Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2012, 02:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 02:50 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:You lied, and said "Bucky insisted I come here". I do no such thing. Liar.

So you posted the link to this thread and then attempted to goad me into refuting things said in this thread as some kind of non insistence that I come here? You took a firm stand on the issue of me coming here and just because you didn't state it verbally does not by any means remove the act of insistence.

When you make an assertion regarding this thread, you have made an insistence. Here is a lesson from the Thesaurus, which you obviously need:


Quote:Thesaurus Legend:

Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Verb

1. insist - be emphatic or resolute and refuse to budge; "I must insist!"
take a firm stand, hold firm, stand fast, stand pat, stand firm - refuse to abandon one's opinion or belief
assert, asseverate, maintain - state categorically.

2.insist - beg persistently and urgently; "I importune you to help them"
importune, beg, implore, pray - call upon in supplication; entreat; "I beg you to stop!"
besiege - harass, as with questions or requests; "The press photographers besieged the movie star"

3. insist - assert to be true; "The letter asserts a free society"
assert, postulate, posit - take as a given; assume as a postulate or axiom; "He posited three basic laws of nature"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insist

You posted a link for me to come here, and when I didn't, you then harassed me about it with the words of "He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread."


So learn something useful, will you?

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
03-12-2012, 07:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(02-12-2012 10:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Josephus and other historians mention at least a dozen Jewish leaders from the first century CE who were hailed as messiahs but killed by the Romans or in sectarian fights with their countrymen (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html- overview). Each time, the movements they inspired faded into nothing after the demise of their leader. The movement Yeshua was part of was different, because it definitely didn't fade away.




In the interest of intellectual honesty it should be noted that none of the people (aside from Jesus of Nazareth) on the list of the link above have any evidence whatsoever that they either self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah, nor is there any evidence that anyone in ancient times directly referred to them as a Messiah.


In fact, they are only regarded as "possible" messianic contenders by modern scholarship, but even then the assertion itself threads dangerously close to, if not in actuality, a Historian's Fallacy:


Quote:Historian's Fallacy

The historian's fallacy is a informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy


It also approaches the fallacy of Presentism:

Quote:Presentism

Presentism is a mode of literary or historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of Presentism is a common fallacy in historical writings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_..._analysis)


Please bear that in mind before you consider anything in the link as being factual.



Free...we did this topic to death, what is the point in bringing it up again? The fact is the word 'messiah" means different things to different people. Numerous historians talk about the "wannabe" Jewish heroes of ancient Palestine. The concept is mentioned by a number of contemporary historians (did you even read the references that were pointed out to you? If you did you should have said so, and commented...that would be acknowledging you've digested your proponent's arguments) Instead, you launch into a lecture about logical fallacies. That's patronising and annoying, particularly as you are clearly in the minority here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 08:15 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 08:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You lied, and said "Bucky insisted I come here". I do no such thing. Liar.

So you posted the link to this thread and then attempted to goad me into refuting things said in this thread as some kind of non insistence that I come here? You took a firm stand on the issue of me coming here and just because you didn't state it verbally does not by any means remove the act of insistence.

When you make an assertion regarding this thread, you have made an insistence. Here is a lesson from the Thesaurus, which you obviously need:


Quote:Thesaurus Legend:

Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Verb

1. insist - be emphatic or resolute and refuse to budge; "I must insist!"
take a firm stand, hold firm, stand fast, stand pat, stand firm - refuse to abandon one's opinion or belief
assert, asseverate, maintain - state categorically.

2.insist - beg persistently and urgently; "I importune you to help them"
importune, beg, implore, pray - call upon in supplication; entreat; "I beg you to stop!"
besiege - harass, as with questions or requests; "The press photographers besieged the movie star"

3. insist - assert to be true; "The letter asserts a free society"
assert, postulate, posit - take as a given; assume as a postulate or axiom; "He posited three basic laws of nature"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insist

You posted a link for me to come here, and when I didn't, you then harassed me about it with the words of "He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread."


