeshua.


Martin Luther thought the letter had little doctrinal value because it so blatantly contradicted Paul’s teachings. He called it “an Epistle of straw.” (http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_ canon.htm). He clearly had a very limited understanding
of the real history.


References:

Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.

Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”


http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm


http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html


http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/01/15/podcast-37–jewish-followers-of-jesus-part-1–ebionites/


http://web.me.com/joehogarty1/A_History_...pe/rss.xml


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_Z3sTZ6PM
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
18-11-2012, 08:54 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(16-11-2012 02:18 PM)pianodwarf Wrote:  I finished reading this thread this morning, and I have to say that it's one of the best I've ever seen. I haven't learned this much since I finished Ehrman's "Forged" earlier this year. I thought I was pretty well-informed about this topic, but holy cow, you guys are well-read.


Thank you, it's always good to get some encouragement.

Haven't been able to respond the past couple days due to corporate demands, but will try to put something together later today.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2012 01:29 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Re "It's evidence of their existence before AD 95 When Ignatius and Clement quoted them."

Um... did you get my point that the four gospel "authors" didn't appear till Irenaeus mentioned them circa 180 CE?

That point is moot, as we are not speaking about who authored them, but only of their existence before AD 95. It is not relevant as to who authored them.

Quote:Ignatius and Clement don't quote any gospel author, they quote "Jesus".

How do they quote Jesus since he wrote nothing? If you are speaking about reciting what they "heard" it is entirely possible, but considering the large number of quotes from the Torah, Paul, and what compares to the Gospels, its extremely unlikely they were merely quoting from memory. Again, it is not relevant who authored the gospels, but only that they existed prior to AD 95. The synoptics are virtually universally accepted to have existed at least by AD 75.

Also, 1 Clement, while speaking in the context of what was "written," quotes Jesus closely as to what we see in the gospels:

Quote:13:1 Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:

13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you.

It should be interesting to note that 1 Clement mentions that Paul wrote his own gospel:

Quote:47:1 Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.

47:2 What did he first write unto you in the beginning of his gospel?

If we examine Paul's letters, we find the following in Romans:

Quote:Rom_2:16 in a day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Rom_16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, having been unvoiced during eternal times;
Another thing about Paul is what he says below:

Quote:Gal_3:1 O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?


The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was "written" prior to Paul's letter to the Galatians in AD 55.

So with this evidence we can make a reasonable judgment that according to both Paul and Clement, there was indeed a written gospel (of some sort) in existence long before AD 95.

Quote:There were scores of "Jesus's" in the early second century.

Perhaps there was, but considering the chain of evidence, we would be very hard pressed to find another Jesus was considered to be the Messiah, and was crucified, and from whom the fables emerged about a resurrection.

We already both know that there is no evidence whatsoever that none of the above criteria fits any other person named "Jesus."


Quote:"Ignatius" is a messy collection of forgeries.

To some extent they are, but the short versions are generally considered authentic. For example, we do know he wrote a letter to Polycarp, since Polycarp mentions this fact in his letter to the Philippians:


Quote:Polycarp 13:1
Ye wrote to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius,


Also ...


Quote:The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him,


So we know with reasonable assurance that the letters of Ignatius existed before Polycarp wrote his letter in AD 110. This should be considered evidence that they existed, and entered into the chain of evidence.


Quote:"Clement" is not much better. His 2nd letter (and he only has two) is universally regarded as aforgery. "He" didn't sign the first letter.

2 obvious problems with this statement:

1. We are not quoting from the 2nd letter, so that is Red Herring.
2. Historian's Fallacy comes into play when you say he didn't sign his first letter. It really doesn't matter if he wrote it or not, for the reality is that it was written.

Quote:BTW, Bucky's post about how unreliable these early church commentators are is not just Bucky firing bullets...it is very well established. Google George Bethune or Joseph Wheless who have written classic books on this topic.

That's all been dealt with here.

Quote:I agree there was a James, and he was a very important figure and probably the brother of Yeshua. Read his letter in the babble. He was clearly a fundamentalist Jew, not a Christian, just like his (probable) brother Yeshua.

I agree. Also, in my opinion, he actually takes a big shot at Paul when you examine his letter carefully.

Quote:Re "What is also interesting is that it demonstrates that Paul believed in a living human being named Jesus"

I concede you have a point here, yet this smells of Christian forgery.

Evidence of forgery is where? What reasoning would anyone want to forge this?

Quote:Please consider carefully the following very important points.

Quote:Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t say than what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly mythical. If Paul had been a genuine fan of Yeshua, he would surely have written about Yeshua's exploits, but he barely does.


Were the gospels written during the early part of his supposed transformation to Christianity around AD 33 -35? I think we can both agree that the gospels are full of embellishments that defy reason and logic, and were not available in written form to Paul. However, there is something you need to consider:

Quote:1Co 15:1 And, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and in which you stand;
1Co 15:2 by which you also are being kept safe, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;
1Co 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve.
1Co 15:6 Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.
1Co 15:7 Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
1Co 15:8 And last of all He was seen by me also, as one born out of time.

Does what Paul say above not compare to what we see written in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 16, and Matthew Chapter 28?


Quote:Paul’s Christ figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is very obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.

I trust that what you assert above should be recognised as a "theory" and not a fact? Aside from that, I find no good evidence to support that theory. What you claim to be "obvious" simply is not.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: