Early Christian Conspiracy - How Was It Done?

Cheers to you Kapyong.

It is not easy debating with the Jesus-imaginary-friend-clan groupies who have their heads buried so deeply in dung its sad. I would honestly have to be retired to have the patience to debate with such a level of ignorance coming from these folks. Nice work thus far.

Originally posted by Captain_Sense
Cheers to you Kapyong.

It is not easy debating with the Jesus-imaginary-friend-clan groupies who have their heads buried so deeply in dung its sad. I would honestly have to be retired to have the patience to debate with such a level of ignorance coming from these folks. Nice work thus far.

Captain, do you really think Jesus is imaginary? Check out this true and scientific deliverance of a little girl. I've authenticated the authenticity of the book twice now.
hbcdelivers.s439.sureserver.com...

reply to post by Kapyong


It is beyond me how "wrong again" is an appropriate response to the link I posted plainly showing Clement's allusions to I and II Timothy. i am finished with this "discussion" if that's the level we're at.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by satanictemple]

reply to post by Captain_Sense


Yeah.... repeating "wrong again" and "fail" is really good work. Keep it up

reply to post by texastig


I will give you a BRIEF amount of advice that if you HONESTLY follow, you'll dismiss the Jesus nonsense COMPLETELY, just as I have done. Research the Bible taking into consideration of its NATIVE language, and ORIGINAL MEANINGS of what the authors words actually were and the true meanings of them. Then after doing this, just for the fun of it, study ancient myths that PREDATE Christianity. It will be -- THE END OF YOUR FAITH after having done this!

reply to post by satanictemple


It involves a LOT of time and patience to explain this topic to folks that REFUSE to research their faith beyond silly religious sites which influence and continue the religious nonsense. I posted within this thread to applaud a poster here for a job well done. In addition, since you spoke up, your posts reflect incompetence on this topic, and I suggest some research be done. Only since you spoke up in regards to my compliment to another poster, therefore the reason for my advice to you.

Edit - Typo







[edit on 6-5-2010 by Captain_Sense]

reply to post by Captain_Sense


Taking pre-Christian accounts that peripherally mirror the Jesus story does not discount the truth of the Jesus story. Anyway, my defense here is not whether Jesus was a historical figure, but simply that Paul saw him as one.

Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by Kapyong

 

It is beyond me how "wrong again" is an appropriate response to the link I posted plainly showing Clement's allusions to I and II Timothy. i am finished with this "discussion" if that's the level we're at.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by satanictemple]

I agree.

Originally posted by Captain_Sense
reply to post by texastig

 

I will give you a BRIEF amount of advice that if you HONESTLY follow, you'll dismiss the Jesus nonsense COMPLETELY, just as I have done. Research the Bible taking into consideration of its NATIVE language, and ORIGINAL MEANINGS of what the authors words actually were and the true meanings of them. Then after doing this, just for the fun of it, study ancient myths that PREDATE Christianity. It will be -- THE END OF YOUR FAITH after having done this!

Don't believe everything you read. I've been a Christian for over 22 years and I've heard everything under the sun how Jesus is a fake and it has fallen on the anvil of evidence. The devil counterfeits the original.
There is nothing that predates, "In the beginning God".



[edit on 5/6/2010 by texastig]

When I started this thread, I asked some specific questions. To remind everyone what this thread was originally it intended to concern:

In view of your skeptical view point, please answer the following questions about early Christianity (~30CE to ~100CE):
1. Where did it begin?
2. When did it begin?
3. Who started it?
4. How was it started?
5. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire?

What was hoped was to get a narrative approach such as "Around 40CE, Paul started ...". What I got were outraged comments over the use of certain words ("conspiracy", "forgery", etc.). While the use of that terminology may have been unfortunate, it is the terminology used by the skeptics. Such "outraged comments" such as "I never said it was a conspiracy", "I never said the Gospels were forgeries" does not answer the original questions. Furthermore I never did mention that particular person by name only in the generic term skeptic/atheist. Of course the argument over semantics is really a "red herring" used to direct attention from the original question.