So learn something useful, will you?
Poor baby. Is being harassed and forced into doing things he doesn't want to, then blames others for them. Waa waa waa. Weeping
He got called out for being a jerk, and wants to weasel out of it, and blame someone else. I get it. It's all my fault. Every word he wrote here is my doing. Right.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 08:24 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
(02-12-2012 09:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Myther...."to pester or annoy." End of argument.
Are you intentionally making a conscious decision to purposely avoid what was meant when I answered your question of what a myther was with a link that clearly demonstrates that according to this context we are discussing it refers to those who believe Jesus was a total myth?

Are you so upset with me Mark that you would stoop to this low level of maturity?

Seriously?

I understand how some of the people here were quite happy to continue a discussion regarding the positive claim of how Paul's Jesus was not modeled after the Jewish Yeshua without that view being challenged. Then, when someone comes along and pokes holes in the argument (massive glaring holes), the happy bubble gets burst and the insults begin to fly.

So far in this discussion, I have been called a theist, an egotist, an angry person, and a host of other insulting names just because I provide evidence to counter the argument.

The problem with many people in this thread is that they haven't the first clue how to properly analyze text, investigate history, recognize fallacious arguments, reason effectively, and present a cohesive argument. Instead, they make unsupported claims, fail to analyze text, post logical fallacies as arguments, demonstrate a great lack of reasoning, and post an argument that falls apart with a gentle breeze.

My feeling on this is that if you cannot present a good argument, then perhaps people shouldn't embarrass themselves by presenting one that is clearly ridiculous.

Sure, anybody can have a theory, but just like any scientific argument, does your historical argument hold up under scrutiny? Why do you think it would be any different in the historical field than it would be in the scientific field?

Yes Mark, you were nice and comfortable with these people listening to you until I came along. I did not purposely come to this thread on my own to attack anybody personally. Bucky insisted that I come here so that he figured he could prove something to me. All that was proven here is that the arguments used to support non-historicity in favor of a total myth are left wanting in the extreme sense.

Now, because of the low level of maturity that is being demonstrated on this thread, I will leave you to continue to post your theories to those who really have no education to decide whether you have a point of not, and allow them to follow whatever it is you say, unchallenged.

That appears to be what you want, Mark. So that is what you will have.

Enjoy your thread. I have better things to do with some of the great atheists on this forum rather than argue over whatever it is you want people to believe.

Good day.

I pressed your link about 'Myther" It took me to a choice of about 10 other sites. These sites all talked in a dismissive way about "mythers." Now it makes no difference if some people proudly wear the badge. It is very obvious the term is meant to be derogatory, a way of dismissing people who don't buy into the historicity of Jeebus. The only dictionary definitions I can find state "to pester, or annoy." Now...if you, or anyone else think I've misunderstood what is generally meant by this term, I'm all ears.


Re your "massive glaring holes" in my argument, the fact is simply I don't agree with you, and neither do multiple modern commentators who share my opinion. Once again, you launch into a lecture about historical analysis in a patronising way. The truth of the matter is that YOU are propounding very "conventional", I think rather out of date, commentary on Paul. I have repeatedly bought up facts ( such as Paul's almost complete lack of commentary on Jesus' life) which you just ignore. You usually don't even acknowledge that you've read my arguments.

I enjoy a good discussion. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, in fact I enjoy it, provided

- they show evidence of having listened

- they don't repeatedly resort to telling me how authoritative they are

-they don't repeatedly claim they've heard it all before

-they don't say the same things over and over

-they don't patronise me with claims I'm using logical fallacies because I disagree with you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 11:16 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(02-12-2012 02:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:
HUH??? The "mythers" (this is really a derogatory term which shouldn't be used just because people have a different opinion to yours) obviously have a valid point. Paul obviously did make up his own Jesus, his own crucified son of god. Why do you think this argument is invalid? What on earth could you mean by "and many others like it?" You seem to suggest that everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours is "invalid"

There's something very fishy about the way you put people who don't agree with you down. If that's an ego/self esteem issue, get over it will you?



The term "myther" is even used by mythers themselves , and is hardly a derogatory term. It merely defines their position.

