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.
Rather, Paul knew all about Jesus, who he was, what he had done and what it meant to be a messiah. But - just like the gospel - writers - he didn't like it. He didn't rewrite everything that Jesus had done to suit himself, no - his solution was simpler: say almost nothing about the Real Jesus, but say that the earthly Jesus doesn't matter; it is the Jesus in the head that matters.
This Jesus is a spirit in Heaven. Not God, but messiah, which is not only Davidic, but is also the spirit of Adam. Yes, Paul's thesis is that the spirit of Adam came to wipe out the sin of the original disobedience by Obedience (up to and including Crucifixion). You don't need to take my word for it - it's all set out fair and square in Romans, and you can bet the Church authorities know this very well.
They don't mention it and the many, many other problems that we we have because they never noticed. They know it isn't true and they keep quiet about it.
There's another one in plain sight. Have you never wondered, folks, why we are going to have a second coming, last Trump and graves opening with a resurrection, when the dead supposedly go to be with Jesusgod as soon as they die? I've asked the question several times and rather to my wonderment - not at Why, but at What (the problem is simply ignored) I have never had an answer.
I know why - the opening of the graves etc. is the Jewish (Pharisaical) resurrection in which Paul, the disciples and indeed Jesus believed. The immediate going up to heaven after death is a Christian invention.
Very true about Paul. I've always said of late that Paul was a dream-case for Freud. I believe Freud would have given the most valuable parts of his anatomy for the chance to psychoanalyze Paul. My own feeling: Paul had an agenda. He didn't care a tinker's damn about Jesus or what Jesus taught. Paul had his own teachings he wanted to get across. For Paul Jesus was just a landmark upon which to anchor his own beliefs. Which is why many theologians say that Paul is the REAL founder of modern day Christianity and that all of Christian theology derives from Paul, not Jesus.
Very true about Paul. I've always said of late that Paul was a dream-case for Freud. I believe Freud would have given the most valuable parts of his anatomy for the chance to psychoanalyze Paul. My own feeling: Paul had an agenda. He didn't care a tinker's damn about Jesus or what Jesus taught. Paul had his own teachings he wanted to get across. For Paul Jesus was just a landmark upon which to anchor his own beliefs. Which is why many theologians say that Paul is the REAL founder of modern day Christianity and that all of Christian theology derives from Paul, not Jesus.
Excellent post #867, by the way. Can't rep you.
As always, the word is valued as much as the deed (1). I agree that Paul began (Pauline) Christianity. Mind, it was still more Jewish than Gentile, despite Paul taking what Judaism was left after he threw out all the Judaism and was based on Faith in Jesus, though it was all the Jesus that was left after Paul had thrown out most of the actual Jesus.
But I won't get into my Pet theory about the real Jesus and how you can recover him from the Gospels, and Why Paul Converted, and why he had to adapt Jewish Messianism (which is what the Disciples believed) into something that suited him and also suited the gentiles that he wanted to convert.
But I will, as soon as you can guarantee me a rep or two It's the only reason I'm here at all.
(1) in fact such feedback in invaluable to me as I sometimes post my General theory (sometimes with the Special theory to follow) and I get back....nuttin'. Am I talking balls? Is the silence stunned assent? Are they embarrassed at me making a fool of myself and they are too polite to tell me? I mean to me this stuff is a plain as a pikestaff if you really Read the Gospels, Acts and Paul, but maybe I'm just an average clod who thinks he's discovered the unholy grail but I'm missing something obvious.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2019 at 02:14 PM..
You are focusing too much on one small portion of my post, specifically “but that does not mean he existedâ€, while you seem to be absolutely ignoring my next phrase, “or if he existed...â€.
I honestly don’t know if there was a historical Jesus Christ or not. There very well may have been. I don’t really care.
My real point, which you have completely ignored, is that referencing Christians does not tell us anything about the truth of Biblical claims. It merely confirms, which nobody is disputing, that a sect that was identified as Christian existed in the 2nd century. That tells us almost nothing about whether a historical Christ existed, and exactly nothing about the nature of such a person if he did.
As always, the word is valued as much as the deed (1). I agree that Paul began (Pauline) Christianity. Mind, it was still more Jewish than Gentile, despite Paul taking what Judaism was left after he threw out all the Judaism and was based on Faith in Jesus, though it was all the Jesus that was left after Paul had thrown out most of the actual Jesus.
I do not think Paul threw out all the Judaism, because there was not one kind of Judaism. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the syncretic Judaism of Philo, and the cultural Jews in Maccabees who did not really care. Paul removed the Jewish diet and circumcision rules so he could sell his version of Judaism (1) to the gentiles, but he still relied on the OT when he says "according to scripture".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(1) in fact such feedback in invaluable to me as I sometimes post my General theory (sometimes with the Special theory to follow) and I get back....nuttin'. Am I talking balls? Is the silence stunned assent? Are they embarrassed at me making a fool of myself and they are too polite to tell me? I mean to me this stuff is a plain as a pikestaff if you really Read the Gospels, Acts and Paul, but maybe I'm just an average clod who thinks he's discovered the unholy grail but I'm missing something obvious.
