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'd say that the passage about the "Eucharist" was a late addition by people wanting to transform the Way and the fellowship of the "love feasts" into a religion with mandated rites. The problem addressed by Paul would be better served by making them potluck instead of each person bringing food only for his own family. There's nothing like a good potluck for fellowship and sharing.
A vested interest? As in Paul giving up the life and benefits that he had as a Pharisee for a life of suffering, beatings, hardships and finally martyrdom?
2 Corinthians 11:23-27
''. . . I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.''
If Paul didn't actually believe the message he was proclaiming he'd have been better off living a comfortable life as a Pharisee. And while the other apostles weren't Pharisees, if they didn't believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be, they would have had better lives if they had remained as they had been before Jesus called them as his disciples.
Why would the disciples claim that Jesus had risen when Jewish belief was for a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age? No one expected anyone to rise before that time.
No, there was no conspiracy involved. Even critical, unbelieving scholars say that the disciples actually believed they saw the risen Jesus even though those same scholars can't say what it was that they actually saw. For instance, historian and scholar Paula Fredriksen comments;
''For Jesus' closest followers, however, it was otherwise. Panicked by his arrest, most had fled. What happened next we cannot know for certain, because our different sources tell us different stories: Only the broadest lines are clear. Absolutely certain that Jesus was dead, some members of this small group began to perceive, and then to proclaim, that Jesus lived again. God, they said, had raised him from the dead.
What these disciples actually saw or experienced is now impossible to say.'' [Bolding mine]
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Paula Fredriksen, p. 261
Fredriksen herself does not believe in miracles but believes that the disciples believed that they saw something, she doesn't know what, that led them to believe that Jesus had risen. She is not the only critical scholar to recognize this.
You people continue on without me. I'm not going to convince you, and you have nothing to say that I don't already know, so you're not going to convince me of your views. I'll leave it at that.
We knew that, and whether you want to debate the 'evidence' or not makes no difference - we can discuss it ourselves. I have a bit of a problem, i have to say, with Scholars in this area who seem to persistently start from an assumption that the Gospel reports are substantially reliable, when demonstrably they are not.
The assumption that the disciples 'saw something' is fair enough. It might be possible to argue that Paul took the Pharisee resurrection - belief, added that to the disciple's knowledge (which i believe) that the disciples knew that Jesus was dead and had stayed dead, and had put the two together to Invent a risen messiah. But Paul swears that Jesus appeared to Peter, the 'twelve' a bunch of followers and finally to the rational -sounding James with Paul having his own vision last of all and you know (though you won't agree) Mike old mate, that I don't believe a word of the 'Road to Damascus' incident; this was Paul's dream -tea-time with Jesus in heaven where he got divine approval for his own concocted theology.
Thus the visions of the disciples was true, but it was a vision, later on, of a spirit jesus back in heaven and it was not a reference to the resurrection -accounts.
We know this because it does not in the least accord with the gospel account which seems to draw on a tradition of an empty tomb and the women finding Jesus' body gone, and the rest is all contradiction, including the angelic explanation of the missing body, which isn't in John.
There is no appearance to Simon - except in Luke (24.34)where it is slipped in as an aside - just Luke trying to adapt the resurrection -claim to what he's read in Paul's letters. The others haven't heard of any kind of 'appearance to Simon'.
Bottom line - the resurrection probably was a belief of the disciples and Paul got that at least from them, if nothing else. But, even if the disciples did die (and Paul got knocked about a bit)in defence of that belief, such claims depending on Luke and early Church writers, from none of whom i would buy a used car, it was a visionary Jesus in the head, on all the evidence and not a solid-body Gospel -type resurrection which all the evidence (despite the arguments of William Lane - Craig and others) is actually against.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-13-2019 at 05:10 PM..
I'd say that the passage about the "Eucharist" was a late addition by people wanting to transform the Way and the fellowship of the "love feasts" into a religion with mandated rites. The problem addressed by Paul would be better served by making them potluck instead of each person bringing food only for his own family. There's nothing like a good potluck for fellowship and sharing.
Later amendment is a handy explanation. I watched a video explaining just how 'Corrections' of Gospel text or simple mistakes by bored and tired copyists can creep in, but it's too much 'waving away unwelcome evidence' for my taste. If there is reason to brand something a fake (like the Flavian testament) there has to be some more persuasive argument than a bit of Paul being inconvenient
What I have to question is Paul's motives in all of this. Did he have some OCD to want to be part of the exclusive "12 apostles of Jesus the Messiah" club? Or did he just not give a damn about anything the apostles had to say about what they knew of Jesus and was determined to set up his own version of how he thought Christianity should be run? Were the "revelations" he claims to have received directly from Jesus just a ploy to add authority to his views of what he was convinced Christians should believe?
More and more I see a man completely uninterested in what the people who knew Jesus had to say about him and turning his attention to setting up a new elaborate system of belief based on his own convictions and using "revelations from Jesus" as his only authority. Paul would have been completely forgotten in history or at best a footnote were it not for a quirk of fate that landed 13 of Paul's epistles in the New Testament, thus making them the bulk of the New Testament theology---13 epistles (as opposed to only 4 gospels devoted to Jesus' theology). And nearly all of Paul's theology, on display in abundance in these 13 epistles, is at odds with what Jesus taught in the 4 gospels (really just one gospel repeated 4 times). It's clear that in the battle for theological supremacy Paul was going to come out the winner, and he did. Christians today follow Pauline Christology rathter than Jesus Christology.
In practical terms, I see Jesus' theology as a starting point--the concrete perimeter foundation for Paul, upon which Paul could construct his own elaborate "10,000 square foot house" of theology.
I actually see Paul's influence as much more than he would have believed, if his last whines about people truning away from him are to be taken seriously.
While i see Luke's Gospel as adapted very much to fit it with Paul's letters and Josephus' history, Matthew seems to be aware of a lot of feedback from Paul, like how to deal with fellow Christians, and i think that the curious passage about Jesus just being sent to Israel (which is nonsense, because other parts of the gospel make it clear that God had hardened their hearts so they wouldn't understand the parables that Jesus used because God didn't want them to be saved - the hatred of the Gospel -writers for the Jews is staggering at times) means - i think-that Matthew knew that the mission to the gentiles was for others. Though Jesus telling them to convert all nations seems to suggest that they didn't realise (as Luke did, having access to Paul's letters) that the disciples did no mission to the Nations and that was entirely Paul's idea.
That said even from the start, seen in Mark's gospel, the partiality to gentiles and the loathing for Jews and their Law is clear -and that can be traced to Pauline teaching, even though he never intended it to lead to the jew-hate that it became in the hands of the gentile gospel -writers.
What I have to question is Paul's motives in all of this. Did he have some OCD to want to be part of the exclusive "12 apostles of Jesus the Messiah" club? Or did he just not give a damn about anything the apostles had to say about what they knew of Jesus and was determined to set up his own version of how he thought Christianity should be run? Were the "revelations" he claims to have received directly from Jesus just a ploy to add authority to his views of what he was convinced Christians should believe?
More and more I see a man completely uninterested in what the people who knew Jesus had to say about him and turning his attention to setting up a new elaborate system of belief based on his own convictions and using "revelations from Jesus" as his only authority. Paul would have been completely forgotten in history or at best a footnote were it not for a quirk of fate that landed 13 of Paul's epistles in the New Testament, thus making them the bulk of the New Testament theology---13 epistles (as opposed to only 4 gospels devoted to Jesus' theology). And nearly all of Paul's theology, on display in abundance in these 13 epistles, is at odds with what Jesus taught in the 4 gospels (really just one gospel repeated 4 times). It's clear that in the battle for theological supremacy Paul was going to come out the winner, and he did. Christians today follow Pauline Christology rather than Jesus Christology.
In practical terms, I see Jesus' theology as a starting point--the concrete perimeter foundation for Paul, upon which Paul could construct his own elaborate "10,000 square foot house" of theology.
Setting aside your obvious preference for ill intentions behind all the writings in the Bible, I am not surprised you have trouble crediting Paul's redemptions from his attacks on Christians as Saul. Paul had a mystical experience for whatever reason (even an epileptic seizure or whatever else). Irrespective of the trigger, I believe he had a genuine mystical encounter with the consciousness of Christ because I KNOW Christ is there to be experienced. You do not and neither do any of your fellow skeptics.
Setting aside your obvious preference for ill intentions behind all the writings in the Bible, I am not surprised you have trouble crediting Paul's redemptions from his attacks on Christians as Saul. Paul had a mystical experience for whatever reason (even an epileptic seizure or whatever else). Irrespective of the trigger, I believe he had a genuine mystical encounter with the consciousness of Christ because I KNOW Christ is there to be experienced. You do not and neither do any of your fellow skeptics.
I'm perfectly willing to concede Paul had something on the road to Damascus, even an epileptic seizure. But what I'm looking at is Paul's output and what the body of his corpus says about how to obtain salvation. He completely does away with good works as part of salvation and makes faith-based salvation the centerpiece of HIS salvation plan. Jesus never did this. Jesus continuously emphasized doing good works in the gospels. Paul swept all this away. "For you are saved, not by good work, not by faith plus good works but by faith alone". I can't tell you the number of Christians walking around who never lift a finger for anybody under the belief that "I'm saved by faith in the blood of the Lamb. I don't need anything else."
While it's for Mystic to answer that point, I'd say that he is not talking about the Gospels or Paul but about an 'experience' (which means yet again he is gone off -topic). No, we do not accept the experience he or Paul of any of the others had as really being some kind of mental contact with a 'cosmic mind'.
But to get back to Paul, and indeed Gospel-Jesus, Faith in both cases is something that is necessary for Jesus or God to do something for you. If you don't have faith, he can't (or won't) do it. He cannot (or will not) heal those without faith. God cannot (or will not) save you without faith.
Works however seem necessary to. Paul made it clear that you have behave well or that can lose you salvation, even if you have Faith (he initially supposed that faith would make all his converts behave well, but he soon found that wasn't the case). Jesus' view is encapsulated in the two rather similar stories of the question about the law - if you keep that and you do good, you are 'not far' from the Kingdom of God. But you need faith.
The other is the rich young Ruler. He has faith, but he can't hand all his dosh over. If you don't hand all your dosh over, then, not even faith can save you.
Of course, Nobody in the Churches expects you to hand over all your cash, car, wife, kids, goldfish, CD collection and auntie Mabel's donkey she got in Barcelona and live like a raven or lily. It's why the Gospels are Not a book full of 'good advice' as the believers like to claim. The Church has had to adapt to what is a sensible and humanist life while still claiming the credit for the Bible. Just part of the Big Lie they have foisted on a too gullible public for a couple of thousand years.
Remember that what we have in the Bible can only be confirmed back to the second century AD or later, so we always have the possibility that what we have in our Bibles may be an interpolation. And if they could add a whole chapter to John around 200 AD, then adding or amending a text to what we may now have is always a possibility. And we know Paul's letters have been amended, we just do not now by how much.
But presuming passages are genuine, two of the things Paul tells us is that his gospel was the same as taught by the other apostles*, and that he persecuted the early Christians before his road to Damascus experience. So he most probably knew what the other apostles were teaching for him to persecute them. So Paul could be lying about his source; or that knowledge could have been repackaged as a message from the vision of Jesus, and cognitive bias led Paul to believe he received that message from Jesus.
I find it interesting that Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century AD appears to be saying (First Apology, ch 65-67) Jesus taught the Eucharist on the Sunday he was resurrected.
* Except Paul had no place for the dietary or circumcision rules.
Later amendment is a handy explanation. I watched a video explaining just how 'Corrections' of Gospel text or simple mistakes by bored and tired copyists can creep in, but it's too much 'waving away unwelcome evidence' for my taste. If there is reason to brand something a fake (like the Flavian testament) there has to be some more persuasive argument than a bit of Paul being inconvenient
The problem is there are often good reasons for saying why something is an interpolation, but then there are often good reasons for it not being an interpolation. Often because of the grammar, but also because of what the first Christian writers say about texts we now use in the NT.
And sometimes these errors are just one letter or word, so we can not know just by looking at the text if an error or correction has been made.
And we know copyist errors or theological corrections exist because we have different version in the different manuscripts we have. And finally we have early Christians complaining just how common rewriting of texts actually were.
While it's for Mystic to answer that point, I'd say that he is not talking about the Gospels or Paul but about an 'experience' (which means yet again he is gone off -topic). No, we do not accept the experience he or Paul of any of the others had as really being some kind of mental contact with a 'cosmic mind'.
But to get back to Paul, and indeed Gospel-Jesus, Faith in both cases is something that is necessary for Jesus or God to do something for you. If you don't have faith, he can't (or won't) do it. He cannot (or will not) heal those without faith. God cannot (or will not) save you without faith.
Putting aside Paul's mental aberrations (and he had them by the truckload, believe me!) Paul made faith the centerpiece of his religious philosophy for some cockamamie reason. There has to be a reason why Paul believed that without faith it was impossible for God to do anything, assuming that's what Paul taught. That's what the general Christian faith teaches anyway. Lack of faith is superior to God's strength. If you do not have faith God's hands are tied. He cannot help you. Jesus says so.
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe [have faith] that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Lack of faith makes the Christian god an impotent mess. Any situation where an action by man (no faith) completely emasculates an otherwise omnipotent God is a false faith, a faith set up wholly by men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Works however seem necessary to. Paul made it clear that you have behave well or that can lose you salvation, even if you have Faith (he initially supposed that faith would make all his converts behave well, but he soon found that wasn't the case). Jesus' view is encapsulated in the two rather similar stories of the question about the law - if you keep that and you do good, you are 'not far' from the Kingdom of God. But you need faith.
The other is the rich young Ruler. He has faith, but he can't hand all his dosh over. If you don't hand all your dosh over, then, not even faith can save you.
Of course, Nobody in the Churches expects you to hand over all your cash, car, wife, kids, goldfish, CD collection and auntie Mabel's donkey she got in Barcelona and live like a raven or lily. It's why the Gospels are Not a book full of 'good advice' as the believers like to claim. The Church has had to adapt to what is a sensible and humanist life while still claiming the credit for the Bible. Just part of the Big Lie they have foisted on a too gullible public for a couple of thousand years.
Behaving well is different from doing good works. Not looking at a woman to lust after is not a good work, it is behaving properly. I am not evil according to Pauline theology if I don't tithe. But if I lie, cheat, steal, fornicate then I am going to hell according to 2Thessolonians. Paul lays out his own opinions of what will send a person to hell or eternal death. He also lays out his own opinions of what good behavior and what good works a Christian should do but is not obliged to do for their salvation.
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.
with Paul having his own vision last of all and you know (though you won't agree) Mike old mate, that I don't believe a word of the 'Road to Damascus' incident; this was Paul's dream -tea-time with Jesus in heaven where he got divine approval for his own concocted theology.
of Gospel text or simple mistakes by bored and tired copyists can creep in, but it's too much 'waving away unwelcome evidence' for my taste. If there is reason to brand something a fake (like the Flavian testament) there has to be some more persuasive argument than a bit of Paul being inconvenient 
Nobody in the Churches expects you to hand over all your cash, car, wife, kids, goldfish, CD collection and auntie Mabel's donkey she got in Barcelona and live like a raven or lily. It's why the Gospels are Not a book full of 'good advice' as the believers like to claim. The Church has had to adapt to what is a sensible and humanist life while still claiming the credit for the Bible. Just part of the Big Lie they have foisted on a too gullible public for a couple of thousand years.