I don't have to suggest that the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all arguments invalidate themselves.

If you believe that the method of argument which uses unsupported assertion, logical fallacies, incomplete analysis, false Greek definitions, and glaringly obvious contradictions somehow has any validity to it, then I will wait right here for your explanation as to how any and/or all of those things are even remotely capable of establishing a point in the myther argument.

Mark you seriously need to hone your knowledge of how reasoning works. How do you think I could show you all the problems with those videos, which many you completely agreed with, if I wasn't employing sound reasoning?

Be prepared, if you are going to write a book on these subjects, and if your reasoning and supporting evidence is weak, you will be eaten alive by the critics.

What I do is the least of your worries, seriously.



How could any rational person claim "the term myther is hardly a derogatory term," and then claim
"the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

Your intention is obviously to denigrate "mythers"

I found this on the internet...

Myther a translation
Late 17th century, unknown origin, possibly Welsh moedrodd to worry or bother. Possible alternative from the Welsh meidda (“‘to beg for whey’”) or perhaps meiddio (“‘to dare or venture’”). Bear in mind that the "dd" in Welsh corresponds in sound to the "th" in mither, and English also has moider and moither.

Common Uses
When being annoyed by a 3rd party - Stop Mythering me up or I'm all mythered up now.

On a poor working enviroment/location - This place is f**king myther

On receiving a phone call after 3pm on a Friday - F**king MYTHER or this had better not be myther.

On being delayed by a forementioned Breadvanner - Get out of the f**king way you mythering breadvanner.

Whilst staying in a most tranquil shangri-la type location - This place is free from all Myther or is Myther free.

On receipt of incorrect documentation - I don't do Myther and thats Myther
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2012 10:48 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:How could any rational person claim "the term myther is hardly a derogatory term," and then claim "the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

It's quite simple Mark, look at the following comparison:

"The term "Christian" is hardly a derogatory term," and "the opinion of many (ie: not all) Christians is invalid for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

See anything derogatory there, Mark? How about we change it up again:

"The term "Atheist" is hardly a derogatory term," and "the opinion of many (ie: not all) Atheists is invalid for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

Now, since you are refusing to acknowledge that I am speaking of "Myther" in the context of "Jesus Myther ," which has been demonstrated to you ad nausium , I will again post the information for both you and the readers of this thread to pound my point home solidly to expose your fallacious reasoning and logical fallacy of Straw Man :

Quote:Straw Man

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


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

Since you are quoting almost every definition of "myther" except the one I am obviously referring to, then you are indeed guilty of presenting a Strawman Argument.

So how about addressing the actual argument I presented in regards to Jesus Myther, Mark? If you think it's some kind of insult to refer to a position held by those who believe Jesus was a total myth as "mythers," then perhaps you could actually produce some evidence to support it?

After all, they even claim this of themselves. I don't see a Christian or Atheist being insulted by being called a Christian or Atheist, do you?

You're making much ado about nothing, and using logical fallacies to do it.

Sound "patronizing" enough for you? That's what you get for intentionally misrepresenting my statements as that type of behavior is frowned upon. If you don't like it, then I suggest you end the fallacies and begin the intellectual honesty, because so far it is sorely lacking and insulting to not just myself, but to others on this forum who see right through it.

Enjoy your conversation with Bucky regarding Paul.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
04-12-2012, 07:55 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-12-2012 10:22 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:How could any rational person claim "the term myther is hardly a derogatory term," and then claim "the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"


It's quite simple Mark, look at the following comparison:

"The term "Christian" is hardly a derogatory term," and "the opinion of many (ie: not all) Christians is invalid for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

See anything derogatory there, Mark? How about we change it up again:

"The term "Atheist" is hardly a derogatory term," and "the opinion of many (ie: not all) Atheists is invalid for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all (their) arguments invalidate themselves?"

Now, since you are refusing to acknowledge that I am speaking of "Myther" in the context of "Jesus Myther ," which has been demonstrated to you ad nausium , I will again post the information for both you and the readers of this thread to pound my point home solidly to expose your fallacious reasoning and logical fallacy of Straw Man :

Quote:Straw Man

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.



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

Since you are quoting almost every definition of "myther" except the one I am obviously referring to, then you are indeed guilty of presenting a Strawman Argument.

So how about addressing the actual argument I presented in regards to Jesus Myther, Mark? If you think it's some kind of insult to refer to a position held by those who believe Jesus was a total myth as "mythers," then perhaps you could actually produce some evidence to support it?

After all, they even claim this of themselves. I don't see a Christian or Atheist being insulted by being called a Christian or Atheist, do you?

You're making much ado about nothing, and using logical fallacies to do it.

Sound "patronizing" enough for you? That's what you get for intentionally misrepresenting my statements as that type of behavior is frowned upon. If you don't like it, then I suggest you end the fallacies and begin the intellectual honesty, because so far it is sorely lacking and insulting to not just myself, but to others on this forum who see right through it.

Enjoy your conversation with Bucky regarding Paul.



I understand your perspective about mythers now and conceed you have a point.

Please stay in the conversation about Paul. I want you to share your knowledge with me. Please, when you have the time, talk around the topic of the fact that Paul barely mentions the details of the life of jesus. I want to understand your perspective on this, as you've spent many years thinking about scripture.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:I understand your perspective about mythers now and conceed you have a point.

Please stay in the conversation about Paul. I want you to share your knowledge with me. Please, when you have the time, talk around the topic of the fact that Paul barely mentions the details of the life of jesus. I want to understand your perspective on this, as you've spent many years thinking about scripture.

Thank you for the concession.

I noticed you seem interested in the "Think Again: How To Reason And Argue" class. If you sign up, you will learn things that will make your arguments far more proficient. You see Mark, the best way to destroy an argument is to recognize the method your opponent uses, and look for instabilities in the reasoning such as fallacies. Once you've exposed those fallacies, then you have destroyed their argument for the simple reason that their argument is built upon a house of cards known as fallacious reasoning.

Also, it's not only your opponents arguments that you will analyze with greater proficiency, but also your own. You will see the weak spots in your method, and learn how to strengthen them and use careful wording to ensure that your opponent cannot find a weak spot.

I tend to get rather gruff with my attacks of other people's arguments because most people fail or refuse to recognize the problems with their own reasoning, and that is frustrating so I simply keep pounding the point home until there is at least some semblance of acknowledgement. I become patronizing for the simple reason that I feel insulted for what often appears like an intentional lack of acknowledgement of the reasoning, which befuddles me, especially when I know that the person I am arguing with is intelligent.

I had to endure my own arguments being destroyed years ago until I learned the hard way how to reason and argue with greater proficiency.

So hopefully you will understand how I sometimes appear like I am not acknowledging your points, but that is only because sometimes you have failed to realize that I have attacked your method, exposed the false reasoning, and therefore destroyed the point. When the legs your point stands upon have been broken, the point crumbles.

There are other people on this forum who employ the same reason and arguing techniques. I suspect Vosur is one of them, as he sits quietly in the background and then pounces like a rabid lion when the logic and reasoning exits stage left. Chas is likely another, as well as moondog among others. People who are like us do not like it when things simply don't add up. Things MUST add up for people like us or else we'll nuke the planet in retaliation.

I am far from perfect in reasoning and logic, but I employ the basics very well in my opinion. That course you seem interested in will open your eyes, and make you laugh at yourself. You will be laughing at yourself a lot, because once you see your weakness you won't be able to stop laughing at yourself. It's just the way it works.

Anyways, I'll stay on board and answer your query about Paul in my next post.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
04-12-2012, 10:36 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:I want you to share your knowledge with me. Please, when you have the time, talk around the topic of the fact that Paul barely mentions the details of the life of jesus. I want to understand your perspective on this, as you've spent many years thinking about scripture

Well one of the obvious reasons why Paul barely mentions much about the life of Jesus is because he never met Jesus. Another obvious reason is because there likely wasn't much in the way of written materials regarding Jesus for Paul to refer to and learn anything during the first few years after the Romans sent Jesus to meet his god.

