Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 10:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 08:50 PM)Free Wrote:  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.



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



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?



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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



Re...
"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."

Um....where did you get this from? I have never read that anywhere. Please have a read of this article...
http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm and tell me whether you still have the same opinion.
I have read it, did you?

Do you know that the author of that diatribe did not dispute one single quote that Justin made of anything Jesus purportedly said? Sure, he argues against Justin's interpretation of scripture, but he does not dispute anything that Justin wrote in regards to quotations of what Jesus purportedly said.

Therefore, my position remains undisputed.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 09:59 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Hi Free. I'm repeating myself...but...Justin most definitely DOESN"T QUOTE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS. You have just admitted he doesn't mention Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Therefore, ipse facto, he hasn't quoted them. Get it?

Mark, if we removed the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John off the Gospels, would they still be canonical? Get it?

The names mean nothing. They meant nothing in the first place. They were not on those gospels, but that does not mean that those gospels were not canonical. Here's some history for you.

The word "canon" in this respect means "measuring stick." It represents a collection of accepted Christians scriptures. The Christian canon was an ongoing process that changed the number of accepted books as time went on. It wasn't until the middle of the 4th century that we can see a canon that we also have today.

However, the current canon is not the original canon, as I have stated, it changed as time went on. The 4 Gospels were considered to be a part of the original canon, as well as Paul's letters.

Iraneus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr, and who also wrote mid to late 1st century, literally names all 4 authors of the Gospels in his Against Heresies works. Therefore, we "know" the Gospels all existed during the time of Justin Martyr and that they were already named as far as the authors were concerned, since Iraneus lists them by name, and uses verbatim quotes from each of them.

Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture. Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.

So here we have Iraneus, a student and contemporary of Justin Martyr, naming all 4 Gospel authors, and claiming that all 4 of those Gospel were what was considered "canonical" during his time. The reason for this was because of Marcion some 50 years earlier. Marcion's canon was rejected by mainstream Christianity and as a defense against Marcion's assertions, early church fathers described what the "canon" actually consisted of.

Mark, you need to make the distinction between the "original" canon and the "official" canon we have today. The canon changed as time went on, but as you can see above, the orginal canon had all 4 gospels, and the authors of all 4 gospels.

Also, Iraneus makes absolutley no mention whatsoever that Justin Martyr was using any other scripture for his quotes other than what we see in the canonical gospels.

So, for your assertions to be true, you will need to provide some actual evidence to dispute what I am claiming, because what I am claiming actually does use textual evidence. All your assertions, theories, and claims are absolutely meaningless unless you can provide some semblance of textual evidence to support them.

For example, please find me some textual evidence that the verbatim quotes that Justin Martyr uses come from some other document other than the Gospel of Matthew.

Remember, assertions and theories are unacceptable. Textual evidence only please. And try to remember, this is not about proving anything conclusive, but only of providing the best argument to explain the evidence.

So go ahead, bring me your textual evidence.



Quote:You are claiming that his writings are very similar, even the same, as bits of the now canonical gospels, and therefore he's quoting them. I simply disagree. I acknowledge the similarity, but I'm not going to jump to your conclusion for all the reasons I've already mentioned.

What I have done is demonstrate the best argument on the table to explain the evidence. I am not saying it is conclusive, but only that what I am providing as far as textual evidence is concerned most certainly beats the crap out of conjecture, theories, and assertions.

I am only dealing with textual evidence, and supporting that textual evidence with even more textual evidence.

Quote:Ok....please understand the following. Paul never used the name Yeshua. So I'm not claiming Paul didn't believe in "his" Yeshua....I've got no idea what you mean here.

Yeshua was the Jewish brother of James. He was the leader of the Nazarenes who was executed by the Romans for being a naughty boy. I believe he almost certainly existed (you seem to keep implying I don't think he was a real person).

Where we don't agree is that you (in common with all Christians) think Paul's Christ was Yeshua. I don't. How we got on to Justin I can't remember, and why it's such an issue for you I'm not sure. You seem to somehow think that if Justin quotes from the canonical gospels, Paul thought his Christ was Jesus. Sorry...I may misunderstand you....but I can't follow your trail of thought.

Please tell me why you think Paul's Christ was Yeshua (or Jesus if you prefer)

I have (exasperately) explained this twice to you already (here and here), but you are not addressing the explanation with any degree of credulity.

You said: "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 responded with: "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)


These are indeed details of the life of Jesus that can found in the Gospel record. This is completely indisputable.

Again, just because Paul is not doing verbatim quotes of Jesus does not mean Paul is not providing "details" about the life of Jesus. He is, and in abundance.

If you think you need to "repeat yourself" again, as though I had not responded to your unsupported assertions, I suggest you actually read what I am saying.

Shy

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 11:18 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 09:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Ummm .. until you can demonstrate some maturity and a smidgen of intellectual honesty, I'm afraid this conversation I am having with Mark will exclude you.

I much prefer to converse on a scholarly level with people who can demonstrate mutual respect, and that is just not happening with you. Aside from that, this is Mark's thread, and I am not going to allow it to be derailed by your poor attitude.

So carry on with you ad hominems, intellectual dishonesty, and immaturity, but understand I will no longer respond.
As I said, paranoia will dictate many interesting things in older people who do not wish to be contradicted.
My "poor attitude" is simply a refusal to accept you unsupported assertions.
Firstly, it is intellectually dishonest to make the claim that the things I am saying are "unsupported assertions" when I do indeed provide numerous textual and consensus support for my claims by using textual evidence as well as the collective consensus of world scholars.

You need to distinguish between actual evidence and assertion, because by no means am I using any kind of "unsupported assertion." You are simply not addressing the evidence I provide, and merely "hand-waving" it away as though it does not exist.

Well, it does exist, and no amount of hand waving will make it go away. So either deal with the textual evidence I provide and the argument with it, or I will simply not respond to your hand waving antics any further.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 12:25 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(26-11-2012 02:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  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.



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.


R.I.P.

Smile
Hi again....I missed writing about some things you wrote.

Re "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."

Well...no. Paul quotes NOTHING from the gospel's Jesus....that's a fact....because he couldn't have, as the gospels were written post Paul.

My point is that Paul says almost nothing about a once living person. Please understand this. The only exception is Paul's description of the last supper, which I suspect is an interpolation.

BTW, it's commonly stated Paul's writings are relatively free of changes. The longer I waste time thinking about this, the less I suspect it's true. Paul was "cut and pasted" heaps.
Mark, it's very easy for anybody to assert such things as you are saying. It's an entirely different story to provide evidence to support it.

You also seem to ignore what is generally considered to be concrete textual evidence and scholarly consensus that disputes your assertions.

Each of can say anything we want, but at the end of the day those things we say are utterly lost unless we provide actual textual evidence for support.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 12:22 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
This thread has become confusing. Are you guys debating semantics about what constitutes 'details' about a living person?

Specifically this:

You said: "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!"
Versus this:

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)



These are indeed details of the life of Jesus that can found in the Gospel record. This is completely indisputable.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 04:09 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:This thread has become confusing. Are you guys debating semantics about what constitutes 'details' about a living person?

Specifically this:
You said: "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!"Versus this:

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)


These are indeed details of the life of Jesus that can found in the Gospel record. This is completely indisputable.

Your confusion is quite understandable.

Mark appears to be insisting that unless Paul uses more "quotes" of Jesus, that Paul does not reveal any details about the life of Jesus.

This is simply not true. The search for evidence should never have such a narrow view of what constitutes evidence.

My list above demonstrates a short list of things that Paul wrote in regards to the life of Jesus as displayed in other accounts of the life of Jesus such as the Gospel records.

1. The Last Supper is something that Paul quotes Jesus verbatim.
2. Paul also claims Jesus was betrayed, as the Gospels do also.
3. Paul says that Jesus confessed before Pontius Pilate, another thing the Gospels and other sources record.
4. Paul contends that Jesus was crucified, which is found in virtually all sources.
5. Paul contends that Jesus was resurrected, yet another detail found in numerous other sources.
6. The Baptism by water that Paul talk about reflects a detail of the ministry of Jesus as seen in the Gospels.
7. The miracles Paul talks about also reflect yet another detail about Jesus from the Gospels.
8. Paul adheres to the commandment of Jesus in the Gospels to preach the gospel.
9. Paul names several people, including apostles, who knew and walked with Jesus, which is yet another detail about the life of Jesus we find in the Gospel record and other sources.


I have no idea why Mark does not consider these things to be details that Paul wrote about in regards to the life of Jesus when we find all of it in the gospel record and other sources.

Given the evidence, the best argument is that Paul's concept of Yeshua was modeled after the historical Yeshua and embellished to further the interests of Paul. We already know how the early Christians embellished the life of Jesus in the Gospels, so it is no big step to take to conclude that Paul did the same damn thing.

It's all part and parcel to the bullshit we call "The Holy Bible."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 06:24 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(26-11-2012 08:37 AM)Free Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 10:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re...
"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."

Um....where did you get this from? I have never read that anywhere. Please have a read of this article...
http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm and tell me whether you still have the same opinion.

I have read it, did you?

Do you know that the author of that diatribe did not dispute one single quote that Justin made of anything Jesus purportedly said? Sure, he argues against Justin's interpretation of scripture, but he does not dispute anything that Justin wrote in regards to quotations of what Jesus purportedly said.

Therefore, my position remains undisputed.


Yes, he did disagree with Justin's interpretation. He also calls Justin's ideas "non biblical"

Please see the following article from a well published author who obviously is an authority. In it he states that the claim that Justin Martyr quoted the gospels, while believed by many, is "false and innacurate".

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contrib...spels.html

I don't really give a rat's one way or the other whether Justin was quoting from a gospel(s) as we know it. I fail to see why you do. The issue at hand is whether Paul's Christ was Jesus. I say it wasn't. I say Paul's Christ has been written into the gospels in the second century. That is interesting. Whether Justin had access to something that was to become "Matthew" is pretty academic, and not particularly interesting.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 09:12 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Yes, he did disagree with Justin's interpretation. He also calls Justin's ideas "non biblical"

Then we agree that he does not actually dispute any of Justin's quotations of Jesus?

Quote:Please see the following article from a well published author who obviously is an authority. In it he states that the claim that Justin Martyr quoted the gospels, while believed by many, is "false and innacurate".

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contrib...spels.html

That author is actually a "she," and she is a myther. Her objective is identical to all mythers, "deny, obfuscate, and avoid." She claims that Justin doesn't make any verbatim quotes of Jesus when right here on this forum I have demonstrated many, and backed it up with textual evidence. This is the part we call "deny." According to some reviews, her work lacks a cohesive argument, and appears to be confusing. This is the part we call "obfuscate." She carefully fails to acknowledge that not only was Jesus quoted verbatim, but also the gospel narrator was quoted verbatim. This is the part we call "avoid."

That's precisely what mythers do, Mark. Bart Ehrman dissected her book chapter by chapter, word by word, and basically concluded that she was out of her mind. I could just as easily do the same. She may have the certifications, but she lacks the ability to employ sound reasoning and string together a cohesive argument that actually makes any sense. She makes assertions and assumption based upon unlikely interpretations.

It appears to me that her work is a byproduct of a seething hatred against Christianity insomuch that her work reeks with bias. Essentially, the scholarly community has dismissed her work as ridiculous. Her book was not well received in the scholarly community.

Personally, I place her works into the company of other not-so-distinguished self-proclaimed "authorities" as Kenneth Humpreys, and Earl Doherty.

Even if you go to the comments section on that site you will find her under attack by readers and forced to defend herself. It gets so bad that she resorts to picking out grammatical errors and spelling mistakes of her adversaries in just another case of laying down a red herring and obfuscating the discussion.

It's hilarious. Go read it.

If you want my honest opinion of her work, you might go to this review.

Quote:I don't really give a rat's one way or the other whether Justin was quoting from a gospel(s) as we know it. I fail to see why you do. The issue at hand is whether Paul's Christ was Jesus. I say it wasn't. I say Paul's Christ has been written into the gospels in the second century. That is interesting. Whether Justin had access to something that was to become "Matthew" is pretty academic, and not particularly interesting.

Let me explain to you why it is important.

You are giving us all here the impression that the entire Gospel records and Paul's works had been altered some time in the 2nd century so that they all reflect a cohesiveness for the purpose of advancing the Christian belief system. You are claiming that Paul's works were interpolated so that it would make it appear as though Paul's philosophy was more consistent with the Gospel record. You are essentially accusing ancient writers of conspiring to alter ancient historical documents, from my point of view.

My aim was to portray the consistency of the Gospel record and Paul's works, as they were quoted by the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Iraneus and other sources, in an effort to demonstrate that there is no evidence of tampering whatsoever.

Not only that, we are still waiting for any textual evidence from you to back up your claims of such tampering and interpolations. Any such tampering, such as that of Marcion, are already known and the ancient texts tells us that Marcion's "canon" was rejected due to his tampering, which in itself indicates that around AD 125 Marcion's canon was viewed as an afront to the already accepted texts of that time. Otherwise, why the hell would the ancient writers be making such a big stink about Marcion? In order for these ancient writers to take such a hard stand against Marcion's canon, it becomes painfully obvious that they already had the original canon to compare against Marcion's canon. Does this not just stand to reason?

How could any of the ancient writers say that something was wrong with Marcion's canon unless they had the original Canon?

Now listen, you have already admitted that Marcion only used the Gospel of Luke as the lone Gospel in his canon, right? Well, Mark, since you acknowledge that, then you must also acknowledge that Marcion had the Gospel of Luke in AD 125 which proves that the gospel's authors names had been ascribed to their Gospels. How could the ancient writers know that in AD 125 Marcion was using only the one Gospel, Luke, in his canon?

You are a doctor, Mark, and are by no means lacking intelligence, so there is no good excuse that you cannot follow my reasoning. Now here is more reasoning ...

Since the ancient writers knew that Marcion was only using Luke, then how could they know such a thing UNLESS they knew of the existence of other Gospels? Since they accuse Marcion of only using Luke, then what would be the point of that accusation UNLESS it pointed to the fact that Marcion was not using Matthew, Mark, and John?

So what's my point again? I am demonstrating a time-line of consistency of the Gospel record and Paul's works all through the ending of the 1st century to the ending of the 2nd century to demonstrate with textual evidence that your claims about interpolations and tampering have no evidence for support.

It's just that simple.

So again, please bring forth textual evidence to support your claims of tampering and interpolations of the Gospel records and Paul's works in the 1st or 2nd century.

I have been waiting for this for the past 10 pages.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2012 10:59 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(26-11-2012 08:22 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, he did disagree with Justin's interpretation. He also calls Justin's ideas "non biblical"

Then we agree that he does not actually dispute any of Justin's quotations of Jesus?

Quote:Please see the following article from a well published author who obviously is an authority. In it he states that the claim that Justin Martyr quoted the gospels, while believed by many, is "false and innacurate".

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/contrib...spels.html

"That author is actually a "she," and she is a myther. Her objective is identical to all mythers, "deny, obfuscate, and avoid." "

test 1 2 3

She claims that Justin doesn't make any verbatim quotes of Jesus when right here on this forum I have demonstrated many, and backed it up with textual evidence. This is the part we call "deny." According to some reviews, her work lacks a cohesive argument, and appears to be confusing. This is the part we call "obfuscate." She carefully fails to acknowledge that not only was Jesus quoted verbatim, but also the gospel narrator was quoted verbatim. This is the part we call "avoid."

That's precisely what mythers do, Mark. Bart Ehrman dissected her book chapter by chapter, word by word, and basically concluded that she was out of her mind. I could just as easily do the same. She may have the certifications, but she lacks the ability to employ sound reasoning and string together a cohesive argument that actually makes any sense. She makes assertions and assumption based upon unlikely interpretations.

It appears to me that her work is a byproduct of a seething hatred against Christianity insomuch that her work reeks with bias. Essentially, the scholarly community has dismissed her work as ridiculous. Her book was not well received in the scholarly community.

Personally, I place her works into the company of other not-so-distinguished self-proclaimed "authorities" as Kenneth Humpreys, and Earl Doherty.

Even if you go to the comments section on that site you will find her under attack by readers and forced to defend herself. It gets so bad that she resorts to picking out grammatical errors and spelling mistakes of her adversaries in just another case of laying down a red herring and obfuscating the discussion.

It's hilarious. Go read it.

If you want my honest opinion of her work, you might go to this review.

Quote:I don't really give a rat's one way or the other whether Justin was quoting from a gospel(s) as we know it. I fail to see why you do. The issue at hand is whether Paul's Christ was Jesus. I say it wasn't. I say Paul's Christ has been written into the gospels in the second century. That is interesting. Whether Justin had access to something that was to become "Matthew" is pretty academic, and not particularly interesting.

Let me explain to you why it is important.

You are giving us all here the impression that the entire Gospel records and Paul's works had been altered some time in the 2nd century so that they all reflect a cohesiveness for the purpose of advancing the Christian belief system. You are claiming that Paul's works were interpolated so that it would make it appear as though Paul's philosophy was more consistent with the Gospel record. You are essentially accusing ancient writers of conspiring to alter ancient historical documents, from my point of view.

My aim was to portray the consistency of the Gospel record and Paul's works, as they were quoted by the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Iraneus and other sources, in an effort to demonstrate that there is no evidence of tampering whatsoever.

Not only that, we are still waiting for any textual evidence from you to back up your claims of such tampering and interpolations. Any such tampering, such as that of Marcion, are already known and the ancient texts tells us that Marcion's "canon" was rejected due to his tampering, which in itself indicates that around AD 125 Marcion's canon was viewed as an afront to the already accepted texts of that time. Otherwise, why the hell would the ancient writers be making such a big stink about Marcion? In order for these ancient writers to take such a hard stand against Marcion's canon, it becomes painfully obvious that they already had the original canon to compare against Marcion's canon. Does this not just stand to reason?

How could any of the ancient writers say that something was wrong with Marcion's canon unless they had the original Canon?

Now listen, you have already admitted that Marcion only used the Gospel of Luke as the lone Gospel in his canon, right? Well, Mark, since you acknowledge that, then you must also acknowledge that Marcion had the Gospel of Luke in AD 125 which proves that the gospel's authors names had been ascribed to their Gospels. How could the ancient writers know that in AD 125 Marcion was using only the one Gospel, Luke, in his canon?

You are a doctor, Mark, and are by no means lacking intelligence, so there is no good excuse that you cannot follow my reasoning. Now here is more reasoning ...

Since the ancient writers knew that Marcion was only using Luke, then how could they know such a thing UNLESS they knew of the existence of other Gospels? Since they accuse Marcion of only using Luke, then what would be the point of that accusation UNLESS it pointed to the fact that Marcion was not using Matthew, Mark, and John?

So what's my point again? I am demonstrating a time-line of consistency of the Gospel record and Paul's works all through the ending of the 1st century to the ending of the 2nd century to demonstrate with textual evidence that your claims about interpolations and tampering have no evidence for support.

It's just that simple.

So again, please bring forth textual evidence to support your claims of tampering and interpolations of the Gospel records and Paul's works in the 1st or 2nd century.

I have been waiting for this for the past 10 pages.


What people are saying about Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." —Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock... I find it undeniable that...many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations..."—Dr. Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"—Dr. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus and The New Testament Code, RobertEisenman.com

"Well-referenced, with numerous quotations from renowned Egyptologists and classical scholars, Acharya's penetrating research clearly lays out the very ancient pre-Christian basis of modern Christianity. Those who espouse Christianity beware! After digesting the evidence, you will never again view your religion in the same light." —Dr. Robert M. Schoch, Professor of Natural Science College of General Studies at Boston University; Author, Pyramid Quest, Voyages of the Pyramid Builders and Voices of the Rocks

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves—indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence." —Barbara Walker, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets and Man Made God

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?" —Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary, Chicago, HollywoodJesus.com

"Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D. M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus? had been available to me." —Bob Semes, Retired university professor of History and Religion, Founder and Executive Director of The Jefferson Center

"In addition to presenting in Suns of God the troubling history of religious wars in an easily followed narrative, Acharya goes a step further, explaining as only she can how a once-simplistic idea has been carried into our modern world with terrible and nearly unimaginable results." —Rev. Dr. W. Sumner Davis, Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society; Member, American Geophysical Union; Affiliate, New York Academy of Science

"Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine." —David Mills, Atheist Universe

"Thank you, Acharya, for the important work you are doing. Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ just might be the best short introduction to Biblical scholarship yet." —David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, Libertarianism In One Lesson

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating." —Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church, Houston, TX

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together the rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion." —Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

"Acharya S is a shining light of truth in a sea of deceit."—Rob McConnell, X Zone Radio/TV, Ontario, Canada

"The Christ Conspiracy—very, very scholarly and wholly researched—is a book for today..." Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic Priest, Chicago, IL

"Amidst the global chaos of George Bush's War on Terror, largely founded on religious intolerance and simplistic notions of good and evil, Acharya S is the voice of reason." —Joan D'Arc, Paranoia

"D.M. Murdock could well be the most brilliant, insightful and rigorous theologian writing today." —Robert Tulip

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era." —John K.

"Acharya S/Murdock deserves an award for her hard work and courage. She is the Galileo of our day!"—Charles Johnson

"Acharya S knows more about the ancient Mysteries than any living scholar." —Christopher Knowles

"Acharya S is an amazing researcher with a tremendous amount of energy and appetite for constant discovery of newer horizons. " —Dr. O.P. Sudrania

"Acharya Murdock's work is so important, so clear and so timely!" —Theresa Weiss, PowerPlaces.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 02:18 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(26-11-2012 09:59 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Hi Free. I'm repeating myself...but...Justin most definitely DOESN"T QUOTE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS. You have just admitted he doesn't mention Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Therefore, ipse facto, he hasn't quoted them. Get it?


Mark, if we removed the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John off the Gospels, would they still be canonical? Get it?

The names mean nothing. They meant nothing in the first place. They were not on those gospels, but that does not mean that those gospels were not canonical. Here's some history for you.

The word "canon" in this respect means "measuring stick." It represents a collection of accepted Christians scriptures. The Christian canon was an ongoing process that changed the number of accepted books as time went on. It wasn't until the middle of the 4th century that we can see a canon that we also have today.

However, the current canon is not the original canon, as I have stated, it changed as time went on. The 4 Gospels were considered to be a part of the original canon, as well as Paul's letters.

Iraneus, who was a contemporary of Justin Martyr, and who also wrote mid to late 1st century, literally names all 4 authors of the Gospels in his Against Heresies works. Therefore, we "know" the Gospels all existed during the time of Justin Martyr and that they were already named as far as the authors were concerned, since Iraneus lists them by name, and uses verbatim quotes from each of them.

Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture. Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.

So here we have Iraneus, a student and contemporary of Justin Martyr, naming all 4 Gospel authors, and claiming that all 4 of those Gospel were what was considered "canonical" during his time. The reason for this was because of Marcion some 50 years earlier. Marcion's canon was rejected by mainstream Christianity and as a defense against Marcion's assertions, early church fathers described what the "canon" actually consisted of.

