Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Raf

Members
  • Posts

    16,617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    144

Raf last won the day on December 7 2023

Raf had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Raf

  • Birthday 08/04/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://htto://www.facebook.com/rafaelolmeda
  • Skype
    rafael.olmeda.2000

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cooper City, Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Raf's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

642

Reputation

  1. Thank you for pointing out that the author of the epistles to Timothy, who was pretending to be Paul, identified himself as Paul in the letter he wrote pretending to be Paul. I was starting to question his competence.
  2. actually, I said that wrong. My comment on the scholarly consensus is limited to the authorship of the Pauline epistles.
  3. Oh they are not mine. They are the scholarly consensus.
  4. Luke did not write the gospel or the book of Acts. Authorship of the gospel was attributed to him decades after it was written. And the history invented in the book of Acts is refuted by Paul. One can be true or the other, but not both. Paul verifies very little of the account of Acts and nothing of the gospel of Luke other than the death and resurrection, which he portrays as a celestial event. The crucifixion to Paul is not at the hands of the Romans or the Jews, but at the hands of "the princes of this world," which was by no stretch of the imagination a description of Pilate or the Sanhedrin. Paul also did not write I Timothy or II Timothy, since we're having fun.
  5. Add that the cold open refers to the Daily Planet as a great metropolitan newspaper and Perry White later refers to Clark as a mild-mannered reporter. Well done. Superman was my guess, but I couldn't fit all the "tagline" references together (and, for the record, Superman himself says he's here to fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way, something Dean Cain's incarnation NEVER SAID).
  6. He's a red something. I can't remember. Not a household name. Dagnabit. Can't remember.
  7. I look at Paul like Chris Geer showing up at HQ four years after Wierwille's death, scolding everyone like he's Wierwille's true heir, 'cept he never met Wierwille and spent three years as a deprogrammer. And the Trustees were like, he must be Wierwille's heir. God told him! Like, no one would ever believe it, and rightly so.
  8. Does he though? Never met him. Saw him in visions. Swore up and down he never learned from those later alleged to be his closest friends and family? Never referenced the empty tomb. Never talked about his disciples. Is Paul REALLY useful?
  9. Entirely. And if you read it, it flows much better without it. It was CERTAINLY forged partially. Josephus never said "he was the Christ." I mean come ON. There's a second reference to a Jesus that I have to double check because I honestly don't recall the details other than "um, that's not what happened." There's also another reference from a historian who is simply repeating what Christians believe, but people act like his reference is a validation of historicity. That would be Tacitus, for those who know. His reference to Jesus is parenthetical to a different point he's making, but because he talks about Pilate, people assume Tacitus checked out Roman records and verified Jesus' execution. No, he did not.
  10. WIll watch this later, but the story of Jesus becomes a lot more interesting when you go in chronological order of when the books of the Bible are written. What emerges is the story of something that happened in "the heavenlies" that could only be discerned through scripture, which would EASILY explain why Paul would be the first person writing about it while others who were allegedly closer to him don't actually commit much (if anything) to paper. The closest you get is Peter, who mentions nothing of an earthly ministry (I Peter being relevant, II Peter being recognized by scholars as a forgery). Paul's failure to acknowledge the betrayal/death of Judas makes a LOT more sense when you realize he wrote before that story was concocted. For him, Jesus was seen of the 12 after his resurrection. But to Paul, everything about Jesus is cosmic. None of it happens on earth. Jesus isn't killed by Pilate and the Romans. He's killed by the princes of this world, who would not have done it had they known the consequences. It's been long acknowledged that "Matthew" didn't write the gospel that bears his name (he would not have needed to plagiarize Mark if he were an eyewitness to what he recorded). It's not until the gospel writers, LONG after Paul, that we see stories of Jesus as an actual human being. They took what he wrote and historicized it. But they didn't collaborate on their accounts. So Luke has him born after the census, Matthew years before. Had he actually been an historical figure, that conflict would have been resolved easily. Matthew has him moving from Judea to Egypt and finally to Nazareth. Luke has his family from Nazareth all along, with the trip to Bethlehem carrying an absolutely absurd justification (a census that makes you register someplace other than where you live? AYFKM?). We KNOW from history that John the Baptist existed. So we make Jesus his cousin and concoct a story where John defers to Jesus' ministry. The cult around John is thereby coopted to become a Christian appendage. Honestly, if not for Paul referring to James as "the Lord's brother," I would be utterly convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was a fictional character (not just that he wasn't who he claimed to be, but that he was never around to claim it, as historical as King Arthur and Odysseus).
×
×
  • Create New...