But one of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, is because Paul was ostracized by the Nazarene sect some years after he joined them. Paul so desperately wanted to be in Jesus' inner circle of Apostles, but because he persecuted and then contended against the Nazarenes, they simply didn't trust him. We find all kinds of strife and tension between Paul and the others such as James and Peter, as well as Barnabas. It seemed like Paul was rubbing everybody the wrong way.

Therefore, since Paul was ostracized by the Nazarenes, he began to insist that he was an apostle as what is evident throughout his letters, and claimed the Gentiles as the target of his preaching. However, because he was ostracized, he may not have been privledged to the oral tradition of the life of Jesus like those in the Nazarene sect were, and this may help to explain his lack of knowledge on the life of Jesus.

Therefore, after claiming apostleship, Paul had to gain credibility with those he preached to by explaining to them that he had a direct line to the spirit of Christ, who supposedly gave him revelations. He expresses this numerous times in his writings. Paul seemed to have a chip on his shoulder, and seemed intent on out-doing the Nazarenes in claiming Christ for his own sect.

Also, Paul insisted that he had a direct link to the Spirit of Christ and claimed his knowledge came from Christ only. This may explain another reason why he didn't quote anything about the actual life of Jesus because if he did he may get accused from the Nazarenes of merely repeating what they were already preaching, and exposed as riding on the backs of the Nazarene, and not have a direct link to Christ at all.

So to sum it all up, Paul got kicked out of the Nazarene sect before he wrote any of his letters. They ostracized him and this hurt Paul's little feelings. He decided to get back at the Nazarene by doing the one thing they did not want done; taking the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles. So he made up his own "gospel" according to his supposed "revelations" and preached it to the Gentiles.

In the end, the Nazarene got wiped out some centuries later, but not before their teachings of Jesus got hijacked by the early Christians, which resulted in the embellished life of Jesus of Nazareth as we see in the current Gospels. His life was embellished, not so much by Pauline Christianity, but by yet the Greek Christians who absolutely needed to justify Jesus as a deity to conform with their already established beliefs in other deities. They were yet another sect of which the Gnostics evolved from.

My theory above can actually be substantiated by the words of Paul in his letters, as well as reason, logic, and investigation. Once we eliminate what it is we want to believe, all that remains is what actually exists.

Paul was simply a vain man on a mission to exact revenge on the Nazarene by building a bigger and greater church then they had, and avoided using anything they had, including the actual life history of Jesus. It's likely he knew the life history of Jesus, but because the Nazarene had it written in their doctrines, he avoided quoting much from those doctrines so that he wouldn't be accused as being a "copy-cat," and that is why we have "Pauline" Christianity.

That's about it, Mark.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
05-12-2012, 12:22 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2012 01:45 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-12-2012 10:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I want you to share your knowledge with me. Please, when you have the time, talk around the topic of the fact that Paul barely mentions the details of the life of jesus. I want to understand your perspective on this, as you've spent many years thinking about scripture

Well one of the obvious reasons why Paul barely mentions much about the life of Jesus is because he never met Jesus. Another obvious reason is because there likely wasn't much in the way of written materials regarding Jesus for Paul to refer to and learn anything during the first few years after the Romans sent Jesus to meet his god.

But one of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, is because Paul was ostracized by the Nazarene sect some years after he joined them. Paul so desperately wanted to be in Jesus' inner circle of Apostles, but because he persecuted and then contended against the Nazarenes, they simply didn't trust him. We find all kinds of strife and tension between Paul and the others such as James and Peter, as well as Barnabas. It seemed like Paul was rubbing everybody the wrong way.

Therefore, since Paul was ostracized by the Nazarenes, he began to insist that he was an apostle as what is evident throughout his letters, and claimed the Gentiles as the target of his preaching. However, because he was ostracized, he may not have been privledged to the oral tradition of the life of Jesus like those in the Nazarene sect were, and this may help to explain his lack of knowledge on the life of Jesus.

Therefore, after claiming apostleship, Paul had to gain credibility with those he preached to by explaining to them that he had a direct line to the spirit of Christ, who supposedly gave him revelations. He expresses this numerous times in his writings. Paul seemed to have a chip on his shoulder, and seemed intent on out-doing the Nazarenes in claiming Christ for his own sect.

Also, Paul insisted that he had a direct link to the Spirit of Christ and claimed his knowledge came from Christ only. This may explain another reason why he didn't quote anything about the actual life of Jesus because if he did he may get accused from the Nazarenes of merely repeating what they were already preaching, and exposed as riding on the backs of the Nazarene, and not have a direct link to Christ at all.

So to sum it all up, Paul got kicked out of the Nazarene sect before he wrote any of his letters. They ostracized him and this hurt Paul's little feelings. He decided to get back at the Nazarene by doing the one thing they did not want done; taking the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles. So he made up his own "gospel" according to his supposed "revelations" and preached it to the Gentiles.

In the end, the Nazarene got wiped out some centuries later, but not before their teachings of Jesus got hijacked by the early Christians, which resulted in the embellished life of Jesus of Nazareth as we see in the current Gospels. His life was embellished, not so much by Pauline Christianity, but by yet the Greek Christians who absolutely needed to justify Jesus as a deity to conform with their already established beliefs in other deities. They were yet another sect of which the Gnostics evolved from.

My theory above can actually be substantiated by the words of Paul in his letters, as well as reason, logic, and investigation. Once we eliminate what it is we want to believe, all that remains is what actually exists.

Paul was simply a vain man on a mission to exact revenge on the Nazarene by building a bigger and greater church then they had, and avoided using anything they had, including the actual life history of Jesus. It's likely he knew the life history of Jesus, but because the Nazarene had it written in their doctrines, he avoided quoting much from those doctrines so that he wouldn't be accused as being a "copy-cat," and that is why we have "Pauline" Christianity.

That's about it, Mark.
"Well one of the obvious reasons why Paul barely mentions much about the life of Jesus is because he never met Jesus."

Agreed.

"Another obvious reason is because there likely wasn't much in the way of written materials regarding Jesus for Paul to refer to and learn anything during the first few years after the Romans sent Jesus to meet his god."

Agreed.

"But one of the biggest reasons, in my opinion, is because Paul was ostracized by the Nazarene sect some years after he joined them. Paul so desperately wanted to be in Jesus' inner circle of Apostles, but because he persecuted and then contended against the Nazarenes, they simply didn't trust him. We find all kinds of strife and tension between Paul and the others such as James and Peter, as well as Barnabas. It seemed like Paul was rubbing everybody the wrong way."

Agreed.

"Therefore, since Paul was ostracized by the Nazarenes, he began to insist that he was an apostle as what is evident throughout his letters, and claimed the Gentiles as the target of his preaching."

Agreed.

"However, because he was ostracized, he may not have been privledged to the oral tradition of the life of Jesus like those in the Nazarene sect were, and this may help to explain his lack of knowledge on the life of Jesus."

Mmmmmmmmmm. Impossible. He lived on Jesus' home turf for some of the time. He would have had thousands of clues to pick up on. I think he was ostracized because he was a heretic. He was the enemy.

Also, you have claimed he was ostracized "some years after he joined them." If he was one of them for some years, wouldn't he have picked up some facts about Jesus in the first few years?

"Therefore, after claiming apostleship, Paul had to gain credibility with those he preached to by explaining to them that he had a direct line to the spirit of Christ, who supposedly gave him revelations. He expresses this numerous times in his writings. Paul seemed to have a chip on his shoulder, and seemed intent on out-doing the Nazarenes in claiming Christ for his own sect."

Yep!

"Also, Paul insisted that he had a direct link to the Spirit of Christ and claimed his knowledge came from Christ only."

Mmmmm. I must disagree. I think he thought god spoke to him through scripture. I don't think he ever claimed Christ talked to him. I would like to know why you think it was a "Christ" who spoke to him?

"This may explain another reason why he didn't quote anything about the actual life of Jesus because if he did he may get accused from the Nazarenes of merely repeating what they were already preaching, and exposed as riding on the backs of the Nazarene, and not have a direct link to Christ at all."

Um...isn't that a bit unlikely? Isn't it more probable his Christ wasn't Jesus? If he was claiming his Christ was Jesus, don't you think he'd include anything he knew about Yeshua to help legitimise the link with his recently departed hero?

"So to sum it all up, Paul got kicked out of the Nazarene sect before he wrote any of his letters."

Probably not correct. We don't know. As best we can tell, he had some sort of relationship with them early on, as evidenced by his telling the tale of the Jerusalem council. Although Acts is extremely dubious as history, it is claimed they only kicked him out in the late 50's/early 60's when they sent him to the temple to prove he was still Jewish.

"They ostracized him and this hurt Paul's little feelings. He decided to get back at the Nazarene by doing the one thing they did not want done; taking the teachings of Christ to the Gentiles. So he made up his own "gospel" according to his supposed "revelations" and preached it to the Gentiles."

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm. That's interesting. So you think he made up his own gospel as a sort of "gee ....I want to teach something about Jesus, and they (the Nazarenes) won't tell me about him, so I'll make up my own story?" What is your evidence for this?

"In the end, the Nazarene got wiped out some centuries later,"

Agreed.

"but not before their teachings of Jesus got hijacked by the early Christians, which resulted in the embellished life of Jesus of Nazareth as we see in the current Gospels."

How do you know this?

"His life was embellished, not so much by Pauline Christianity"

Please show me where Paul embellishes Yeshua's life.

"but by yet the Greek Christians who absolutely needed to justify Jesus as a deity to conform with their already established beliefs in other deities."

Ok. Agreed.

"They were yet another sect of which the Gnostics evolved from."

Who are you talking about? ie who is "they?" Um...you think "the Greek Christians" evolved into "the gnostics?" I must say, I've never heard that before!

"My theory above can actually be substantiated by the words of Paul in his letters, as well as reason, logic, and investigation. Once we eliminate what it is we want to believe, all that remains is what actually exists."

Ok...well I'm looking forward to reading your evidence. Plonk it out, lay it down flat on the page. Show me where Paul talks about the specifics of Yeshua's life.

"Paul was simply a vain man on a mission to exact revenge on the Nazarene by building a bigger and greater church then they had, and avoided using anything they had, including the actual life history of Jesus."

I'd agree with that. Not sure I'd use the word "revenge" though. "Mission" perhaps.

"It's likely he knew the life history of Jesus,"

Strongly disagreed. "Jesus" hadn't been invented yet. You can't know about Harry Potter until the first novel was published (unless you're intimate with the author, and Paul wasn't) He shows almost no evidence that he knew the details of a recently executed Yeshua.

"but because the Nazarene had it written in their doctrines, he avoided quoting much from those doctrines so that he wouldn't be accused as being a "copy-cat," and that is why we have "Pauline" Christianity."

Very doubtful. Think about what you've just written. No disrespect intended to you, Free, but this explanation doesn't ring true. If he'd been writing about a crucified Yeshua, he would have included anything he knew.

As yet you haven't convinced me. I still think Paul invented his own Christ, and he wasn't referring to a recently departed Yeshua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  LIES THAT PAUL MADE truthBtold 77 1,554 20-01-2014 12:32 AM
Last Post: EvolutionKills
  DID PAUL CHANGE SCRIPTURE? truthBtold 13 382 15-01-2014 12:01 PM
Last Post: truthBtold
  Westboro Baptist Church to picket Paul Walker's funeral Raptor Jesus 35 1,075 06-12-2013 02:25 AM
Last Post: morondog
  Does this Bible verse imply Paul of Tarsus wanted to outlaw atheism? Chase 10 474 11-10-2013 05:54 PM
Last Post: Mark Fulton
  What's a saint? Dark Light 10 325 02-09-2013 12:51 PM
Last Post: Minimalist
  Pray for us Saint Gilbert Abdul Alhazred 3 313 12-08-2013 05:45 AM
Last Post: Bucky Ball
Lightbulb Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach - Good Sense fstratzero 0 281 15-12-2012 07:20 PM
Last Post: fstratzero
Forum Jump: