Let's be biblically literary

[Bucky Ball]

PS Thanks for that bit about Jews being excluded, I didn't know that. Makes perfect sense though .  It was Paul who invented what was eventually widely called Christianity (in about the fourth century, I think.Emperor Theodosius?) Paul- de-Jewified the new sect, abolishing most of the ritual mitzvot .

Drich said it was Peter who abolished circumcision.  It was actually Peter, Barnabas and Paul. PLUS the mitzvah (commandment)  of the bris is NOT one of the 613 mitzvot.  It is a separate commandment, part of the Abrahamic covenant , well before the alleged Exodus.* 

However ,the timelines of any and all people and  events  in the Torah, umm, "tend to be a smidge unreliable."

Disclaimer ;I do not now and have never claimed  to be trained Biblical scholar.  I do claim  some basic training in scholarly method at university. 

))))))))))))))))))))))0_)))))))))))))))))))))))

* *Many Jews [at the time ,especially]  concluded that God broke the Abrahamic covenant by allowing the Shoah,

Circumcision was not unique in any way to Israel. Just like most of the cultural rules that got incorporated into the Bible texts, the customs existed and were prevalent in the culture ALREADY, and were later "sanctioned" as "religious" customs, ... they existed already. They did not originate from the priests/religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_circumcision
They were not unique to Israel.

The same is true of the prohibition against pork as well as almost any other cultural rule anyone can name. 

Peter was an unschooled fisherman. He and his friends did nothing, and could have done nothing to radically change a culture overnight. He could not have started writing Greek overnight, and no doubt remained an unschooled Jew. In Acts it says Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, (who wanted to to have apostolic status, and got it by paying for it ... his "gift" to the community in Jerusalem) ... if any of it happened at all. No contemporary talks about Paul. He was said to have sat at the feet of Gamaiel the Great, as a scholar of Judaism ... yet NOT ONE Jew thinks his "break" from Judaism is remarkable enough to say one word about it, even though they commented on far more mundane occurrences. Paul also could be a figment, or there may have been a few writers, writing as "Paul", (which makes sense, as they don't all have the same underlying philosophy).

[Minimalist]

No contemporary talks about Paul.

Not only that, but Justin, writing over a century after this supposed "paul" asshole brought jesusism to Rome, where Justin supposedly was, never heard of the fucker, either.

Curious, eh?

[grympy]

PS Thanks for that bit about Jews being excluded, I didn't know that. Makes perfect sense though .  It was Paul who invented what was eventually widely called Christianity (in about the fourth century, I think.Emperor Theodosius?) Paul- de-Jewified the new sect, abolishing most of the ritual mitzvot .

Drich said it was Peter who abolished circumcision.  It was actually Peter, Barnabas and Paul. PLUS the mitzvah (commandment)  of the bris is NOT one of the 613 mitzvot.  It is a separate commandment, part of the Abrahamic covenant , well before the alleged Exodus.* 

However ,the timelines of any and all people and  events  in the Torah, umm, "tend to be a smidge unreliable."

Disclaimer ;I do not now and have never claimed  to be trained Biblical scholar.  I do claim  some basic training in scholarly method at university. 

))))))))))))))))))))))0_)))))))))))))))))))))))

* *Many Jews [at the time ,especially]  concluded that God broke the Abrahamic covenant by allowing the Shoah,

Circumcision was not unique in any way to Israel. Just like most of the cultural rules that got incorporated into the Bible texts, the customs existed and were prevalent in the culture ALREADY, and were later "sanctioned" as "religious" customs, ... they existed already. They did not originate from the priests/religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_circumcision
They were not unique to Israel.

The same is true of the prohibition against pork as well as almost any other cultural rule anyone can name. 

Peter was an unschooled fisherman. He and his friends did nothing, and could have done nothing to radically change a culture overnight. He could not have started writing Greek overnight, and no doubt remained an unschooled Jew. In Acts it says Paul was an apocalyptic Jew, (who wanted to to have apostolic status, and got it by paying for it ... his "gift" to the community in Jerusalem) ... if any of it happened at all. No contemporary talks about Paul. He was said to have sat at the feet of Gamaiel the Great, as a scholar of Judaism ... yet NOT ONE Jew thinks his "break" from Judaism is remarkable enough to say one word about it, even though they commented on far more mundane occurrences. Paul also could be a figment, or there may have been a few writers, writing as "Paul", (which makes sense, as they don't all have the same underlying philosophy).

Fascinating stuff, thanks 

All makes sense to me.  I have argued  that most  if not all off the apostles would have probably been illiterate in Aramaic  (did they have their own version of written  Hebrew? )I think unlikely that any would have been literate in Greek. 

It's my understanding that some/a lot of scholars think that at least two of Paul's epistles are forgeries. That some scholars have suggested that all are fake.  Why? cContent or hand writing analysis, both?  

I must have another look at A N Wilson's biography of Paul, if I can find it. I seem to have misplaced it 

I've never been surprised by the lack  of contemporary sources about Jesus especially. Assuming for a moment that Jesus actually existed  : He was a  poor, wandering rabbi in first century Judea, there were many such  .He upset the wrong people and was crucified by the Romans  for sedition.  A common occurrence  at that time and place. There was nothing remarkable about him  the JEWISH sect he founded, nor his death. His apostles were illiterate, and he wasn't of sufficient  interest for anyone to bother writing about him.

. It was only after his death that his disciples began claiming  he was the mashiach .   Jews would have taken one  look at the fatuous claims, had a laugh and promptly forgotten  about a sect which was no longer Jewish.  The sect  which came to be called Christianity was simply one of perhaps dozens of cults around at the time . 

It is my understanding that Christianity started to become relevant under Constantine,  and then powerful when Theodosius made it the state religion.  It was he who approved  of and urged  Christians to murder pagans and anyone else  who disagreed with them .Initially  that was 'heretics' such as the Arians. The list kept expanding over the centuries.  Christians happily burned' heretics' (including opposing Christian sects)  for the next 1000 years,. There is no doubt in my mind that large  numbers of Christians  would still burn people alive if they could , starting with atheists.

[Minimalist]

All makes sense to me.  I have argued  that most  if not all off the apostles would have probably been illiterate in Aramaic  (did they have their own version of written  Hebrew? )

No, they had their own version of written Aramaic.



It's usage would have been far more widespread than "Hebrew" which applied to only a small shithole of a region.  Further, only the elites would have been able to read and write anything.

[Bucky Ball]

In my opinion, if any of the gospel stories contain a kernel of truth, it's the ruckus in the temple. 
It's almost impossible for us to understand how entirely the City of Jerusalem was entirely / totally dependent on temple tourism. 
Jews came from far and wide for the festivals and many obligatory sacrificial events. There were thousands of animals to be fed and maintained for slaughter, the priests had to be paid, places were rented for brief stays and all that meant. The Roman currency had to be changed to Jewish currency as Roman coinage was unclean for temple fee payments. Then along comes a wandering preacher and causes a ruckus in the ONE place the city depended on for it's economic life. In occupied Roman territories, there was a standing order to instantly execute troublemakers. No trial ... no nothing. Goodbye. That's what happened to Jesus, if the story has any merit. Nowhere in the gospels does he claim to be "King of the Jews", he does not preach that he thinks of himself as that, .... I don't see a basis for sedition. I don't see any basis for claiming that he thought of himself as "King of the Jews". The entire idea does not surface AT ALL until late, and then it's claimed by "outsiders". I don't buy it. What it is, is a good reason why people inventing the story of a trial to use to make their boy important enough to merit attention from the Sanhedrin (which BTW ... never once in all of history was called into session on Passover weekend) and Roman authorities and aristocrats who never got involved with summary executions of trouble-makers.

[Bucky Ball]

No contemporary talks about Paul.

Not only that, but Justin, writing over a century after this supposed "paul" asshole brought jesusism to Rome, where Justin supposedly was, never heard of the fucker, either.

Curious, eh?

I was looking for what apologists have to explain this glaring omission ... Justun M does not use ANYTHING by a Paul. 
LOL
One reason was "Well it's for a reason we just don't understand yet" 

... right. It is. Paul was made up too. 

[Minimalist]

Well one particularly laughable bit of apologist horseshit was that "everyone" knew about Paul so why write about him?

Takes a particularly stupid fuckhead to come up with that one but they are desperate.

[grympy]

All makes sense to me.  I have argued  that most  if not all off the apostles would have probably been illiterate in Aramaic  (did they have their own version of written  Hebrew? )

No, they had their own version of written Aramaic.



It's usage would have been far more widespread than "Hebrew" which applied to only a small shithole of a region.  Further, only the elites would have been able to read and write anything.

 OK.ta.

I assumed they wrote a version in of Hebrew because I was under the mistaken impression that Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. It is apparently a subset of semitic languages.   Have no idea from whence came my disinformation .Probably from some forum  

[Drich]

It's "quiet", not "quite".
A total charlatan who claims to have a successful business, yet cannot spell OR even know how to use a spell-checker is lying.
He knows NOTHING about Biblical scholarship. He's ripping off the founders of this forum by preaching his bullshit here.

1 Corinthians 14:34
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

Obviously for Paul, the Hebrew law was still very much in effect, and he SPECIFICALLY names women and NOT men. 
There was no OT and NT for the first Christians ... they had ONLY the OT, and they were still Jews. There was no "break" or boundary
between OT and NT. In Acts it says they continued to go to the temple to worship, ... every day. They remained Jews.
Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. he told his followers that there were some among then that would see the end-times.
He was wrong. He never said he came to start anything.

At the END of the 1st Century, they were still Jews. The Jewish High Priest required the reading of the Expulsion Curses ... to get RID of the trouble-makers, (members of the Way subsect ... ie those who would LATER to be called "Christians", ... the Benedictions Against the Minim, be read at every synagogue service, (in which "Christians" were STILL participating)... end of FIRST Century. Why did John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in the year 400 CE, tell his congregation to stop going to the synagogue ? Because they were still Jews.

Even the Gospel of John recognizes they were still going and were still Jews and were not welcome .. yet were there anyway.
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/ne...usion.html
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1...0199783175

This Drich person is 110% ignorant of history and the Bible. He is a total 100 % fraud. Expert in nothing.

did you intentionall leave out the first 1/2 of the church meeting context?

The proabition you place only on the women is one placed on the men as well. to everyone infact except to 2 or 3 teachers/song leaders and or interperters: what paul is saying is a woman specifically is not to interupt this process with questions, as that seemed to be an on going problem in that specific church.

26 So, brothers and sisters, what should you do? When you meet together, one person has a song, another has a teaching, and another has a new truth from God. One person speaks in a different language, and another interprets that language. The purpose of whatever you do should be to help everyone grow stronger in faith. 27 When you meet together, if anyone speaks to the group in a different language, it should be only two or no more than three people who do this. And they should speak one after the other. And someone else should interpret what they say. 28 But if there is no interpreter, then anyone who speaks in a different language should be quiet in the church meeting. They should speak only to themselves and to God.

29 And only two or three prophets should speak. The others should judge what they say. 30 And if a message from God comes to someone who is sitting, the first speaker should be quiet. 31 You can all prophesy one after the other. This way everyone can be taught and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are under the control of the prophets themselves.33 God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace. This is the rule for all the meetings of God’s people.


the above shows conclusivly Paul is regulating men and women to specific roles and times and oppertunities for people to be a part of the worship service.

As far as the law is concerned it is not an either or. It's freedom sport. something you still fail to understand. He had just taught this lesson to the people in corinth in chapter 9:
19 I am free. I belong to no other person, but I make myself a slave to everyone. I do this to help save as many people as I can. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save Jews. I myself am not ruled by the law, but to those who are ruled by the law I became like someone who is ruled by the law. I did this to help save those who are ruled by the law. 21 To those who are without the law I became like someone who is without the law. I did this to help save those who are without the law. (But really, I am not without God’s law—I am ruled by the law of Christ.) 22 To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I have become all things to all people. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. 23 I do all this to make the Good News known. I do it so that I can share in the blessings of the Good News.

Do you see or are you still blind? freedom from the law is freedom to bind yourself in or with the law, for example to give a woman or women the command to behave as if they where under the law because this is all they know, in a religious service situation, or it is the freedom to leave the law behind. It is the ablity to pick and choose what is needed for a situation

Read chapter 9 this is an out line of the whole book of romans. The whole book of Romans in detail explains how we are free.

Here's the thing sport. You can't say Paul says we are bound to the law, in 1 cor 14, when in 1 cor 9 he says he is so free he can be under the law or he can be free from it. You can not pick and choose your theology like that. You have to incorporate what everything says together.

But hey you know which quiet to use.. That shows some form of intelligence/memory retention. Even if there are blaring holes in your exegetical abilities.

[Bucky Ball]

The proabition

prohibition ..... not proabition. There is no such word as "proabition".

bla bla bla ...... bla bla bla

Here's the thing sport. You can't say Paul says we are bound to the law, in 1 cor 14, when in 1 cor 9 he says he is so free he can be under the law or he can be free from it. You can not pick and choose your theology like that. You have to incorporate what everything says together.

But hey you know which quiet to use.. That shows some form of intelligence/memory retention. Even if there are blaring holes in your exegetical abilities.

Yes, sport, I can say he says they were bound by the law, and THEN he contradicted himself, (or whoever wrote it did) .... we know there was more than one "Paul" writing letters, (or scholars do anyway). You are not a scholar ... in no way are you one. I don't have to do anything you say, since you can't even spell a common English word correctly. Go get yourself an education ... you're not up to this task, sporto-buddy-boy. You wasted your time writing that shit. Stop spamming this forum with that garbage. It's not "which quiet" sporto-boy ... quiet and quite are very different words.

