Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 31, 2026, 4:12 pm
Thread Rating:
|
The Quest for the Historical Paul
|
 RE: The Quest for the Historical Paul
March 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2016 at 2:36 pm by IATIA.)
The bible was put together from random scriptures. They liked the writings of a "Paul" and so anything that was written by a "Paul" had to be included, source not withstanding. After all, there was only one person named "Paul" in those days.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion. -- Superintendent Chalmers Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things. -- Ned Flanders Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral. -- The Rev Lovejoy 
If by "authentic" Tabor means that the first 7 have a certain stylistic similarity and a more or less unified theme best explained by having been written by one author (as opposed to the rest of the bullshit which is all over the place) that is one thing. But we do not have the originals so we cannot know if those 7 were "homogenized" by a later editor but one thing that editor forgot was that there is a historical marker in 2 Corinthians - or as Donald Drumpf would say "Two Corinthians walk into a bar....." which points to a period between 84 and 64 BC. That would blow the jesus story out of the water at least the jesus story which was later concocted by the so-called "early church fathers."
What's that marker, Min?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
RE: The Quest for the Historical Paul
March 11, 2016 at 5:53 pm
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm by Alex K.)
So who does the author of Corinthians refer to when talking about Christ if we are in 60 bc? Or is this question too naive because the text has been tinkered with and there is no single author of Cor.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Yes. That is the question, isn't it?
BTW, I'll give you one other little thought. Corinth did not exist in 60 BC....except as a burned out ruin which is the way the Romans left it in 146 BC. The simplest answer to that little problem is that by the time the proto-orthodox xtians got around to rehabilitating 'paul' into their writings Corinth was a going concern and the letters were simply "re-addressed." 
Kinda thinking "Paul" is the equivalent of Brigham Young and playing to his "Joe Smith", of that era; Jesus Christ.
Jesus to whatever extent he existed as a person or group, had imposed too many congenital errors in his movement, even by standards then as now, hyper relaxed for the religious orbit. "Paul" salvaged what he could, rewrote other segments as needed, made up shit as required, and deliberately misinterpreted all the rest. And here we are, 1800-2000 years later, and the fucking Mormons are using the same play book, LOL !! And bless their little conniving Mormon hearts, they thoughtfully documented the whole sordid mess of what they did. Praise Jesus, er, Joe, well, somebody . . . . The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Except if the Aretas reference to the first century BC is accurate then "paul" pre-dates "jesus" by nearly a century. To use your mormon analogy, that would put Brigham Young in the late 1700's which would cause even a mormon fuckwit some problems.
No, no it wouldn't.
 For example, Joe Smith's HANDWRITTEN version of his first visitation is not the 'official' version the church requires a convert to believe in as a condition of being a Mormon. and it gets worse . . . . . . The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