Basically we have two options:
OPTION A: Jesus was a historical figure.
OPTION B: Jesus was not a historical figure but a myth created by Christians sometime around 70CE (or whatever date you want to use).

If you select Option A, then you will accept that the Epistles of Paul refers to a physical man. If you select Option B, then you will always interpret any of Paul's statements in his Epistles as referring to one who existed only in the "spiritual realm" (or whatever other term you want to use). If the person selects Option B, then no discussions on the wording of Paul's Epistles will convince him (or her) that Paul was referring to a physical man; that person will always interpret that passage as meaning a "heavenly figure".

That leads us to the question: If there was no historical Jesus, then from what sources did Paul create a "heavenly Christ" and why? What were the sources from which Paul (and his compatriots) created this mythical, spiritual Jesus. For we have the following statement:

Philippians
(Php 3:4) Even though I might have trust in flesh; if any other thinks to trust in flesh, I more;
(Php 3:5) in circumcision, the eighth day, of the race of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to Law, a Pharisee;
(Php 3:6) according to zeal, persecuting the assembly; according to righteousness in Law, being blameless.

This leads to the question, why was Paul, a good Jewish boy (a Pharisee), traveling around the Roman Empire teaching a mythological (or spiritual) Christ to gentiles when he should have been at home in Jerusalem getting rich and being respectable. Being a Pharisee meant that Paul was well schooled in Mosaic Law and the Torah. Why would he or any other Jews adopt such an idea of this "spiritual Christ in heaven" which is seemingly contrary to their Jewish monotheistic beliefs. Furthermore why would anyone subsequently consider presenting a "spiritual Christ" as a man with all the features and functions of a man (sweats, bleeds, eats, drinks, sleeps, etc.).

The skeptics then must explain three items:
1. The evolution of Jewish Talmudic traditions into a concept of a "spiritual Christ" (i. e., where did these ideas come from).
2. The evolution of the concept of a "spiritual Christ" into a physical man (This seems like going in the wrong direction).
3. Why Jews started this movement and why were they spreading it among the gentiles.

The response I got was "Doherty explains it all"; well he does not. Doherty's key points are:

1. Christ is a spiritual concept, just as God, and every other deity of the day. Paul states information about Christ has been embedded in scripture. Paul states that God (through his Spirit) inspired him and the other apostles to learn from scripture and visionary experiences what God and His Son had done for humanity's salvation. "God is revealing Christ and the atonement he has made available to those who believe" (Doherty).

Doherty
Paul and other Christian preachers are offering salvation, but it is through a Christ who is a spiritual channel to God and one who has performed a redemptive act (the "atonement by his blood") in a mythical setting. We will look at both the medium and the act in a moment, but that act is not part of what has happened in the present time. Rather, the present is when the benefits available from this act are being revealed and applied: the forgiveness of sin and the guarantee of resurrection, "effective through faith" in the gospel. All this is the universal manner of expression in first century Christian epistles, and even beyond; one that ignores any recent career of Jesus and focuses all attention on those appointed to carry God's newly-disclosed message.

Doherty glosses over the implications of what he has just stated. Paul uses scriptures (along with revelation). What scriptures to which Paul is referring? The answer is Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament). Now what in the Old Testament would lead Paul (remember he used both scriptures and divine revelation) to teach and preach Christ in any form. Doherty does make mention Christ is associated with being the Messiah and states that all references in Paul's Epistles to Messianic prophecy ("seed of David", etc.) could be explained in a spiritual sense. But he does not attempt to explain what was the impetus for Paul to start preaching Messiah to the Gentiles. Also where does Paul's doctrine of "salvation through faith" comes from? This is a radical concept for a Jew who has a background of being a Pharisee (extreme adherence to Mosaic Law, or The Law). Doherty never touches on that subject.

So we are still left with an inadequate explanation of why Paul and the other apostles start teaching a Messianic Christ.

jagdflieger, did you see my reply to your post?

Kapyong--

You seem to think, not without some reasons, that Saul of Tarsus (the Roman Greek speaking capital of Cilicia - present-day Turkey) did not think that his ‘Lord Iesous’ had an earthly physical incarnation at all – but an argument could be made that he DELIBERATELY chose NOT to focus on the historical Palestinian based (‘ebionite’) underpinnings to the movement – being contrary to his ‘gentile-friendly agenda.

This Saul/Paul person (a bitter enemy of the Jerusalem based Ebionim --‘the Poor Ones’, a messianic End of Days group (looking to re-instate the Davidds on the Throne of Yisro’el) headed up by the blood brother of Iesous, Yakkov ha Tsaddiq / ‘James the Just’ who took over his brother’s ministry based SOLEY on his Daviddic blood - not being 1 of the 12, we have to ask: what gave James the right to be called a Pillar in Jersualem? Answer: his Daviddic Blood…)

So...he would have DELIBERATELY swung his attention AWAY from the earthly Torah Abiding Palestinian Jew Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir whom he never got to meet in the flesh – the historical person who lived, breathed, taught, prayed, ate, drank, slept, (married ?!) preached, hoped, feared, armed his disciples ‘during THE Insurrection’ (see Mark 15:7) only to be summarily executed for his political offences by the Romans-- because the ‘historical narrative’ would have connected Iesous to the Ebionim & their non-Diaspora Torah-Abiding (and far more Zionist) Weltanschauung (‘the Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro’el’ as the 1st Greek Gospel, ‘according to Matthew’, whoever he was, chapter 15 states in no uncertain terms)

As we can see in Galatians chapter 2, this Saul-Paul person, as a Greek speaking (& Greek Mystery Religion-thinking) ‘Diaspora’ Jew (as opposed to this Iesous, who was a Palestinian Torah Abiding Jew) clearly did NOT share the same Palestininan based Judaic ‘zionist theology’ as the original Galilean Nazorean followers of ‘Ieosus’ (i.e. the disciples, or the immediate family of Iesous) - he was raised at a different place and time with different influences.

Nor could he (it seems) ‘move up the ranks’ among them very easily (we see echoes of his being part of the Temple Police in Jerusalem, but that is about as far as he climbed on that career branch) being considered ‘an out of town Jew’ but (for whatever reasons - ego-centricity on his part?) thought that he’d ‘go it alone’ and ‘hit the bigtime’ with the Diaspora Jews (who eventually rejected him) and finally was able to win over some of the more wealthy Gentile God-fearers (uncircumcised gentiles who attended Synagogue services in towns like Galatia and Corinth, but did not keep Torah or Kashrut – or had any desire to do so)

Tarsus was moreover the EXACT place where Mithraism ( one of 30 ‘Mystery Religions’ of the Roman Empire) was first introduced into Rome via Cilician Pirates c. 79 BCE (if you believe Pompey) via soldiers – having come (like Pharaseeism) from Persia (PARAS), being a Romanised mixture of the Persian sun god MITRA and the Greco-Roman SOL INVICTUS—& Saul of Tarsus (c. 14 CE to c. 64 CE) having been brought up there would have been influenced by the Tarsian Mithraic Mysteries – hence so much of his Weltanschauung was guided by Mystery Religion Thinking in general (as opposed to Historical Thinking) –

e.g. “Behold I tell you a MUSTERION – we shall not all sleep but we shall all be transformed – in a moment, in the blinking of an eye – at the Final Ram’s Horn !” etc.

Early Church ‘fathers’ used to speak of ‘our Mysteries of Christ’ as if it existed side by side the other Pagan Mystery Religions – they ALL focused on non-historical ‘heavenly’ models, rather than earthly persons with a biography,

e.g. the Mysteries of Mithras, of Eleuseius (i.e. Demeter & Persephone) of Attis & Kubaba-Cybele, of Isis, of Zagraeus, of Dionysius, of Orpheus, of Wusir-Hapi (i.e. ‘Osiris-Apis’ aka ‘Serapis’) & ccountless others --

all COMPETING for membership in the Empire (even tho’ one could be a member of more than one of these Mystery religions in antiquity simultaneously, the Mysteries of Christos (i.e. the Pauline Mysteries) were ‘exclusive’ Christ ONLY based groups – based on Diaspora Judaeism, which broached no pagan competition (‘you shall utterly eradicate their altars & temples & grind down their idols into powder to throw them into a stream…’)

Even Saul/Paul’s (possibly fake) re-construction of the [Eucharist] ‘last supper’ (he was not there as a member of the inner circle to attend, but claims he received the words ‘from the Lord’ i.e. via visions) uses ‘non historical’ Mystery Religion Language – the kind of words he might have well picked up from the Mithraic Mystery Capital Tarsus as a boy (‘this is MY BLOOD which is SHED FOR YOU, DRINK YE ALL OF IT…’ – something we can imagine a Priest of Mithras uttering, but hardly a Torah Abiding Palestinian Jew of the 1st Century)

BUT---if we examine the actual wording of the weird Last Supper Blood Drinking Episode in Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23) we CAN DETECT A SLIGHT TRACE of a LIVE HISTORICAL PERSON being referenced:

For I have received from (ho Kurios) the Lord, the same tradition which I imparted to you, viz. that the Lord JESUS ON THE SAME EVENING AS HE WAS BETRAYED TOOK BREAD & WHEN HE GAVE THANKS, BROKE IT SAYING, TAKE AND EAT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH [SHALL BE] BROKEN FOR YOU etc.

Nobody can be sure that this was not a pious scribe placing words into Paul’s pen, but we do have SOME REFERENCE to an HISTORICAL EVENT (‘on the night of his arrest…’)

Although admittedly the actual words (historically) spoken might have been MUCH different (e.g. ‘The Son of Man will NOT taste of the BLOOD of the Grape until he takes it up again in the Kingdom of Heaven !” i.e. a war chant)

So there is not much in the canonical Pauline letters that refer to a historical person more than that one half-sentence.

To me this Saul-Paul person found that by using/abusing the concept of ‘revelation’ as a tool he could gain an audience & some authority over the Ebionim Torah abiding Kashrut eating family of Iesous – otherwise he would not have been able to gain any credibility, followers or even a position-foothold in the growing movement prior to its eradication by Rome in the 1st Jewish War of 66-70 CE – & Saul was someone who seems to have been infinitely ambitious to make a name for himself in the world—

Since the family Ebionim rejected his authority and teaching (his ‘gospel’) – he took the Visionary Route – hence DELIBERATELY avoiding any mention of the historical underpinnings of his hero – and Paul’s audience certainly would not be interested to hear about the human frailties & political mis-caluclatioins of a Palestinian Zionist Jewish Rabbi i.e. the historical Yehoshua – who in the end was strung up for sedition (‘sent to the lost sheep of the elect of the house off Israel ONLY’) but would have been far more open to hearing about some Super Gentile Loving Universal God-Man who ‘died for the remission of sins of all people Jew AND Greek’

To Sum up: Making any mention of the historical ‘Iesous;’ would have been out of Paul’s own realm of experience (he wasn’t an eyewitness disciple of his Lord & he knew it – he didn't get to see the ‘historical things’ that the Ebionim his enemies DID see – many were blood-related to ‘Iesous’)

Making any kind of mention of the historical ‘Iesous’ would have weakened his position as an ‘apostle’ of ‘ho Christos Iesous’ since his ‘apostleship’ was hotly contested by the family of Iesous (the Ebionim) & relied SOLEY on hisREVELATION (‘in the Last Days, your young men shall dream dreams…and see visions…’)

Making any 'historical' analogies would mean cowtowing to the Ebionim his enemies (Galatians 2 – ‘James - John, those so-called Pillars ) thus giving them the last word (=authority) which would have undermined his.

Gday,

Originally posted by jagdflieger
When I started this thread, I asked some specific questions. To remind everyone what this thread was originally it intended to concern:

In view of your skeptical view point, please answer the following questions about early Christianity (~30CE to ~100CE):
1. Where did it begin?
2. When did it begin?
3. Who started it?
4. How was it started?
5. How was it spread throughout the Roman Empire?

Yup,
but you just IGNORED the answers you received.
And kept preaching false claims.


K.


What was hoped was to get a narrative approach such as "Around 40CE, Paul started ...". What I got were outraged comments over the use of certain words ("conspiracy", "forgery", etc.). While the use of that terminology may have been unfortunate, it is the terminology used by the skeptics. Such "outraged comments" such as "I never said it was a conspiracy", "I never said the Gospels were forgeries" does not answer the original questions. Furthermore I never did mention that particular person by name only in the generic term skeptic/atheist. Of course the argument over semantics is really a "red herring" used to direct attention from the original question.

Basically we have two options:
OPTION A: Jesus was a historical figure.
OPTION B: Jesus was not a historical figure but a myth created by Christians sometime around 70CE (or whatever date you want to use).

If you select Option A, then you will accept that the Epistles of Paul refers to a physical man. If you select Option B, then you will always interpret any of Paul's statements in his Epistles as referring to one who existed only in the "spiritual realm" (or whatever other term you want to use). If the person selects Option B, then no discussions on the wording of Paul's Epistles will convince him (or her) that Paul was referring to a physical man; that person will always interpret that passage as meaning a "heavenly figure".

That leads us to the question: If there was no historical Jesus, then from what sources did Paul create a "heavenly Christ" and why? What were the sources from which Paul (and his compatriots) created this mythical, spiritual Jesus. For we have the following statement:

Philippians
(Php 3:4) Even though I might have trust in flesh; if any other thinks to trust in flesh, I more;
(Php 3:5) in circumcision, the eighth day, of the race of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to Law, a Pharisee;
(Php 3:6) according to zeal, persecuting the assembly; according to righteousness in Law, being blameless.

This leads to the question, why was Paul, a good Jewish boy (a Pharisee), traveling around the Roman Empire teaching a mythological (or spiritual) Christ to gentiles when he should have been at home in Jerusalem getting rich and being respectable. Being a Pharisee meant that Paul was well schooled in Mosaic Law and the Torah. Why would he or any other Jews adopt such an idea of this "spiritual Christ in heaven" which is seemingly contrary to their Jewish monotheistic beliefs. Furthermore why would anyone subsequently consider presenting a "spiritual Christ" as a man with all the features and functions of a man (sweats, bleeds, eats, drinks, sleeps, etc.).

The skeptics then must explain three items:
1. The evolution of Jewish Talmudic traditions into a concept of a "spiritual Christ" (i. e., where did these ideas come from).
2. The evolution of the concept of a "spiritual Christ" into a physical man (This seems like going in the wrong direction).
3. Why Jews started this movement and why were they spreading it among the gentiles.

The response I got was "Doherty explains it all"; well he does not. Doherty's key points are:

1. Christ is a spiritual concept, just as God, and every other deity of the day. Paul states information about Christ has been embedded in scripture. Paul states that God (through his Spirit) inspired him and the other apostles to learn from scripture and visionary experiences what God and His Son had done for humanity's salvation. "God is revealing Christ and the atonement he has made available to those who believe" (Doherty).

Doherty
Paul and other Christian preachers are offering salvation, but it is through a Christ who is a spiritual channel to God and one who has performed a redemptive act (the "atonement by his blood") in a mythical setting. We will look at both the medium and the act in a moment, but that act is not part of what has happened in the present time. Rather, the present is when the benefits available from this act are being revealed and applied: the forgiveness of sin and the guarantee of resurrection, "effective through faith" in the gospel. All this is the universal manner of expression in first century Christian epistles, and even beyond; one that ignores any recent career of Jesus and focuses all attention on those appointed to carry God's newly-disclosed message.

Doherty glosses over the implications of what he has just stated. Paul uses scriptures (along with revelation). What scriptures to which Paul is referring? The answer is Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament). Now what in the Old Testament would lead Paul (remember he used both scriptures and divine revelation) to teach and preach Christ in any form. Doherty does make mention Christ is associated with being the Messiah and states that all references in Paul's Epistles to Messianic prophecy ("seed of David", etc.) could be explained in a spiritual sense. But he does not attempt to explain what was the impetus for Paul to start preaching Messiah to the Gentiles. Also where does Paul's doctrine of "salvation through faith" comes from? This is a radical concept for a Jew who has a background of being a Pharisee (extreme adherence to Mosaic Law, or The Law). Doherty never touches on that subject.

So we are still left with an inadequate explanation of why Paul and the other apostles start teaching a Messianic Christ.

reply to post by Kapyong


Christ Messiah ; Messiah = Christ ; Christ = Messiah

Paul is preaching and teaching Messiah based on divine revelation and scripture. Would you be so kind as to state from where in Jewish scripture would he be basing his idea of Messiah and why he would begin teaching it.

Gday,

Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Clement of Rome (last part of the 1st century) alludes to I and II Timothy (see Clement's Writings)

Ok, you refuse to quote them, but I have checked, let's see if they stand up to scrutiny :


Clement :
" For such persons as these "have the appearance only of the fear of God, but the power of it they deny."

2Tim 3:5
"holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away."

A vague similarity, that's all. It could have been both writers used a similar theme, it could have been that Timothy got it from Clement.


Clement :
"See that thou understand what I say: God will give thee understanding."

2 Tim 2:7
"Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this."

What?
Are you serious?
A claim that God will give understanding is found in almost every Christian book that was ever written!
Did they all allude to 2 Tim?
Did they all allude to Clement?

And you believe this is an allusion by Clement to 2 Tim?
Seriuously?
What a joke.



Clement :
"Art thou acquainted with the noble task of holy virginity? Dost thou know how, like a man, to enter "lawfully" upon(34) this contest and "strive,""

2 Tim 2:5
"Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules."

Wow.
A mention of striving and competing - a common theme in various books.
And you really believe this is an actual allusion to 2 Tim. by Clement?
Incredible.
Can you explain WHY you believe that?
It's at best a weak and vague similarity.


Clement :
"the love of money (which is the root of all evils); "

1 Tim 6:10
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

A similar idea, expressed in two books, and mentioned elsewhere bin other Christian books.
So what?

Why do you assume Clement alludes to 1 Tim?
Why not consider 1 Tim. alludes to Clement?
Why not consider they both allude to OTHER books?

This is faithful apologetics.
You just assume what you want to believe.


Clement :
For in "the man who is of God,"(82)

1 Tim. vi. 11 :
"But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness."

Both using the phrase "man of God"?
That's IT?

You actually believe this is an allusion by Clement to 1 Tim.?
Get off the grass!

With "allusions" this loose, ANY book is an allusion to ANY OTHER book.



That's why you didn't actually QUOTE any of these - they are NOT allusions at all - they are merely similar themes with faithful Christians PREACH are allusions.


Ridiculous.


K.

Just like Jesus of Nazareth, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, Clement of Rome is a known historical figure.

You have no basis for these weak textual arguments based on English rendering of Koine greek?

Originally posted by Kapyong

Clement :
" For such persons as these "have the appearance only of the fear of God, but the power of it they deny."

2Tim 3:5
"holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away."

A vague similarity, that's all. It could have been both writers used a similar theme, it could have been that Timothy got it from Clement.

A vague similarity? Really? You discredit yourself. See this was written in Greek so there are a vareity of English renderings.

NIV : having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

NLT: They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!

Amplified: 5For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it [their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such people [turn away from them].

You have no valid argument unless you have training in textual criticism. No scholar would agree with you... you are making very poor arguments.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Clement :
"See that thou understand what I say: God will give thee understanding."

2 Tim 2:7
"Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this."

What?
Are you serious?
A claim that God will give understanding is found in almost every Christian book that was ever written!
Did they all allude to 2 Tim?
Did they all allude to Clement?

-come on - you are just being silly. Scholars know its a direct quote from the GREEK text. English can be rendered various ways based on the translation philosophy.

NIV:Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

NLT:Think about what I am saying. The Lord will help you understand all these things.

Amplified: Think over these things I am saying [understand them and grasp their application], for the Lord will grant you full insight and understanding in everything.

For you to try to make this sort of argument without reading and knowing Greek is pure ignorance bolstered by arrogance. And the ATS motto...
Deny Ignorance!

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
Captain, do you really think Jesus is imaginary? Check out this true and scientific deliverance of a little girl.

What a load of rubbish!
A STORY about devils and EXORCISM ?!

That's your evidence?
How ridiculous.
No rational adult believes crap like that.

Originally posted by texastig
I've authenticated the authenticity of the book twice now.
hbcdelivers.s439.sureserver.com...

YOU'VE authenticated ?!
So what?

You're a nobody - a faithful believer preaching on the 'net.
Your word means nothing.
No rational adults believe nonsense like that.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by satanictemple
reply to post by Kapyong

 

It is beyond me how "wrong again" is an appropriate response to the link I posted plainly showing Clement's allusions to I and II Timothy. i am finished with this "discussion" if that's the level we're at.

YOU posted a site, NO quotes.
I went to the site and found the usual apologetics.

Why didn't YOU quote them?
Because they don't stand up to scrutiny and you know it.

Considering you essentiallt posted :
"this site show I'm right",
it was quite reasonable of me to answer :
"no it doesn't"
because you failed to provide any argument.

But later - I quoted and analysed your alleged "allusions" and clearly showed that NONE of them actually stood up to scrutiny.

Will you ever answer that?


They are merely some tiny SIMILARITIES that are CLAIMED to be "allusions", when NONE of they indicate the source was the Pastorals.

The evidence could just as easily mean :
* the Pastorals copied FROM Clement
OR
* they both used similar sources


Your claims did not stand up to scrutiny - feel free to run away from that fact.


K.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Kapyong]

Gday,

I claimed that the alleged "allusions" in Clement to the Pastorals could easily be :
* Pastorals copying FROM Clement
OR
* both using similar sources

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
...Clement of Rome is a known historical figure.

WTF?
I never said otherwise.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
A vague similarity? Really? You discredit yourself. See this was written in Greek so there are a vareity of English renderings.

NIV : having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

NLT: They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!

Amplified: 5For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it [their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such people [turn away from them].

You have no valid argument unless you have training in textual criticism. No scholar would agree with you... you are making very poor arguments.

Your point supports my argument that the Pastorals could have been copying Clement, or that they both copied some other source.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

-come on - you are just being silly. Scholars know its a direct quote from the GREEK text. English can be rendered various ways based on the translation philosophy.

NIV:Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.

NLT:Think about what I am saying. The Lord will help you understand all these things.

Amplified: Think over these things I am saying [understand them and grasp their application], for the Lord will grant you full insight and understanding in everything.

For you to try to make this sort of argument without reading and knowing Greek is pure ignorance bolstered by arrogance. And the ATS motto...
Deny Ignorance!

Your argument supports my view that the Pastorals could have been copying Clement, or that they both copied some other source.

Your points support my argument that the alleged "allusions" in Clement to the Pastorals could easily be :
* Pastorals copying FROM Clement
OR
* both using similar sources.


Perhaps you need to re-read my posts to grasp what I actually said?


K.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Kapyong]

reply to post by Kapyong


Quentin:
In a reply to one of my posts you wrote:

Yup, but you just IGNORED the answers you received. And kept preaching false claims.

All I did was ask "How was it done". Quentin would you please quote for me what "false claims" I have been preaching.

I then posted:

Christ Messiah ; Messiah = Christ ; Christ = Messiah
Paul is preaching and teaching Messiah based on divine revelation and scripture. Would you be so kind as to state from where in Jewish scripture would he be basing his idea of Messiah and why he would begin teaching it.

Quentin would you be so kind as to answer that question. What in your estimation would cause a Pharisee Jew to start teaching and preaching Messiah (I know "divine revelation". but Paul based the reality of "divine revelation on scripture.) Would you please elucidate what in Jewish Scripture would give him a basis for Messiah.

Also here is a interesting example of what another skeptic thinks of Doherty:

www.rationalskepticism.org... Look at TimONeill » Feb 26, 2010 9:59 pm posting

Quentin how would you respond to that?