The lack of feedback might be because we not only know your theory but have discussed it before, and to discuss it would derail the thread.
You are not missing something obvious, the small amount of evidence from the 1st century AD means everybody is missing many parts of the picture puzzle. For example the 80 AD to 130 AD range for Mark to be written allows for your early Mark based on a Q source, and one of my theories that Mark may be 2nd century AD.
(1) which he probably 'borrowed' from the Jewish sect he had been persecuting before seeing the light (2) on the road to Damascus.
I do not think Paul threw out all the Judaism, because there was not one kind of Judaism. There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the syncretic Judaism of Philo, and the cultural Jews in Maccabees who did not really care. Paul removed the Jewish diet and circumcision rules so he could sell his version of Judaism (1) to the gentiles, but he still relied on the OT when he says "according to scripture".
Correct. I am of course talking about the kind of Judaism that was popular and populist -Phariseeism. The Essenes kept to themselves, the Sadducees were a small group keeping a grip on the Temple. The Maccabees and pretty much the Herodians were over and done. So the Jesus movement (whatever it was (1) was within the Pharisee ambit. They were of course, Pharisees themselves. As indeed were the zealots. The toxic hatred of the Gospels for the Pharisees is entirely Pauline -Christian. As are the speeches and teachings in the gospels. I agree that Paul used bits of the OT to support his theories, though so badly that they look less like quoting than quotemining out of context. it's like 'science in the Bible'. You start with what you want to find in the Bible, find something that sounds a bit like it, and there's your 'support'.
Quote:
The lack of feedback might be because we not only know your theory but have discussed it before, and to discuss it would derail the thread.
O my god - I'm becoming an old bore
Quote:
You are not missing something obvious, the small amount of evidence from the 1st century AD means everybody is missing many parts of the picture puzzle. For example the 80 AD to 130 AD range for Mark to be written allows for your early Mark based on a Q source, and one of my theories that Mark may be 2nd century AD.
(1) which he probably 'borrowed' from the Jewish sect he had been persecuting before seeing the light (2) on the road to Damascus.
(2) a light that spoke.
Mark may be. I heard that it has 'rough Greek' which might imply an early date. Certainly the original text on which the synoptics were based (some call it 'Q', others, 'proto -Matthew')must post date the jewish war as it is is full of 'predictions' of that event.
Then you have a version of that with the 'Decapolis' material in (the syrio -Phonecian woman, the Other feeding on 4,000) that Mark and Matthew was based on. And then later - when the divinity of Jesus from birth was the doctrine - the 'Other' "Q" document (with the 'sermon' material) was added to Matthew (which had the Decapolis material) and Luke which didn't and aside from the 'Sermon' etc. and his own extensive additions, is based on a less fiddled early Synoptic version than either Matthew or Mark.
This is like textural archaeology. You find out the information on site and don't need to bemoan that there are no written histories about what you are digging up.
I do not of course believe a word of the 'light on the road to Damascus' tale.
(1) I watched a recent vid on the dead sea scrolls and the community. The question of whether they were the Essenes came up again and doubts that they had anything to do with the scrolls. Tests showed that Some of the scrolls were written at Qumran. but when the word 'Zealots' came up in connection with the community, I thumped the desk with my fist.
I don' know where you get your information about Christianity, but since nothing your post is true, it is obvious you need a better one.
You keep requesting "proof." Yet even when you are provided with detailed proof, complete with links to the information, you simply continue to insist that there is no proof. Keep in mind that you are insisting that the story of a corpse coming back to life and subsequently flying away is not only true but undeniable. Admittedly, this is not the way Christians present this material in Sunday school. But you see, this is not Sunday school. This is the real world where claims can be expected to actually be challenged and subjected to scrutiny! Most especially absurd, unrealistic claims.
You of course cannot be compelled, or even expected, to abandon your preference for make believe just because your beliefs do not stand up scrutiny based on reason logic and the facts! But you should at least realize that your ineffectual defence for your preferred flavor of ancient make believe is not going unnoticed by others.
Now consider this. Christians have been declaring for the last 2,000 years that Jesus is about to return "soon." At any moment now. If 2,000 years of being dead wrong is not proof, then what sort of proof would you suggest?
Yes - but not those who follow a man, my dear old Skillitt. Jesus didn't become a god until the Greeks got hold of him.
You know, Trans, this is an angle that never occurred on me. Jesus wasn't a son of god until the Greeks, who were BIG on making sons of god out of ordinary men, got hold of Jesus and decided to turn him into a god himself, starting in Matthew and Luke as a "son of god" and then in John as fully god. If it were Aramaic writers writing the gospels Jesus would NEVER have become the son of god.
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.
Can't rep you.
and was based on Faith in Jesus, though it was all the Jesus that was left after Paul had thrown out most of the actual Jesus.
about the real Jesus and how you can recover him from the Gospels, and Why Paul Converted, and why he had to adapt Jewish Messianism (which is what the Disciples believed) into something that suited him and also suited the gentiles that he wanted to convert. 
It's the only reason I'm here at all.