[Drich]

The proabition

prohibition ..... not proabition. There is no such word as "proabition".

bla bla bla ...... bla bla bla

Here's the thing sport. You can't say Paul says we are bound to the law, in 1 cor 14, when in 1 cor 9 he says he is so free he can be under the law or he can be free from it. You can not pick and choose your theology like that. You have to incorporate what everything says together.

But hey you know which quiet to use.. That shows some form of intelligence/memory retention. Even if there are blaring holes in your exegetical abilities.

Yes, sport, I can say he says they were bound by the law, and THEN he contradicted himself, (or whoever wrote it did) .... we know there was more than one "Paul" writing letters, (or scholars do anyway). You are not a scholar ... in no way are you one. I don't have to do anything you say, since you can't even spell a common English word correctly. Go get yourself an education ... you're not up to this task, sporto-buddy-boy. You wasted your time writing that shit. Stop spamming this forum with that garbage. It's not "which quiet" sporto-boy ... quiet and quite are very different words.

There is no contradiction here my smart, well informed, open minded, non bigoted friend.. Again in chapter 9 starting in verse 19 I am free. I belong to no other person, but I make myself a slave to everyone. I do this to help save as many people as I can. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save Jews. I myself am not ruled by the law, but to those who are ruled by the law I became like someone who is ruled by the law. I did this to help save those who are ruled by the law. 21 To those who are without the law I became like someone who is without the law. I did this to help save those who are without the law. (But really, I am not without God’s law—I am ruled by the law of Christ.) 22 To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I have become all things to all people. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. 23 I do all this to make the Good News known. I do it so that I can share in the blessings of the Good News.

It again FREEDOM freedom to bind yourself in the law like your example in chapter 14 or to be free from it.

Do you still not understand the concept of freedom? Real freedom means I can follow the law if I see fit or if I can understand this freedom Christ offers I do not have to follow the law.

Clearly the women in cor 14 did not understand this freedom so for them the law applies. how do we know Paul places them specifically under the law of moses.. The same law he says in chapter 9 he and others like him do not have to follow to be found right with God.

Like it or not sporty sport sport, Paul describes and enacts freedom to be under the law/to be ruled by it like you suppose, and or apart from the law. Both are legitimate form of Christian worship.

So you are not actually countering anything I have to say here. why?

Because for slow learning people who such as your self can only understand morality through the law by following a list of commands it is by the law you shall live and be judge. Like Christ Said ALL of the law. not just you shall not kill but you shall not even be angry at a person because to him that is the same thing.

It's just like I told you a few weeks ago. I and people like ME are free from the law as our means to righteousness, but the law will remain till the end of this world for people like you. people who only understand morality through rules. because it is that very same law you keep preaching to me, that you will find your self being judged by to the exact same measure you would place on anyone else.


So keep preaching hell fire and brimstone brother as you are only adding to your own legacy. 

[Bucky Ball]

The proabition

prohibition ..... not proabition. There is no such word as "proabition".

bla bla bla ...... bla bla bla

Here's the thing sport. You can't say Paul says we are bound to the law, in 1 cor 14, when in 1 cor 9 he says he is so free he can be under the law or he can be free from it. You can not pick and choose your theology like that. You have to incorporate what everything says together.

But hey you know which quiet to use.. That shows some form of intelligence/memory retention. Even if there are blaring holes in your exegetical abilities.

Yes, sport, I can say he says they were bound by the law, and THEN he contradicted himself, (or whoever wrote it did) .... we know there was more than one "Paul" writing letters, (or scholars do anyway). You are not a scholar ... in no way are you one. I don't have to do anything you say, since you can't even spell a common English word correctly. Go get yourself an education ... you're not up to this task, sporto-buddy-boy. You wasted your time writing that shit. Stop spamming this forum with that garbage. It's not "which quiet" sporto-boy ... quiet and quite are very different words.

There is no contradiction here my smart, well informed, open minded, non bigoted friend.. Again in chapter 9 starting in verse 19 I am free. I belong to no other person, but I make myself a slave to everyone. I do this to help save as many people as I can. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save Jews. I myself am not ruled by the law, but to those who are ruled by the law I became like someone who is ruled by the law. I did this to help save those who are ruled by the law. 21 To those who are without the law I became like someone who is without the law. I did this to help save those who are without the law. (But really, I am not without God’s law—I am ruled by the law of Christ.) 22 To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I have become all things to all people. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. 23 I do all this to make the Good News known. I do it so that I can share in the blessings of the Good News.

It again FREEDOM freedom to bind yourself in the law like your example in chapter 14 or to be free from it.

Do you still not understand the concept of freedom? Real freedom means I can follow the law if I see fit or if I can understand this freedom Christ offers I do not have to follow the law.

Clearly the women in cor 14 did not understand this freedom so for them the law applies. how do we know Paul places them specifically under the law of moses.. The same law he says in chapter 9 he and others like him do not have to follow to be found right with God.

Like it or not sporty sport sport, Paul describes and enacts freedom to be under the law/to be ruled by it like you suppose, and or apart from the law. Both are legitimate form of Christian worship.

So you are not actually countering anything I have to say here. why?

Because for slow learning people who such as your self can only understand morality through the law by following a list of commands it is by the law you shall live and be judge. Like Christ Said ALL of the law. not just you shall not kill but you shall not even be angry at a person because to him that is the same thing.

It's just like I told you a few weeks ago. I and people like ME are free from the law as our means to righteousness, but the law will remain till the end of this world for people like you. people who only understand morality through rules. because it is that very same law you keep preaching to me, that you will find your self being judged by to the exact same measure you would place on anyone else.


So keep preaching hell fire and brimstone brother as you are only adding to your own legacy. 

bla bla bla.
You responded to nothing I wrote, you deserve no better. At least I can spell.
You have no education in the nonsense you post ... it does not merit a response.
The writings of Paul clearly contradict themselves.

But what does it matter ? at all ? to you ?
Your behavior is as unchristian as you are, either way, no matter how it's interpreted.
It makes no difference. You are no Christian. You are the same jerk. Religion has done you no good.
Get lost, hypocrite.

BTW, thanks for the threat. (You don't even know what "fire and brimstone" means.)

LMAO : you self-righteous church lady.
"I and people like ME are free from the law as our means to righteousness". Hahahahahahahaha
Luke 18 : 9-14
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some (Drich) who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

You really should read your Bible once in a while there sporto-boy.

[Minimalist]

No, really he should read "See Spot Run."  It might improve his comprehension.

[grympy]

Bingo.

"Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels--bring home for Emma."

Beats the fuck out of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, don't it?

AN answer to that centuries old  question ;  As many as want to. (angels are non corporeal)  

[grympy]

prohibition ..... not proabition. There is no such word as "proabition".


Yes, sport, I can say he says they were bound by the law, and THEN he contradicted himself, (or whoever wrote it did) .... we know there was more than one "Paul" writing letters, (or scholars do anyway). You are not a scholar ... in no way are you one. I don't have to do anything you say, since you can't even spell a common English word correctly. Go get yourself an education ... you're not up to this task, sporto-buddy-boy. You wasted your time writing that shit. Stop spamming this forum with that garbage. It's not "which quiet" sporto-boy ... quiet and quite are very different words.

There is no contradiction here my smart, well informed, open minded, non bigoted friend.. Again in chapter 9 starting in verse 19 I am free. I belong to no other person, but I make myself a slave to everyone. I do this to help save as many people as I can. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew so that I could help save Jews. I myself am not ruled by the law, but to those who are ruled by the law I became like someone who is ruled by the law. I did this to help save those who are ruled by the law. 21 To those who are without the law I became like someone who is without the law. I did this to help save those who are without the law. (But really, I am not without God’s law—I am ruled by the law of Christ.) 22 To those who are weak, I became weak so that I could help save them. I have become all things to all people. I did this so that I could save people in any way possible. 23 I do all this to make the Good News known. I do it so that I can share in the blessings of the Good News.

It again FREEDOM freedom to bind yourself in the law like your example in chapter 14 or to be free from it.

Do you still not understand the concept of freedom? Real freedom means I can follow the law if I see fit or if I can understand this freedom Christ offers I do not have to follow the law.

Clearly the women in cor 14 did not understand this freedom so for them the law applies. how do we know Paul places them specifically under the law of moses.. The same law he says in chapter 9 he and others like him do not have to follow to be found right with God.

Like it or not sporty sport sport, Paul describes and enacts freedom to be under the law/to be ruled by it like you suppose, and or apart from the law. Both are legitimate form of Christian worship.

So you are not actually countering anything I have to say here. why?

Because for slow learning people who such as your self can only understand morality through the law by following a list of commands it is by the law you shall live and be judge. Like Christ Said ALL of the law. not just you shall not kill but you shall not even be angry at a person because to him that is the same thing.

It's just like I told you a few weeks ago. I and people like ME are free from the law as our means to righteousness, but the law will remain till the end of this world for people like you. people who only understand morality through rules. because it is that very same law you keep preaching to me, that you will find your self being judged by to the exact same measure you would place on anyone else.


So keep preaching hell fire and brimstone brother as you are only adding to your own legacy. 

bla bla bla.
You responded to nothing I wrote, you deserve no better. At least I can spell.
You have no education in the nonsense you post ... it does not merit a response.
The writings of Paul clearly contradict themselves.

But what does it matter ? at all ? to you ?
Your behavior is as unchristian as you are, either way, no matter how it's interpreted.
It makes no difference. You are no Christian. You are the same jerk. Religion has done you no good.
Get lost, hypocrite.

BTW, thanks for the threat. (You don't even know what "fire and brimstone" means.)

LMAO : you self-righteous church lady.
"I and people like ME are free from the law as our means to righteousness". Hahahahahahahaha
Luke 18 : 9-14
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9 To some (Drich) who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

You really should read your Bible once in a while there sporto-boy.

 OT: Hey Bucky;  I watched a video with John Spong last night ;    He said things like; the OT was cobbled together by a bunch of gentiles who had no understanding of Jewish sacred writing; EG part 2 of Genesis was actually written 500 years after part 1. Not making a judgement yet, but he's very interesting and provocative .Do you have an opinion about Spong? 

I've thought for many years that the Gospels were not written by Jews. That whoever wrote them had no understanding of Jewish life or Mosaic Law  ; Jesus could have found himself being stoned for a lot of the stuff he did. Eg interfering in the lawful execution of the woman taken in adultery.  "Who will cast the first stone" is Tu quoque and nonsense. 

"The sabbath was made for man---"  I think also reveals a profound ignorance of Judaism. For devout  Jews ,their approach to their faith was/is  legalistic to the extreme . The mitzvot of the  Torah covers every aspect of life.These were/are god's laws  and MUST be obeyed. The penalty for breaking  many was death .The claim "The Sabbath was made for man" would not have been made by a Jew in my opinion.

The foregoing is only my opinion. I welcome correction on factual errors. 

Bucky, I apologise if my questions simply reveal my ignorance. .

[Minimalist]

As many as want to. (angels are non corporeal)

Yup. A classic religitard obfuscation.  They can roll those out at will it seems.

[grympy]

As many as want to. (angels are non corporeal)

Yup. A classic religitard obfuscation.  They can roll those out at will it seems.

 Not my take at all; 

The question of how any angels can dance on the head of a pin was used by critics to point out the utter inanity of theological  questions as a negative example. 

The answer is more a matter of Occam's razor than a matter of belief.  Using the sophistry of theologians against them . Or at leas that's my take. 

[Minimalist]

I refuse to give them any credit at all.

Remember those assholes think a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven.

With that as a backdrop why take anything they say seriously?

[grympy]

I refuse to give them any credit at all.

Remember those assholes think a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven.

With that as a backdrop why take anything they say seriously?

 Perhaps  I was unclear. It wasn't the believers who made up the  question it was critics.  Perhaps I misunderstood, or have misremembered ;I first came across the phrase  about 50 years ago 

About Paul being made up. I'm some distance  from accepting he was fictitious , but going down that track. I need to have a another look at "Paul: The Mind Of TheApostle" by A N Wilson, if I can find it 

My understanding is Paul's letters  are the earliest writings of the  New Testament .  During the putative lifetime of Paul , the sect was still small, not even  officially known as "Christianity".  I think it was Theodosius who introduced the name into common usage.

As with Jesus, that there are no contemporary  sources about Paul suggests but does not prove he did not exist. 

I think that like the existence  of Jesus,  the existence  of Paul is unfalsifiable.  However,  it is beginning to look less likely.  I am willing to change  my position , but it will take more than  an argument from absence. 

No consensus on line of course, but  did see an interesting claim that Paul was  was really Simon Magus. I think I have a bit more reading to do .

[Minimalist]

My understanding is Paul's letters  are the earliest writings of the  New Testament .

There are no Pauline letters (original or copies) extant dating from the first century BC or AD and the earliest fragmentary copy we have is P-46 and which is dated from the late 2d to the early 3d century AD.... although it was in codex form which scholars did not think came into general usage until the 4th century which is a bit of a question mark on it.  It does not matter - the given dates are sufficient for our purpose now. 

As there are no contemporary references to the godboy so are there no contemporary references to any "Paul."  He is not mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Philo of Alexandria never heard of him.  There are second century references to him but these are attributed to Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch who may well be later fictional creations of the xtian forgery mill themselves.

We are first told of Paul in the canon of Marcion.  Even here we are reliant on early church sources which are always to be taken cum grano salis because they love merging fantasy and reality.  The story as recounted by the late 2d century writers Irenaeus and Tertullian is that Marcion was a heretic who created a canon out of something called "The Gospel of the Lord" (about 2/3 of "Luke") and ten epistles by this "paul" character.  Supposedly Marcion did all this in the 140's AD and then went to Rome where he was promptly excommunicated.

C. 160, Justin writes his First Apology in which he knows of Marcion and his heresy but knows fuckall about Paul which is odd since Paul is supposedly Marcion's big source.  We are also told that Marcion made a large donation to the church in Rome which they gave back and right there you know the whole story is fiction because the fucks would never give back the cash!  Some things never change.

Not only does Justin not know of "Paul" he has never heard of any of the named gospels, either.  He mentions something called the Memoirs of the Apostles but these do not seem to match up to any of the nonsense we have now. 

What is important is that we are told that Marcion thought that the god of the jews was a scumbag.  An inferior god.  So why then would Marcion's boy Paul say:

Romans 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

"Paul" is always quoting the OT which is totally out of character since Marcion reflected the more or less Gnostic view that "Jesus" came from the higher god.... not the lowly turd known as Yahweh.

So yeah, I find the silence about "paul" to be deafening but what we do have does not make any sense.  When we start to add in the archaeological and historical tidbits the picture only gets worse.  You have touched on a major issue in the xtian origin myth which requires extensive scrutiny.  I doubt that the jesus freaks around here would allow any sort of civil discussion to proceed without attempting to derail to protect their bullshit.  But I'll try if you wish.

[grympy]

My understanding is Paul's letters  are the earliest writings of the  New Testament .

There are no Pauline letters (original or copies) extant dating from the first century BC or AD and the earliest fragmentary copy we have is P-46 and which is dated from the late 2d to the early 3d century AD.... although it was in codex form which scholars did not think came into general usage until the 4th century which is a bit of a question mark on it.  It does not matter - the given dates are sufficient for our purpose now. 

As there are no contemporary references to the godboy so are there no contemporary references to any "Paul."  He is not mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Philo of Alexandria never heard of him.  There are second century references to him but these are attributed to Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch who may well be later fictional creations of the xtian forgery mill themselves.

We are first told of Paul in the canon of Marcion.  Even here we are reliant on early church sources which are always to be taken cum grano salis because they love merging fantasy and reality.  The story as recounted by the late 2d century writers Irenaeus and Tertullian is that Marcion was a heretic who created a canon out of something called "The Gospel of the Lord" (about 2/3 of "Luke") and ten epistles by this "paul" character.  Supposedly Marcion did all this in the 140's AD and then went to Rome where he was promptly excommunicated.

C. 160, Justin writes his First Apology in which he knows of Marcion and his heresy but knows fuckall about Paul which is odd since Paul is supposedly Marcion's big source.  We are also told that Marcion made a large donation to the church in Rome which they gave back and right there you know the whole story is fiction because the fucks would never give back the cash!  Some things never change.

Not only does Justin not know of "Paul" he has never heard of any of the named gospels, either.  He mentions something called the Memoirs of the Apostles but these do not seem to match up to any of the nonsense we have now. 

What is important is that we are told that Marcion thought that the god of the jews was a scumbag.  An inferior god.  So why then would Marcion's boy Paul say:

Romans 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

"Paul" is always quoting the OT which is totally out of character since Marcion reflected the more or less Gnostic view that "Jesus" came from the higher god.... not the lowly turd known as Yahweh.

So yeah, I find the silence about "paul" to be deafening but what we do have does not make any sense.  When we start to add in the archaeological and historical tidbits the picture only gets worse.  You have touched on a major issue in the xtian origin myth which requires extensive scrutiny.  I doubt that the jesus freaks around here would allow any sort of civil discussion to proceed without attempting to derail to protect their bullshit.  But I'll try if you wish.

 Excellent  post Min,I learned.  Thank you. 

Oh, I've found the A N Wilson biography of Paul .I  thought his book "The Victorians'  was terrific.  However, biblical studies are an entirely animal , having to rely on  copies of copies of copies etc etc  of documents 2000 yeas old .   Much of his information about Victorian England was from original contemporary sources . 

Going by my attitude of the  historicity of Jesus, I think it's unlikely I'll be able to form a strong opinion about Paul.  I'm simply not able to make a claim based on an argument from absence.  At best, I hope to be able to conclude in terms of likelihood or probability.  

Please forgive me for being unable to simply to accept your word.   I need to actually read a few  sources. I still have "The Gnostic Gospels " (Elaine Pagels ) and "Did Jesus Exist?" (Bart Ehrman-- takes the affirmative  but seems a bit weak ) to read.

As I said, I have some reading to do.---- also just got hold of "A  Canticle  for Leibowitz" . That makes four, not counting the back log of sci fi books .

[Bucky Ball]

There is a book by a "Christian" scholar, (he taught or teaches NT at a seminary in Oklahoma, he's kind of a "new-agey" Christian, ... a very fine scholar), entitled "The Trouble with Resurrection" ... Dr. B B Scott ... he examines a different view of the Pauline writings, in light of Jewish apocalypticism, which would have been the context it came from, (if any of it is really authentic). It's worth reading. He knows his stuff. Pagels is always excellent. I disagree with Ehrman on quite a few things, as he seems to "hand wave" over problems and assumes things he can't produce evidence for. He's not a believer, but he does assume the orthodox position on many things that may not be justified.

[Minimalist]

I'm simply not able to make a claim based on an argument from absence.

Let me give you an absurd example.

There is absolutely no evidence that Alexander the Great marched on Rome and burned the city to the ground.  No one wrote about it.  There are no traditions of it.  It appears in no ancient artwork.  Oogatz as the Italian slang expression goes.

Based on such silence would you dare assert that it did happen, or might have happened?  Of course not.  Might someone someday turn up a destruction layer in Rome securely dated to 335 BC with Macedonian weapons embedded in it?  They might and at that time the Alexander fucked up Rome hypothesis would have to be reevaluated.  Until such time we are fairly safe in saying that it did not happen.

The problem with an Argument From Silence is that one must use it with the understanding that the next shovel in the ground may overturn it as archaeologists know. 

The church ( and assholes like Free ) try to use it to say "YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE ME WRONG SO I AM RIGHT."    

They thus think they can avoid their burden of proof by demanding that we prove a negative and my reply to them and him is a great big FUCK YOU. 

What they present as evidence is shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst.

[Minimalist]

BTW, start with Canticle for Leibowitz.  It puts all the other religious horseshit into context.

[mordant]

My understanding is Paul's letters  are the earliest writings of the  New Testament .

There are no Pauline letters (original or copies) extant dating from the first century BC or AD and the earliest fragmentary copy we have is P-46 and which is dated from the late 2d to the early 3d century AD.... although it was in codex form which scholars did not think came into general usage until the 4th century which is a bit of a question mark on it.

That doesn't have anything to do with the scholarly dating of the time in which the Pauline corpus was AUTHORED. That is not determined by the age of the earliest manuscripts, anymore than one could legitimately conclude today what year a book was written based on the oldest surviving print edition. Writing and publishing are two different processes. It is not unusual for the oldest extant copy of a book to postdate the death of the author himself. It is more common, the older the work.

Citations of gospel passages by Justin Martyr beginning in the year 100, for example, argue strongly for the authorship of those books prior to 100. That the oldest complete manuscripts are hundreds of years younger is irrelevant. I realize that some of these reasonings can be circle jerks, where one work with questionable dating is used to determine the date of something earlier. In any event it's not an exact science. However, taken as a whole, first century dating of the entire NT is not one of the weakest positions of conservative scholarship. If you have Clement of Rome citing 3 different NT passages in about AD 97, that trumps the lack of a 1st century manuscript copy of what he's citing. So far as I know it's an accepted fact that Clement died in AD 99, so ...

Another example. The Sadducees collapsed around ad 70 as a prominent political force, but their prominence in the book of Acts suggests that book was written prior to AD 70. Here again ... there's nothing to prevent someone much later writing fan fiction about a period prior to AD 70 -- or writing with a later period in mind without realizing the Sadducees would not have been involved by then. Still, putting together multiple clues like this contribute to the dating process also.

So the statement that Paul's writings are the earliest in the NT has zero really to do with whether we have the original manuscripts or how old the surviving copied manuscripts are. That statement isn't based on the age of the extant manuscripts.

I accept absent evidence to the contrary, the consensus that Paul's writings predate the earliest of the gospels by about 20 years. Indeed, it is in large part the contrast between Paul's description of and teachings concerning Jesus, and the later gospels, that make me skeptical of Jesus' historicity.

Finally, this "copy of copy of copies" business, as if manuscript copying had no rigor and is equivalent to photos of photos of photos with inherent deterioration in fidelity, is one of the more embarrassing claims made by internet atheists. One can compare manuscripts hundreds of years apart and find the later manuscript adequately true to the earlier one, and from this we can extrapolate that even hundreds of years of manuscript copying don't present a huge fidelity problem.

The Bible is so full of fanciful nonsense, demonstrable untruths and internal inconsistencies that we don't need to fight a quixotic battle against biblical historical criticism. We are not that desperate. Indeed, we aren't desperate, period. Let's not act like it.