Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could turn this into a discussion about the Synoptic original, 'Q' document and the Paulinist basis of the Gospels, but I imagine you are all sick of hearing about it.
They were Paulinist in the sense that Paul inspired so much of the Christian writings. But they must have had a sense of humor in the way that Paul's letter were being so elevated and revered, even if they agreed with him and understood them.
They were Paulinist in the sense that Paul inspired so much of the Christian writings. But they must have had a sense of humor in the way that Paul's letter were being so elevated and revered, even if they agreed with him and understood them.
I think he inspired most of them. Perhaps not James and Revelation. The others, though. And apart from 'I saw Satan fall like lightning' I never saw anything that struck me as even a slight joke. Though I find much of it hilarious, Like the descending angel and Shekel -eating fish. But that's not much to do with Paul. Though in a way it is, as the 'Shekel -eating Fish' is, or so I guess, is about Christians being exempt from paying the temple tax (which was still collected after it had been destroyed).
I think he inspired most of them. Perhaps not James and Revelation. The others, though. And apart from 'I saw Satan fall like lightning' I never saw anything that struck me as even a slight joke. Though I find much of it hilarious, Like the descending angel and Shekel -eating fish. But that's not much to do with Paul. Though in a way it is, as the 'Shekel -eating Fish' is, or so I guess, is about Christians being exempt from paying the temple tax (which was still collected after it had been destroyed).
You're right. It's really not humorous in tone. It's dystopian. Hence my original thread title.
Well you forgot about the part where Jesus died for everybody's sins and as a side benefit Jews didn't have to burn up perfectly good eatin' critters anymore.
The priests were eating them, did you not read the part in the written material mythos?
God loves the smokey smell of barbeque, then the priests get to eat the sacrifice.
I could turn this into a discussion about the Synoptic original, 'Q' document and the Paulinist basis of the Gospels, but I imagine you are all sick of hearing about it.
What I get from all this is that there are one thousand and one theories about how the gospels came about and who brought them about. Most of us have our own pet theory about how they evolved, when they evolved and who evolved them. Others like Thoreau are cocksure about how they got here and won't entertain any other theory except their own. Such arrogance demonstrated by Thoreau is a gigantic example of what is wrong with Christianity today. But all we can really do is sympathize with Thoreau by saying, "Of course you're certain this is how it happened, poor baby. That's what you were programmed to believe from the cradle."
Has anyone else ever wondered if the gospels were intended to show how the story of Jesus and his followers began as one thing, but evolved into something else?
It began as a small rebellious movement against religious tradition, but after he died he "returned to the father" meaning that he was adopted back into the Old Religion in a new form. It was his destiny, it was meant to be, and nothing different could have ever had a chance of happening.
No. The synoptics are basically a collection of Jesus' sermons, with a bit of his life thrown in. They are each written with a specific audience in mind. To a point, yes--him dying on the cross was different than expected. The Jews expected a Messiah that would set up an earthly kingdom, not one that would give his life to pay for their sin. There are Jewish folks today that still reject him for that reason, while others have embraced him.
Has anyone else ever wondered if the gospels were intended to show how the story of Jesus and his followers began as one thing, but evolved into something else?
It began as a small rebellious movement against religious tradition, but after he died he "returned to the father" meaning that he was adopted back into the Old Religion in a new form. It was his destiny, it was meant to be, and nothing different could have ever had a chance of happening.
The four chosen gospel stories are a FUNDAMENTALIST REVIVAL/REVELATION story from marketing publishers. The publishers favored them, the readers favored them. He was never written as being "in rebellion" against "the father." But instead, the other denominations of Judaism were in rebellion and incorrectly saw Jesus/Joshua as the one in rebellion, and yet they did not know that even to look at a woman with lust already meant fornication to Yahweh.
Judas had a choice, "it might not have happened" and he chose to sell Jesus out with "unknown betrayal reasons" with the implication being that he grew to be disillusioned with Jesus and then preferred to at least make a tiny bit of money for his previous troubles with worshiping a false Messiah. However, another interpretation (given that details were not explained) is that Judas was so zealous that he believed the Jewish prophecies that the Messiah would beat Israel's enemies back if they confronted him.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 02-23-2019 at 11:56 AM..
No. The synoptics are basically a collection of Jesus' sermons, with a bit of his life thrown in. They are each written with a specific audience in mind. To a point, yes--him dying on the cross was different than expected. The Jews expected a Messiah that would set up an earthly kingdom, not one that would give his life to pay for their sin. There are Jewish folks today that still reject him for that reason, while others have embraced him.
As I said, everybody has their pet theory.
Did it, I wonder, ever occur to the Christians, that if Jesus were real then God would have made things so clear in history that it wouldn't be possible to raise all these different theories? We'd have ONE answer backed up by a perfect record of all the original gospels signed by all the original apostles in our possession today. God would have made absolutely certain there could be no doubts at all about Jesus' salvific work.
SO WHY DIDN"T HE??????????
That's a question NO CHRISTIAN has been able to answer for me. I'm still waiting for one and I suppose I'll die waiting. Go ahead, Baptist or Thoreau...try to answer that question. I dare you. (just watch--you won't hear a peep from Christians about this one)
Has anyone else ever wondered if the gospels were intended to show how the story of Jesus and his followers began as one thing, but evolved into something else?
I must say, my first thought was...the gospel started out with this 'good news'...and then all
the disciples were killed.
That has always seemed odd to me. Yeah, follow Jesus and be imprisoned in filthy dungeons
and then killed brutally!
That is odd to most here, isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(just watch--you won't hear a peep from Christians about this one)
