02-01-2007, 07:00 AM
The Real Bible: Who's got it?, Frank Zindler. Very good read.
The recognised canon - which books are included in the OT, which of the Gospels were elevated to canon and which of them were relegated to the apocryphal bin, and the other works like Paul's writings - determine christian beliefs, including adherents' beliefs about their god and jesus. This is a fundamental aspect of christianity, yet there's so much inconsistency.
Just crossposting following bit about Paul, since the writings attributed to him have had great influence on all three main streams of christianity:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 19 2007, 11:29 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 19 2007, 11:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Briefly about 'Paul/St. Saul':</b>
- Pauline epistles: "Some of these epistles are by far the oldest parts of the NT, having been composed at least 30 years before the oldest gospel." ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm )
meaning they're older than the four canonical gospels which were later attributed to the names 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John'.
- But Paul's epistles don't count as eyewitness testimonies for jeebus, because he makes it clear he never met Jesus in the flesh.
- This is however more interesting. Who is Paul?
http://www.bandoli.no/whyerrors.htm
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And six of the thirteen letters of St. Paul are not by him. Even his "real" letters were later heavily edited by the Church. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Frank Zindler writes in Did Jesus exist:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- it turns out that only four [of the 13 letters attributed to Paul] can be shown to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul.
- Even the letters supposed to contain authentic writings of Saul/Paul have been shown by a number of scholars to be as composite as the gospels. ... the core Pauline material in these letters is what might be termed a <b>pre-Christian Gnostic</b> product.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So which Paul is slowmo talking about? Several scribes wrote the Pauline Epistles, one of whom we can '<i>putatively</i>' dubb Paul. And that putative Paul never met jeebus anyway. What's more:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight by Hermann Detering (NT scholarship of the Radikal Kritik school):
This book shows that <b>all the Pauline letters are all 2nd-Century fabrications</b>, Catholically redacted from Marcionite gnostic dualist-god original versions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> What that means is that 'Paul' did not write any of the epistles attributed to him. So nothing is known about the Paul that Slowmo is talking about, because he left no written works behind.[right][snapback]63251[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The recognised canon - which books are included in the OT, which of the Gospels were elevated to canon and which of them were relegated to the apocryphal bin, and the other works like Paul's writings - determine christian beliefs, including adherents' beliefs about their god and jesus. This is a fundamental aspect of christianity, yet there's so much inconsistency.
Just crossposting following bit about Paul, since the writings attributed to him have had great influence on all three main streams of christianity:
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 19 2007, 11:29 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 19 2007, 11:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Briefly about 'Paul/St. Saul':</b>
- Pauline epistles: "Some of these epistles are by far the oldest parts of the NT, having been composed at least 30 years before the oldest gospel." ( http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm )
meaning they're older than the four canonical gospels which were later attributed to the names 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John'.
- But Paul's epistles don't count as eyewitness testimonies for jeebus, because he makes it clear he never met Jesus in the flesh.
- This is however more interesting. Who is Paul?
http://www.bandoli.no/whyerrors.htm
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And six of the thirteen letters of St. Paul are not by him. Even his "real" letters were later heavily edited by the Church. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Frank Zindler writes in Did Jesus exist:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- it turns out that only four [of the 13 letters attributed to Paul] can be shown to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul.
- Even the letters supposed to contain authentic writings of Saul/Paul have been shown by a number of scholars to be as composite as the gospels. ... the core Pauline material in these letters is what might be termed a <b>pre-Christian Gnostic</b> product.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So which Paul is slowmo talking about? Several scribes wrote the Pauline Epistles, one of whom we can '<i>putatively</i>' dubb Paul. And that putative Paul never met jeebus anyway. What's more:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight by Hermann Detering (NT scholarship of the Radikal Kritik school):
This book shows that <b>all the Pauline letters are all 2nd-Century fabrications</b>, Catholically redacted from Marcionite gnostic dualist-god original versions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> What that means is that 'Paul' did not write any of the epistles attributed to him. So nothing is known about the Paul that Slowmo is talking about, because he left no written works behind.[right][snapback]63251[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->