Religion Christianity and Astrology: Joined Together

[strongvoicesforward]

You notified me of my error, don't you see? The error was the word 'you' rather than 'I'.

Oh, I am sorry, MM. I may have lost track of some of my PMs. I accept your appreciation for whatever error of yours I pointed out to you that you are thanking me for.

 

[Mars Man]

Continuation from #18, p 1 on evidence in letter to the Thessalonians.

The block running from 2:13~20, like practically the entire letter, is very historical in nature rather than merely kerygmatic. It runs within a larger contextual setting (2:1~16) but is within itself a single context. The major points to be learned are as follows:

a. The direct and immediate audience of the letter had already been aware of the gospel message taught by Paul and his troupe through the oral process. It is important to keep in mind, that for all that can be gleaned, the written formats which have come down to us today are later than these letters we are now looking at.

b. The audience had been being persecuted by their fellow countrymen for believing the gospel just as those believers in Judea had been by the Jewish religious authorities.

c. Paul was claiming to have known that the Jewish religious leaders had also been responsible for the death of Jeshua. (cf. 5:10)

d. Paul had been teaching a 'paraousia'--a period of time during which the 'resurrected' messiah would have come back, and would have been acting as king in some fashion. Paul had told the audience that at that time, all those believers who would have been approved--whether they had still been alive at that time (when the letter had been written) or whether they had already died--would be 'collected' up to be with Jeshua. (cf. 1:10; 4:14~17; 5:23,24)​

In consideration of the development of this writing, the more likely point in time that it had been written, relative to the written gospel accounts, the tone and mentation evidenced by it, it is most likely that not only had the intent of the author been to present Jeshua as a literal person, but that in the mind of the writer as well, such had been the understanding.
This much on the letter to the Thessalonians, I will consider one piece of evidence/data. Overall conclusions will be deduced from the collection of evidences after all has been collected.

 

[Mars Man]

Thessalonians II (see 'Biblical Texts' thread, p 11; #268, 269)

This piece of evidence, especially since it was directed to the same audience as the first, simply shows the same as the that above. The two main points regarding what can be seen as a reflection of the writer's mind, are that:

a. The time of the Messiah's return and royal presence was to be within the immediate time period (mid~later first century) though perhaps not within months or even a few years of the writing. Again, it is most clearly reflected as being a external, historical event in the author's mind.

b. The oral tradition had been in place before there were any exemplars for canonical or non-canonical texts known today.​

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Paul, too, like Jesus, is not a historical person. In all probability he is a composite of other characters.

MM, can you show us any historical records (outside of the Bible [which is not a historical document]) from the purported time of Paul`s life that corroberates his existance as it is related in the Bible?

Until then, readers need not and should not accept intentions of purported authors or audiences as proof of historicity to dismiss the origins of Jedeo/Christianity beliefs -- which is astrology.

The beginnings of organized religion are clearly seen in the astrotheological descriptions that are embedded within the Bible.

 

[Mars Man]

Paul, too, like Jesus, is not a historical person. In all probability he is a composite of other characters.
MM, can you show us any historical records (outside of the Bible [which is not a historical document]) from the purported time of Paul`s life that corroberates his existance as it is related in the Bible?

I cannot provide any historical records contemporaneous with the writings accredited with Paul from which our exemplars have come any more than you can provide any writings from that same period that show that his existance, as related in those writings accredited to him and Luke (from his troupe) are not historically accurate to that degree.

Until then, readers need not and should not accept intentions of purported authors or audiences as proof of historicity to dismiss the origins of Jedeo/Christianity beliefs -- which is astrology.

The reader should bear in mind that the texts do indeed, without any doubt whatsoever, have authors, and that the mind and intent of the author can and will be seen from the writing.

To the degree that extra-biblical historical works within the early second century and late first century generally and accurately report on the Christian movement of that time, and those who had been leaders of the movement--as attested to in the NT--there is little room to dismiss the historicity of personage in the epistles of NT and in the historical recountings of those people, in the general account.

There is no evidence to support, from the bottom up, the assertion that the origin of Christianity is astrology. To take the hypothesis that Christianity came from astrology and then work to find evidence to support that claim, is a fair academic exercise. The evidence, however, has to stand the test of working from the bottom up, to retain its supportive postition. My assertion is that in the end, such evidence will be found to be very thin--not totally lacking, I mind you, but very thin. (as I've said before, earlier on in this thread.)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I cannot provide any historical records contemporaneous with the writings accredited with Paul from which our exemplars have come any more than you can provide any writings from that same period that show that his existance, as related in those writings accredited to him and Luke (from his troupe) are not historically accurate to that degree.

I, and no skeptic for that matter, am under no burden to prove a negative. You assert that he existed, which you feel is essential in proving the historicity of Jesus or other biblical figures to move them out of the allegorical realm so the burden of proof falls upon you.

The reader should bear in mind that the texts do indeed, without any doubt whatsoever, have authors, and that the mind and intent of the author can and will be seen from the writing.

The reader should know that of course the texts have authors! WHO has suggested that texts do not have authors? Written stories just don`t appear without pen and hand (that would be miraculous). The point of importance is not that texts have authors, but whether texts are attributable to purported historical characters, or in the case of Paul, is perhaps a fictional character or a composite of other fictional characters, or that writings under this 'Paul' name have been done so by not one person, but by several -- again, all pointing to his non-existence.

There is no historical corroberation from the time of Paul to his existence.

...there is little room to dismiss the historicity of personage in the epistles of NT and in the historical recountings of those people, in the general account.

Sure there is, because there is NO historical record of them from the time they existed. That is a LOT of room to dismiss their historicity.

 

[Mars Man]

I, and no skeptic for that matter, am under no burden to prove a negative.

Well, this is not the first time we have hit upon this logic flaw. The card has been played before. ( and I am aware of some details behind it, but do not have the resource material with me any longer--I think) [and to clarify, I am specifically saying the the usage or application here, is what is flawed.]

To reason that because there is no evidence outside a certain body of evidence within a certain genre of document, that a person written of, spoken about, or alluded to in that document existed, you are free from having to refute that such person did exist, is flawed logic.

You seem to be looking at the wrong point. The task is NOT to show evidence for Paul's (for example) not having existed, but to show evidence for the evidence in NT and the earliest Christian writings to be false on the general historical level.

In other words, to make any claim that a person named Paul did not pen or have the work that has come down to us dictated, you have to refute the claim within those works that such IS the case.

And that, my friend, can simply not be done to any satisfactory degree.

I suggest that you acquiesce to that point of view so that we can move on; we are required to rely, a priori, on the general historicity that the documents in question were written by whom they say they had been written by. [the only ones which are known to be doubtful are 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, and 2 Peter]

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In other words, to make any claim that a person named Paul did not pen or have the work that has come down to us dictated, you have to refute the claim within those works that such IS the case.

This is downright false, MM, and is nothing but a restriction being prejudiciously placed on something to shore it up from scrutiny.

I have a piece of paper that says Santa Clause exists, talked to a hundred kids and told them that he delivered toys to all the kids living under the Arctic Ice Shelf and they believe it. Now, can you prove that is false? Are you under any obligation to prove all claims false and until then are you to accept them as truth or such stories scribbled on paper as evidence of existence per each person? According to your logic is, and I can paint a hundred more scenarios. Don`t even put the kids under the Arctic Ice shelf -- just put them somewhere in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle.

Again, he who asserts carries the burden of responsibility to prove what he asserts/claims. You claim Paul was a historic person but you have no proof outside the Bible that claims his existence. You are using the only thing that speaks of him from after his time to proove his existence. You are saying his writings prove his existence because it says it does. That is circular reasoning.

You can`t confirm his existence, and I will soon give you some examples that show he is most probably a composit of some others.

 

[Mars Man]

This is downright false, MM,

No, strongvoicesforward san, it is not false at all.

Again, he who asserts carries the burden of responsibility to prove what he asserts/claims.

That's exactly right, and that is exactly why you have to support your assertions too !

You claim Paul was a historic person but you have no proof outside the Bible that claims his existence.

It may be good to consider the details. There is contemporaneous evidence outside of the writings that have been collected in that book we now call the Bible that Paul was the person who had written those letters; that's not the problem.

You are using the only thing that speaks of him from after his time to proove his existence. You are saying his writings prove his existence because it says it does.

I am using the letters because it is rather obvious that they had exemplars--an earlier base--and because criticism has concluded that the likelihood that they had been actual letters is secure enough. The documents themselves make that clear and you just don't really see any arguments against that view.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Mars Man, you can`t provide any government or contemporary scribe or historian from Paul's era that corroberates his existence, can you?

You can continue to use circular logic all you want, but you can trust I am not the only skeptic to doubt his existence. Therefore, you can talk about your side that believes he existed, but be assured, the thought of his existance is by no means decidedly unamimous, and you have not provided proof that he has existed -- except for your circular reasoning.

Don`t you have any Roman document or Jewish document from that time saying he existed?

You do know that the Catholic Church has often been very corrupt and deception, forgery and suppression of works have dogged them often throughout their history. Why would you suggest letters canonized by a deceptive regime that has bilked billions, tortured and killed many in the name of a God as evidence?

Mark Furhman, a cop appointed to uphold the law, had his testimony on trustworthiness dismissed against O.J. Simpson because racism was shown to be a part of his character. Again, murder, torture, forgery, deception, etc... are all aspects that have been linked intimately and utilized with and by the Church as they felt a need to push their agenda on the world, causing great hardship to many a people.

I don`t know about you, but I tend to not believe a gang of murderers and deceivers when something of import is confronting me. The reasonable man does not, and if they are in possession of something that is a means to make money, I would reason that they would tamper with it to maximize their profits. That is what I would expect from the Mafia, and that is what one can expect from the early church who had possession of all the copies of the so called originals and then voted to canonize them.

What you have with your Paul letters you are flouting as evidence is nothing but uncorroberated stories (copies) from a religious regime who had sole possession of the so-called originals (which conveniently do not exist) and who had an agenda to put forth -- make money and unite Europe/Asia Minor under a religious state. Constantine saw it (i.e. Christianity) as a way of bringing all the Pagans together for him to rule over and at the same time divide the Jewish people who were often rebelling.

Again, where is your proof that Paul existed? -- other than documents that were controlled by murderers and deceivers for centuries?

If I were a forger or one corrupting the original source, I would make sure the original were destroyed so there would be no way to compare what I have corrupted. So convenient, that out of all those Biblical texts, we have not one original -- all copies. Very convenient, indeed.

 

[Revenant]

Paul, too, like Jesus, is not a historical person. In all probability he is a composite of other characters.

Again, he who asserts a claim carries the burden or responsibility to prove what he asserts/asserts.

You have also made a claim, in the first quote here, and now have the burden to prove that Paul is in all probability a composite of other characters.

 

[Mars Man]

Strongvoicesforward san, while I tend more so to agree with your sentiments regarding the Roman Catholic Church, I do know that it is extremely well accepted that these exemplars were in existence and circulting even, in some quarters, before Constitine even came to power--a good long while before the Catholic Roman Church ever came into existence.

For that reason, the wrong that the Roman Catholic Church has most obviously done [not to say here that it had or has only done wrong] has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

After you have supplied that material with arguments against Paul's existence, as you said you would, I'll supply the material which shows just how that material is in error. (it may take a while to get some extra source material from the states, however)

Again, Revenant, what you have pointed out is so clearly true !!

 

[Mars Man]

As I will go on to elaborate on in the 'Biblical Texts' thread, and as the contexts of the documents entitled 'towards the Romans', 'towards the Corinthians' and so on, will eventually show us, it is the context of any ancient document which primarily reveals its intent, cause and nature.

In any effort to verify these matters it is important to give the greatest benefit of the doubt to these documents themselves when there is no other back up. In this case, it is extremely clear that we are looking a real letters, rather than some made up 'role-play' type of literary genre disguising itself as a letter.

At this point, I would like to insert that although those mentioned--especially the author or source of the letter's content (and again, especially regarding these first century writings)--can very well be considered actually-having-existed-people, it may not be necessary to accredit their claims, or claims about them by others, with the same degree of historical credibility.

As an example, we can take Pliny The Elder's (23/24~79 CE) report in his work, Natural History about one Asclepiades. [26,8; Loeb. 7,277]

This person, Asclepiades, was said to have been a great physician and maker of medicines. He is said, by Pliny, to have revived a man who had been on the funeral pyre. This said event is also brought up in a work attributed to Aulus Cornelius Celsus (fl. 14~37 CE) and one by Apuleius.

Whereas there is no real evidence of this person elsewhere, we can reason that the person himself had actually existed. We can also give more credence to the general account's being an actual historical occurance than to its being a totally made up story.

Celsus' On Medicine and Apuleius' Florida both highlight the understanding that Asclepiades had had great powers of observation, and had seen that the man had not really been dead--and thus had been able to revive him. Pliny's penchant for more of a 'miracle' thing, can be seen for more likely stretching the truth.

As another example, we can see that Flavius Josephus' Against Apion (which for book one, is actually a wrong title) is addressed to one Eraphroditus (not the secretary to Nero). The actual existence of that individual is not really questioned on the strength of the acceptence of the book's said authorship. and I'll stop here...to keep it short....but please keep in mind that I am simply presenting thinking modes here...

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In all probability, Paul, was not a hitorical character in the sense as he is depicted to us in the Bible. It is most probable that his character is lifted from another person of that era, or a composite of two or more.

I believe Paul of the Bible(Paul of Tarsus) was actually Apollonius of Tyana who was also referred to as Pol. Apollonius moved to Tarsus at age 12 for an education and therefore growing up into manhood from an early age in Tarsus could then become to be called Pol of Tarsus. In addition, Pol and Paul are said to be in Tarsus at the same time during their young age, AND both are said to be at Ephesus and Rome at the same time (kind of like two merged as one -- eeerrrr Clark Kent and Superman). Also, they are both unmarried.

Is all the above just coincidence? Well, let`s add some more coincidence to it. Apollonius is named after the Sun God. Paul, originally was named Saul, a changed verson from Sol, another word for Sun.

Taking some life facts from Josephus may also have been sprinkeled into Paul`s fictitious life. Like Paul`s life, Josephus also makes a trip on ship to Rome, which carries a priest to be handed over to Ceazer to judge after having already been judged by the prosecuter Felix in Jeruselem. Both men reportedly have their ship wrecked at sea enroute to Rome which sent them into the Adria.

As well, similarities are suspiciously close to the character Orpheus which I will bring up later.

But, remember, Paul suppposedly traveled far and wide throughout Jewish and Gentile lands, but not one source (i.e. non religious source) other than the Bible exists to corroborate his existance. Circumstantial evidence, however, points to the probability that he is a fictionalized character wound together by the lives or myths of others.

Mars Man, you still have not provided any contemporanious documents outside the Bible from a historian or government official at that time that corroborates his existence as himself depicted as he is.

 

[No-name]

In all probability, you are a pedophile and sack of excrement. Your overt ignorance of the bible is astounding. You should stop trying to prove anything and expose more of you amazing ignorance.

Please leave my son alone. Before you were just an arrogant jerk. Now you are a scary arrogant jerk.

 

[No-name]

So what kind of coward, when he can't confront another man goes after his 13 year old son? What kind of perverted sense allows him to repeatedly harass and insult a 13 year old? What childhood trauma makes it okay for some 40 year old crap for brains to harass and eighth grader? Grow a couple of cajones buddy. If you wanted to get to me, you succeeded. Unless Maciamo actually put you up to this, which remains a possibility, I doubt that he would protect someone this incredibly tactless, outrageous and tastless. Ethan was right. You are a loser.

This was posted in anger at the heat of a moment. I apologize and ask that it be removed.

 

[Mars Man]

The reason that you are mistaken, strongvoices forward, is because you have not spent the time needed to confirm the evidences we do have. Of course, you have no intent to do so, so you will forever be gropping in the dark on this matter.

There are arguments that the Paul, as can be deduced from, you guessed it, the only real source of information on that most likely historical person, was penned over by some religious leaders in Rome. These are weak enough that there will never be serious and balanced scholars of religious history that will give credit to them above and beyond hypothesis--it is not and never will be taken as the most likely historical fact.

The reasons for that are yet coming. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop trying to beat a dead dog !! The letters are given credit as being historical and their context and historical reading conclude as much. To pen in the name of another is of course one possibility, yet the writing styles of the several letters and historical accounts of Acts support the most likely conclusion that the author's real name was Paul (Roman) or Shaul (Jewish).

That the writer of those letters put things in historical settings to that immediate and direct audience cannot be refutted at the moment. That is a fact, strongvoicesforward, whether you wish to accept it or not, it is a fact !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Mars Man,

The reason that you are mistaken, strongvoices forward, is because you have not spent the time needed to confirm the evidences we do have.

That is one of the points I have been asking you for MarsMan, where is your corroberating evidence to show that Paul existed? You keep using the articles in question penned by a person not proven to exist to prove his existence -- circular reasoning.

There are arguments that the Paul, as can be deduced from, you guessed it, the only real source of information on that most likely historical person, was penned over by some religious leaders in Rome. These are weak enough that there will never be serious and balanced scholars of religious history that will give credit to them above and beyond hypothesis--it is not and never will be taken as the most likely historical fact.

It sure isn`t now, because most scholars are religionists, professing a belief in Christianity. The status quo suits them quite well. But, numbers do not mean it is so. The truth does not rest on a majority vote.

Perhaps you have not looked into the Apollonius, Josephus, Orpheus connection to see that Paul is most probably a composite of those characters.

Just strange that with Paul traveling all over the place preaching in public that no government record or writings by historians on him have never been recorded. The most likely explanation is that he just never existed.

 

[Mars Man]

Ok...show me where you got your first claims from then, ok? You know you're gonna have to drink your own medicine too !! I'm been waiting patiently, now where are they strongvoicesforward san !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi MarsMan,

I gave you a partial list of my sources. Please go back up the thread and review them.

Now, you still have no corroborating source from Paul`s era either from a historian or government to confirm Paul`s character as a real person.

Haven`t you ever heard of the similarities and rolled up characters of Apollonius, Josephus, and Orpheus into Paul? I have showed you some of the coincidences merging together to let one see that he is most probably a composite.

On the other hand, all you keep showing me is Paul`s writings declaring themselves -- i.e. circular reasoning.