Mark, you need to make the distinction between the "original" canon and the "official" canon we have today. The canon changed as time went on, but as you can see above, the original canon had all 4 gospels, and the authors of all 4 gospels.

Also, Irenaeus makes absolutely no mention whatsoever that Justin Martyr was using any other scripture for his quotes other than what we see in the canonical gospels.

So, for your assertions to be true, you will need to provide some actual evidence to dispute what I am claiming, because what I am claiming actually does use textual evidence. All your assertions, theories, and claims are absolutely meaningless unless you can provide some semblance of textual evidence to support them.

For example, please find me some textual evidence that the verbatim quotes that Justin Martyr uses come from some other document other than the Gospel of Matthew.

Remember, assertions and theories are unacceptable. Textual evidence only please. And try to remember, this is not about proving anything conclusive, but only of providing the best argument to explain the evidence.

So go ahead, bring me your textual evidence.



Quote:You are claiming that his writings are very similar, even the same, as bits of the now canonical gospels, and therefore he's quoting them. I simply disagree. I acknowledge the similarity, but I'm not going to jump to your conclusion for all the reasons I've already mentioned.


What I have done is demonstrate the best argument on the table to explain the evidence. I am not saying it is conclusive, but only that what I am providing as far as textual evidence is concerned most certainly beats the crap out of conjecture, theories, and assertions.

I am only dealing with textual evidence, and supporting that textual evidence with even more textual evidence.

Quote:Ok....please understand the following. Paul never used the name Yeshua. So I'm not claiming Paul didn't believe in "his" Yeshua....I've got no idea what you mean here.

Yeshua was the Jewish brother of James. He was the leader of the Nazarenes who was executed by the Romans for being a naughty boy. I believe he almost certainly existed (you seem to keep implying I don't think he was a real person).

Where we don't agree is that you (in common with all Christians) think Paul's Christ was Yeshua. I don't. How we got on to Justin I can't remember, and why it's such an issue for you I'm not sure. You seem to somehow think that if Justin quotes from the canonical gospels, Paul thought his Christ was Jesus. Sorry...I may misunderstand you....but I can't follow your trail of thought.

Please tell me why you think Paul's Christ was Yeshua (or Jesus if you prefer)


I have (exasperately) explained this twice to you already (here and here), but you are not addressing the explanation with any degree of credulity.

You said: "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 responded with: "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)


These are indeed details of the life of Jesus that can found in the Gospel record. This is completely indisputable.

Again, just because Paul is not doing verbatim quotes of Jesus does not mean Paul is not providing "details" about the life of Jesus. He is, and in abundance.

If you think you need to "repeat yourself" again, as though I had not responded to your unsupported assertions, I suggest you actually read what I am saying.

Shy



Your tone is starting to sound inflammatory. Let's keep it civil, Ok? Thanks for the the attempted history lesson, but you've taught me nothing I didn't know, ( I have actually spent about 2 months researching and then writing 2 chapters on the bible's compilation), and you're wrong on a few points.

The names are important. You yourself have claimed Papias was talking about Matthew and Mark in 125 CE, and you claimed this was evidence for the authorship of the gospels. Eusebius and others, who you seem to hold in high regard, attempted to explain how these 4 wrote the gospels. They were lying.

Irenaeus is the first person ever to mention the four authors, in 180-190 CE, and Justin died in 165 CE, so Justin didn't know of these four, so your claim that Justin was a "contemporary" of Irenaeus is only half true.

There was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity" in the second century. The fact that you could make such a statement causes me to wince. If you're referring to what became catholicism, it did start to get the upper hand, in Rome, in the later second century, but was still in opposition to Marcion, various gnostic groups and numerous others.


I'll post more shortly. In the meantime, check out your own "facts" ...where you claim Paul is talking about Jesus. I looked up all of your quotations...and commented on them, and you haven't replied. Your supposed links between Paul's writing and an historical Yeshua are weak, weak, weak. I've even pasted them out for you (and others) to see. They do way more for my argument than yours.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: