Paul Contra Jesus

They're talking about this topic right now on BBC4:


Who Killed Christianity?
BBC Radio 4 FM
Tue 10 Jan, 09:30 - 09:45 15 mins

Dr David Starkey argues that five major Christian figures distorted, even betrayed, the Christian faith as envisaged by Jesus. Defenders argue back. 1/5. St Paul.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/

 

Just listened to David Icke discussing a similar topic on who blew up the World Trade Centre.
He is arguing that 'Reptilian Aliens' are part of the reason.
Defenders argue back.
1/5. Reptile Queen Elizabeth.

 

I am sure Erasmus is dead serious in his views, though. I take him seriously in that regard, but as for whether his posts have ever convinced me to change my opinions. I cannot say that, honestly. I hear what he's saying, but I don't understand the thinking. I don't like to offer unsolicited advice, normally, but I will make this exception. Rather than him practicing, I would advise studying the fine art of critical analysis and formal debating procedures. Maybe taking some psychology courses, and learning how to develop a supporting set of points which help solidify the validity of the point being stated.
On a more positive note, Erasmus does try to make his point clear, and also does bring a lot to the table sometimes, sharing many of his personal feelings and opinions.

 

People have suggested that I have demented sentence structure and occasionally jump from point to point in an awkward manner.
Critisism well taken.
Spelling - dont care.
Am I right - Yes.
Can we be certain the Gospels and other books of the NT are the same today as they were in the first few centuries.
Yes.
Very much so.
There are no complete New Testaments prior to around 350AD but there are complete books.
Complete Chapter from many of the different books.
Complete pages going back even earlier.
There are fragments recently discovered believed to be dated within the lifetimes of some of the Apostles themselves (meaning during first-hand witness era).

Oh yeah.. they say all the same things the first 'complete' Bibles are bound around 300 years later.
(I mean complete ones we have found and can date - of course there may have been more earlier than that).

Again, people seem to be forgetting a MAJOR and well documented historical reality here - Christianity was widespread long before Nicene.
Meaning - if anyone did want to 'rewrite' a bunch of scriptures they would really be screwed when (example) The Coptic Christians in Egypt just pulled out their Epistles and Gospels and there would be the differences caught out red-handed.

This is why I say its all good and well to come up with a conspiracy theory but what happens is that you then need to believe something so outrageous and unlikely in order to make it work (like believing that 300 CIA agents can all somehow keep their 911 mass murder a secret all this time... and nobody ever caught on.. etc etc).

You can hardly even begin to list the implications and assumtions and common-sense defying presumptions you need to explain if you just want to theorise Paul was rewriting doctrine (or making them up).
What do you do with the book of Acts - throw it away?
How come 12 leaders with all the authority of bestowed on them could not stop him?
How come thousands of first-hand eyewitnesses (followers) couldnt have just easily exposed Paul as a fraud as quickly as he started?
Since Christians were (at that time) being persecuted and run down - how is it that Paul is getting away with this crap from just a Roman angle on this?

Dont even bother trying to think these through and dont worry because you could come up with about 100 other reality-defying questions, all of which would require far far more astonishing and unrealistic 'theories' and 'theories about that theory' and so on.
"Well.. see.. Paul simply paid off 5,000 people and anyone else was killed.. and then uhhh.. the Disciples books were all changed and uhh.. well, technically Acts does not actually say it was written by John and err... then multitudes of Gentiles just liked Paul so much and.."

Oh man.. its ridiculous.
I mean, by all means lets say that you may or may not believe in the divinity or even the total inerrancy of the New Testament.
Lets just say that you can argue fairly whether you believe its divine revelation or not.
Ok, fair enough.

But this rehash of a pretty lamoid antichristian muslim apologetic scheme being revived by Gnostic groupies and their Davinci Code Gospel as well as 'Internet Atheists' pumping it up to dupe unwitting seekers into thinking there is some sort of dichotemy them must choose from (either way and half your Bible is fake suckers hahah)
Gimme a break.

Like I say - even criticial or 'liberal' scholars considered 'fringey' even in secular universities will not embarrass themselves by trying to take this 'Pauline-Constantine' crap seriously.

 

I can sum it up for you all very simply.

Liberals look for reason, logic, progress, what is humane, what is justice, what is scientific, what is truly historical and what is natural.

Fundies look for anything and everything to reinforce their preconceived notions that they have been conditioned to believe by other fundies.

Liberals assume based on evidence.

Fundies assume based on presupposition based on authority figures, fairytale stories and feelings.

Liberals take facts as they are.

Fundies take facts and manipulate them and "interpret" them into whatever agrees with their preconceived beliefs.

 

I wasn't going to get involved, but now you're just making shit up. The gospels were anonymous a long time, and were named later by the church. No one knows who wrote them.

 

Funny thing is nobody (until now) has ever claimed that all the gospels were even alledgedly written by any of the apostles;
Luke was a disciple of Paul, Mark is supposed to have been a follower of Peter.
Even if you accept the theory that Mark was just recording Peter's words, thus making the Gospel of Mark for all practical purposes the Gospel of Peter, that still leaves us with Luke.

 

I personally don't believe the Constantine-Paul argument is the real argument. The real argument is the influence of politics on the Bible, and how convoluted the chain of cannonical texts gets the further back in history you go. If anyone thinks that politics didn't play a part, they're simply wrong. Titian, for example, discarded 1 Timothy because it allowed the drinking of wine, eating meat, and marriage. There was no scholarly basis behind his decision whatsoever, and he's the guy responsible for the 4 book cannon, or "orthodoxy" if you like that term more.

For a little over 100 years after the crucifixion there was absolutely no known scholarly attempts to determine what books were factual and which were not, because Christianity at that time was an oral tradition. Even when people started to take note and actually did start looking at these things, it was a pretty shoddy process. The earliest known Bibles date to the fourth century (widely thought to be at least a close rendition, if not the exact one that Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce). These Bibles, even though incomplete, include books that are not in most Bibles today. Eusebius even believed that Christ was made by God, and was not identical to God, which is what the Council of Nicene was actually formed to combat: Arianism. It was not formed to determine which books should be included in the Bible. After the creed came out, Eusebius changed which books he would include (or changed the texts themselves, we'll never know for sure, but he's known for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity in his Praeparatio Evangelic) so as not to loose the commission.

But before Eusebius, and even before Constantine, Decius, Valentinian, Diocletian, and Galerius were the first to outlaw and destroy texts (in the third century) that were in disagreement with their own beliefs, and they were not the last. Civil wars were rampant during this time, and all because of arguments over beliefs. The side that won, which was Rome, got the texts it wanted. The other texts were collected and burned, and certain texts were punishable by death for possessing them. If it wasn't for the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of the documents would have been lost, and many more remain so to this day. To deny this, and to deny that there's no argument here, is incomprehensible to me. The evidence is overwhleming...

Here's a great article on the formation of the NT, at least for anyone the least bit skeptical... For those leaning more toward inerrancy, I'd love to see someone new just try and debate this guy....

http://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/The%20Formation%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%20Canon.htm

 

from what I've read, that's a good link, thanks for posting it. I now have something to do besides sit around being bored

 

lazarus long had a time corps project seeking actual witnessing of the carpenter-rabbi y'shua (ben yosef, if you will), & found plenty of would-be messiahs back in the palestine governed by pilatus, but... as for the lead character in the gospels, well --- the expedition ummmmm underwriter took to privately referring to "it" (the central event of all christendom, eh?) as the "crucifiction"...


ymmv...

 

Man, that's some crazy sites you're readin' there. This one seemed especially PCP enhanced.

What axe are you grinding? Why you hatin' so strong? You're making no sense. I love you anyway, but DANG!

 

Where is the "no sense" nightwalker? I'd be only too happy to explain.
Hate? No mate ~ I do not hate anyone. But I do hate lies, I hate deceit, and I hate lying deceitful contortions of truth. Truth is the single most precious thing in life. without truth, lies will prevail. So truth must be preserved at all costs, and someone's gotta stand up for it. In my time I've heard too many deceitful manipulations that pervert truth into a series of incredible lies, all in the name of supporting the christian religion ~
such as in these forums (for *one* example) some clowns deceitfully fob off the historically accurate truth of Roman Emperor Constantine creating the Christian Church & religion as "an urban myth", yet the true urban myth is the Jesus story (because it has no historical or artifactual substantiation at all), unlike Constantine and the Nicean Creed and the council of Nicea which is well documented, recorded, and attested. Yet there is no such evidence of jesus.
That is the axe I'm grinding.

 

Of course, the liar and the deciever always makes the most sincere appeal that they are indeed the one offering truth.

You are full of shit and so far all you want to do is insist that there are records of deception by Constantine even though you do not have any such thing.
What does that make you?
At the very least you are a full-fledged intellectual hypocrite.

Evidence substantiating the life of Christ as described in the Gospels may not be welcome by you but at least there is some.

Evidenence that Constantine rewrote the Bible exists nowhere else but in your imagination.
Seriously.. there is no evidence at all.
You can just as easily say that Constantine was a Satanist who invented Candy Apples.

Totally bullshit call on your fake-ass appeal as the lover of truth. You love lies and deception and getting as many people into it as possible.

 

Paul, according to Nietzche, sucks, big time
You should read Antichrist book, both christians and non christians
I already mentioned that in the forums?

 

Yeah, thats fantastic.
Thanks for that.

 

Read it
What is so fantastic?

 

It s 200 pages, it will take you 2 hours or so to read it, just one evening...

 

What the hell are you talking about - Anton Leveys 'Satanic Bible'?
I read it back when I was in the Eighth Grade.
Its garbage from beginning to end and is written for people without a clue how real Christian doctrine is approached and practiced.
In short - its designed to dupe dumb people into thinking he is 'on to something'.
Dumb people and Illusionists.
Same thing really.

 

I am talking about a book called Antichrist written by Nietzsche
I really do not know what a real christian is, I don t wanna debate this with you.
I am just advising you to read the book I named: "The Antichrist" by Nietzsche
Is it understandable even if my english is poor?

Take care

 

Oui, Je comprends... mon erreir.

I will check out Nietzsche even though Im sure it sucks balls. (and Balles)