Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2012, 04:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:That Justin made it up.

No Jew would ever consider eating flesh or drinking blood. It was an abomination. The apostles did not create "memoirs". "Gospels" were statements of belief for use in worship services.

Justin saying "it is written" does not prove anything. You insist on taking them at their word. Methinks you are really a theist.


How could Justin make up dozens of Gospel quotes which include both what Jesus said and what the narrator of the gospels said unless you are trying to say that Justin Martyr wrote the Gospels himself?

How is it possible that he could quote dozens of identical and verbatim quotes from something he says was "written," and called "Gospels," and with every last quote he makes being found in the current Gospel canon, and it NOT be from a Gospel?

Justin made it up? Seriously? For him to make it up you are basically saying that Justin Martyr is the author of the Gospels, and even then if that were true, WE STILL HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 2ND CENTURY.

Me a theist? Is that some kind of "last resort insult" when the evidence completely and totally destroys your pet and unsupported theories?

No. You are clinging to fringe theories by a hair, and there's nothing you can do to substantiate them.

I have substantiated what I claim over and over, and all you can do is make unsubstantiated claims against it.

That is not pro. Not cool. And most definitely not scholarly.

At least Mark is wide open to accepting evidence and to changing his point of view. He knows that the only way to advance is to stay dynamic.

You are static, and spinning your wheels while going nowhere. Enjoy the view.

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
25-11-2012, 05:32 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Such nonsense.
Free wrote " The text precisely matches that which we see in the Gospel of Matthew,
which indicates that he is not using the so-called "Q" source, nor any
other known source that had that precise quote."
WTF ? Well obviously if Matthew used the Q source it would match, now wouldn't it. Just assertions. No evidence. Bla bla bla.
The wheels are indeed spinning.

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
25-11-2012, 05:42 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Aaaand you guys are back at the point where you attack each other.

Le sigh

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 05:46 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 05:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Such nonsense.
Free wrote " The text precisely matches that which we see in the Gospel of Matthew,
which indicates that he is not using the so-called "Q" source, nor any
other known source that had that precise quote."
WTF ? Well obviously if Matthew used the Q source it would match, now wouldn't it. Just assertions. No evidence. Bla bla bla.
The wheels are indeed spinning.
If the wheels were spinning you would know, or at least attempt to learn, that the Q source is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and does not include the narrative of the gospel authors.



Quote:The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q) is a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus, assumed to be one of two written sources behind the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

If Q did exist, it has since been lost. Some scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q is notable in that it generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The Q source is NOT a Gospel, but instead it is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What I have shown you cannot come from the Q source, since I have shown you the narrative of the Gospel writer.

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
25-11-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 05:42 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Aaaand you guys are back at the point where you attack each other.

Le sigh
Unfortunately, this always happens when he refuses to acknowledge a point and instead starts in with the insults.

I have seen this from many, many people who can't let go of their preconceived ideas. It is identical to the beliefs of a theist.

I am willing to let go of my ideas if someone can provide an actual argument that has support.

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
25-11-2012, 07:27 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(24-11-2012 09:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:
Mate...I gotta disagree with you here. Please read this and check out the link.

The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name “Catholic,” and Justin Martyr became their preeminent apologist. He was unaware of the concept of a New Testament canon, or that there should only be four Gospels, or of the existence of any of the four now canonical gospels. See [font=]http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm ).

He used more than three hundred quotations from books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from now-apocryphal books, but none from the four Gospels. One of four things must be true; either the Gospels hadn’t been written yet (likely), or they were in a very different state from what they are today, and unnamed (possible), or they existed but he had never seen any of them (very unlikely), or that he knew of them but failed to mention them (impossible).


Yet how closely are they looking, Mark? Let me show you something:

Quote:CHAPTER X -- TRYPHO BLAMES THE CHRISTIANS FOR THIS ALONE--THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW.

Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html

As you can clearly see, "Trypho" has read the precepts in the Gospel. Now, how about something verbatim:

Quote:CHAPTER C -- IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS [CALLED] JACOB, AND ISRAEL, AND SON OF MAN.

For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

Mat_11:27 All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.

Luk_10:22 All things are delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.


How closely are your sources looking, Mark? Not only have I shown you "verbatim" quotations, I have now shown you twice with two quotes to also demonstrate that a gospel was written.

Also, it is quite clear that since Trypho is talking about things that are currenlty in the canon, then we can narrow down his source to be most lilely Matthew & Luke, since all the elements he referrences can be found in the those gospels. In Dialogue with Trypho, the word "Gospel" is mentioned only 3 times, and twice it is mentioned as being written.

Also ...

Quote:For He appeared distasteful to you when He cried among you, 1. 'It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!' He overthrew also the tables of the money-changers in the temple, and exclaimed, 2 'Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye pay tithe of mint and rue, but do not observe the love of God and justice. 3 Ye whited sepulchres! appearing beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones.' And to the Scribes, 4. 'Woe unto you, Scribes! for ye have the keys, and ye do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering in ye hinder; ye blind guides!'


Compare the underlined quotes above to:

1. Luk_19:46 saying to them, It is written, "My house is a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of thieves.

2. Mat_23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.

3. Mat_23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

4. Luk_11:52 Woe to you, scribes! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and you have hindered those who were entering in.


This kind of thing can be done for hours with Trypho, so I am not so confident in whatever sources you are using because I actually read this stuff to show you where I am going with it. His works are so filled with what we can find in Matthew and Luke that I can only reasonably and logically conclude that he sourced written Gospels for his works.

He admits in his works of the existence of written gospels, and the quotes he uses can all be found in the current canon as either verbatim, or near verbatim.

Again, of the numerous quotes he makes of Jesus, there is not one that is not in the current gospel record. Does it not make you ask the question that if he was quoting non biblical sources, then why does he not quote anything unique to those sources?


And finally, here is the "kicker" that should make you re-think everything you may have concluded.


How about the following quote from Dialogue with Trypho as we compare it to Matthew:


Quote:Dialogue With Trypho


Wherefore also our Christ said,[when He was] on earth, to those who were affirming that Elijah must come before Christ: 'Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose.' And it is written, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.' "

Gospel of Matthew


Mat 17:11 And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.


Do you and your sources see what I see in the above quotes, Mark? Do you not only see that Justin is not only quoting Jesus almost verbatim, but also ... he is quoting the gospel's narrator in Matthew 17:13?

What I have just shown you is clear evidence that Trypho was indeed sourcing a written Gospel around AD 130 - 140, and that written Gospel he is quoting from is indeed the one and only Gospel of Matthew.

Otherwise, how could he quote the narrator of the Gospel verbatim?

These are the things we can see when we really want to investigate, Mark. I have always felt that solely depending on the scholarship of others can deny and mislead us as to what the truth actually is. Therefore, myself and a few "gifted friends who all like to stay anonymous" as opposed to receiving "internet accolades" actually tear these old texts apart word for word to demonstrate what is actually there, as opposed to using theories and conjecture. It's the only way to get to the truth.

You may see "Free" as a name I use here but, "Who the fuck is Free?" I'm a nobody, and plan on staying that way.

Tongue



Ok. I've read everything you've posted here. Now...you and I are, I think, almost saying the same thing about this. Let me explain.

Firstly, I think you must agree that NOWHERE does Justin mention the names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is undeniable fact. So Justin doesn't quote "the" gospels. "The" gospels didn't exist in their present form when Justin wrote mid second century.

There were scores of "gospels" in the second century. Everyone had a go at it. They borrowed bits from each other, from the old testament, and from the teachings of numerous rabbi's, for eample Hillel. This is why what Justin wrote is similar to what is in the now canonical gospels.

Your statement that Trypho is quoting the one and only gospel of Matthew is making an unsupported assumption. "Trypho" ie Justin, was quite capable of naming his source, but he doesn't. Justin's source was ...we don't know...but whatever it was, someone borrowed it to write bits of Matthew.

If you're right and Justin was quoting from canonical Matthew...so what? I'm not sure why you're making an issue of it. Whether matthew was stitched together early second century (pre Justin) or late second century (post Justin) makes little difference to me, so what's your point?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 02:02 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(24-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:
Free....the fact remains Paul rambled on about his "Christ" and said virtually nothing about a once living person. If he thought his "Christ" was a recently departed once living person he would have documented details about that person...but he doesn't!


I have pointed out many of those details you keep saying don't exist. Again ...

1. The Last Supper. (1Cor 11:34 - 36)
2. Jesus was betrayed. (1Cor 11:33)
3. Jesus was in the presence of Pontius Pilate. (1Tim 6:13)
4. Jesus was crucified. (Numerous places)
5. Jesus was resurrected. (Numerous places)
6. Baptism by water. (Various places)
7. Miracles being performed as per Gospel instructions from Jesus. (1 Cor 12:10, 12:28, 12:29, Gal 3:5)
8. Gospel being preached as per Jesus' commandment. (Numerous places)
9. He names several of the original apostles. (Various places)

You seem to be hung up on Paul not quoting much from the written gospels as being some kind of evidence that Paul's "Jesus" didn't exist. The fact remains that the details I have listed above are all found in the gospel records, as well as non biblical sources. Since those detail bear a striking identity to what we determine to be the historical Yeshua, I find any argument that Paul's Jesus was not the same person as to be unrealistic and incomprehensible.

Quote:Consider an analogy. I want to start a religion. I think John Lennon was God. The new religion is one day to be called "Beatleanity." John Lennon is my recently departed hero. How am I going to convince people to join my John Lennon cult? Well....I'm going to play his music, make a movie about him, put his pictures on the internet, talk to Yoko, his mother, his son, his brothers and sisters, and anyone who knew him. I'll bad mouth anyone who disagrees with my image of him, and I'll say why. I'd promote his life's story, start a fan club, and sit back and watch the cash roll in.

What I won't be doing is saying "listen here fuckers, this spirit type guy died for you and that's all you need to know. Believe that and you'll go to Beatle heaven. If you don't have faith in what I'm telling you, you're fucked. If any of you play Rolling Stones records I curse you. Yet that is what Paul did.



Like any kind of folk-lore/legend, Paul simply took a few facts about this Jesus fellow and built a religion around an actual person. It's really that simple, Mark.

Quote:I rest my case that Paul's "Christ" wasn't Jeebus, but someone/something else.


R.I.P.

Smile




1 Corinthians 33

"Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another" This says nothing about Yeshua!

Corinthians 34-36 doesn't exist. It only goes to verese 34 which is

"34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." DITTO...says nothing about Yeshua

As Bucky pointed out, Paul didn't write Timothy (a universally accepted fact)

I'm not arguing that Paul didn't think his Christ was baptised, crucified or resurrected. he just wasn't referring to Yeshua. There were numerous sons of god in first century Rome who were baptised, crucified and rose from the dead and worked miracles...Mithras for example. If you're interested I'll document more.

1 Corinthians 12;10

"10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" He could 've been referring to anyone!LOL

1 Corinthians 12;28,29

"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." DITTO LOL

"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles" HUH? YOUR POINT?

Galatians 3;5

"5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? So SOMEONE (Paul's spirit/man), not Jeebus, worked miracles

I agree he named James, Peter and John. That doesn't mean he thought Yeshua was his Christ.

Sorry Free, your "evidence" isn't evidence. Things are not as simple as you make out. I stand by my assertion that Paul's Christ was not Yeshua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 08:43 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Unfortunately many old people consider any assertion contrary to their supposedly patronizing infallible, (yet unsupported) assertions as "insults". I have not made one insult. I said "nonsense". That is not an insult, unless one is afflicted by paranoia.
The Q Source is not generally accepted as a "collection of sayings". It was used, IN CONJUNCTION with a book of sayings.
As usual he asserts things, often incorrectly, and assumes we must swallow the crap. He provided not one source, or supporting bit of evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
Lighten up people.

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
25-11-2012, 08:50 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Firstly, I think you must agree that NOWHERE does Justin mention the names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is undeniable fact.

That is true, but we both agree that the narrators of the Gospels were not actually named on those Gospels until Papias names both Mark and Matthew as authors around AD 125. Even then, the names were still not written on the texts.

Quote:So Justin doesn't quote "the" gospels. "The" gospels didn't exist in their present form when Justin wrote mid second century.


Not only does he quote them, he names them as Gospels. Have another look below:

Quote:Justin Martyr - First Apology

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels ...

We both know what "memoirs" are, as they indicate a written text. We both know the names of the apostles, and the one we are focusing on is Matthew.

We have no way of knowing if the Gospels that are in their present form are any different than what was available during the 1st and 2nd century. What we do know is that Justin Martyr makes numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of what we see in Matthew, and he makes no quotes that cannot be found in the current canon.

Again, we must ask this very important question:

Q: If Justin was sourcing something other than what is in the current canon, then why do we not see one single instance of anything that is unique to that supposed source?

Quote:There were scores of "gospels" in the second century. Everyone had a go at it. They borrowed bits from each other, from the old testament, and from the teachings of numerous rabbi's, for example Hillel. This is why what Justin wrote is similar to what is in the now canonical gospels.

That's only an assumption, for again Justin does not make one single quote that is unique to an unknown source. All of his quotes regarding Jesus are either verbatim, near verbatim, or paraphrased of something we find in the current canon.

Quote:Your statement that Trypho is quoting the one and only gospel of Matthew is making an unsupported assumption.

When we demonstrate with textual evidence numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of Jesus, and verbatim quotes of the source's narrator, we are by no means making an "unsupported assumption." This premise has demonstrated considerable support.


Quote:"Trypho" ie Justin, was quite capable of naming his source, but he doesn't.

Presuming the name of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were written on the sources as "The Gospel According To ..."

We both know those names were not written on the texts, Mark, so how could Justin "name" his source with any degree of certainty? He merely says that he was in possession of Gospels that were written by the apostles, and then he quotes from them.

Quote:Justin's source was ...we don't know...but whatever it was, someone borrowed it to write bits of Matthew.

Not according to church tradition and textual evidence, which records that Papias lists both Mark and Matthew as writers around AD 125, which is before Justin Martyr. In addition to this, we already agree that it is almost universal that ALL the gospels in the canon were written in the 1st century, and just because they didn't have the names of the authors on them does not mean they were not available.

They were available.

Quote:If you're right and Justin was quoting from canonical Matthew...so what? I'm not sure why you're making an issue of it. Whether Matthew was stitched together early second century (pre Justin) or late second century (post Justin) makes little difference to me, so what's your point?

The point is that you have claimed that the Catholic church edited the Gospels and Paul to reflect interpolations and a re-working to reflect a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified to support your belief that Paul didn't believe his "Yeshua" actually existed.

My aim is to textually demonstrate that your premise is inaccurate and unsupported. After all, if you are going to write about any of this stuff it would only serve you well to be prepared for these types of critiques and affronts.

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
25-11-2012, 09:00 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 05:46 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 05:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Such nonsense.
Free wrote " The text precisely matches that which we see in the Gospel of Matthew,
which indicates that he is not using the so-called "Q" source, nor any
other known source that had that precise quote."
WTF ? Well obviously if Matthew used the Q source it would match, now wouldn't it. Just assertions. No evidence. Bla bla bla.
The wheels are indeed spinning.

If the wheels were spinning you would know, or at least attempt to learn, that the Q source is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and does not include the narrative of the gospel authors.



Quote:The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q) is a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus, assumed to be one of two written sources behind the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

If Q did exist, it has since been lost. Some scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q is notable in that it generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The Q source is NOT a Gospel, but instead it is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What I have shown you cannot come from the Q source, since I have shown you the narrative of the Gospel writer.


You do realise that "Q" is an integral part of both Matthew and Luke?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: