Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdboy · 05-13-2013, 02:19 PM

There were saints in christ jesus who were of Caesar's(1stce 2ndce?) household. Maybe this is why the writings of Paul are known today. The more i see the more Atwill's Caesar's Messiah makes sense.
Epistle to the Phil.
4:21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who are of Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

http://ebible.org/web/Philip.htm

MrMacSon · 05-13-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Do you mean why I think the guy named Paul existed, who apparantly have written a bunch of letters? To start off, because he seems to have written a bunch of letters.

OK - there are several possibilities. There could have been a guy named "Paul" who wrote letters. Or there could have been a guy named "Paul" but he didn't write the letters, they were later forgeries in his name, because he was so famous.

Or there could have been a guy named, say, Simon, who was famous, and someone else wrote the letters and called him "Paul" which means "small" to subvert his message.

Or the whole thing could have been fictional - someone decided to write some letters that would demonstrate certain key points of theology or church organization, and later people mistook them for real letters.

These are all possible, and you can think of more possibilities if you try. How can you pick one? We don't have any of the original letters, we don't have any letters outside of a compilation. We don't have any evidence that there were churches that received these so-called letters. (It has been suggested that the letter to the Corinthians was actually a letter to the Cerinthians,a heretical sect.)

We don't even have any indication that Paul existed outside of these letters, or church legends preserved in the Book of Acts or the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, but the amount of history contained in these is questionable.

You might decide that the best explanation of the evidence is that there was a Paul who wrote these letters, but you have to go through a lot of of intermediate steps to show this. What is your basis for rejecting the other possibilities?

Paul could be name of the guy (or the leader of a group of guys) who collated and edited a bunch of pre-existing stories to produce the epistles as we know them today.

aa5874 · 05-13-2013, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK - there are several possibilities. There could have been a guy named "Paul" who wrote letters. Or there could have been a guy named "Paul" but he didn't write the letters, they were later forgeries in his name, because he was so famous.

Or there could have been a guy named, say, Simon, who was famous, and someone else wrote the letters and called him "Paul" which means "small" to subvert his message.

Or the whole thing could have been fictional - someone decided to write some letters that would demonstrate certain key points of theology or church organization, and later people mistook them for real letters.

These are all possible, and you can think of more possibilities if you try. How can you pick one? We don't have any of the original letters, we don't have any letters outside of a compilation. We don't have any evidence that there were churches that received these so-called letters. (It has been suggested that the letter to the Corinthians was actually a letter to the Cerinthians,a heretical sect.)

We don't even have any indication that Paul existed outside of these letters, or church legends preserved in the Book of Acts or the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, but the amount of history contained in these is questionable.

You might decide that the best explanation of the evidence is that there was a Paul who wrote these letters, but you have to go through a lot of of intermediate steps to show this. What is your basis for rejecting the other possibilities?

We can only make arguments based on the evidence that we have today. The abundance of evidence today show that the Pauline writings were unknown in the 1st century.

It is completely reasonable that when one makes an argument based on evidence for any position that he rejects the other so-called possibilities.

The so-called possibilities which are unevidenced are mere speculation.

jdboy · 05-13-2013, 09:43 PM

Mark 12:For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: you therefore do greatly err.

Jesus explains the dead don't pop out of their graves and get married on earth, they rise as angels in heaven. The resurrection Jesus talks about is for the living.

If you want history as propaganda this is a story about those who had power over life and death during the first ce and beyond. And it wasn't the zealots(Pharisees), it was Rome represented as caesar's messiah Jesus.

Jesus raising Lazarus(rebel leader Eleazar) is demonstrating that Rome had the power of God on their side not the zealots.
If you surrendered to Rome you lived if not you died with the zealot rebels per Wars of The Jews.

Cesc · 05-14-2013, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Now you're a little too quick, aren't you? There are no indications anywhere, in OT or apocrypha or secterian writings, of a belief that the messiah would be rising from the dead. If there is, that's what I'm missing.

Some things are not explicitly spelled out, and others get lost in interpretation or translation.

The OT concept is of a 'seed' (in this case the 'seed' of David') needing to be 'planted' (buried) in order to bring forth fruit, beginning with the 'Firstfruit' (1 Cor 15:20-23)
and from that a vine having branches bearing fruits (Jn 15:5, Rom 11:16) to be gathered at the great harvest 'Ingathering Festival' at the end of the season.

As I said, the concept is founded upon textual interpretation and interpretation of the meaning and the significance of the annual sabbatical Festivals, and is very old and fundamental to the idea being presented in 1 Cor 15 & Jn 15:5, Rom 11:16

That 'Paul' is not an authentic character in no way affects the fact that these authors are supplying us with what they understood these OT 'firstfruits' and 'harvest festival' observances to signify and 'point toward'..

I'm a bit intrigued by this, I hadn't thought of the 'seed of David' having to be 'planted', i.e. buried.

But the whole thing sounds secondary to me in that it seems more likely that the resurrection-belief came first, and then secondarily came an interpretation that said that the buried and risen Jesus was the 'seed' of David having been 'planted'. It's the burial=planting bit which is my stumbling block here (but also the interesting part), to me it doesn't seem to be an OT concept as such.

Do we have the idea in the OT or in any Jewish writings that the messiah, "the seed of David", would first have to be "planted" in the meaning 'die and buried'?

Cesc · 05-14-2013, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

There were saints in christ jesus who were of Caesar's(1stce 2ndce?) household. Maybe this is why the writings of Paul are known today. The more i see the more Atwill's Caesar's Messiah makes sense.
Epistle to the Phil.
4:21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who are of Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

http://ebible.org/web/Philip.htm

Hello jdboy, I havn't seen the movie, but is there anywhere I can see it?

Chili · 05-14-2013, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Yes! Well, not "obligated to", but "interested in". I don't care what caused the belief that the curtain was ripped in two because it's not one of the central pillars of Christianity, but the resurrection of Jesus is and that's why the resurrection-belief is interesting. I don't even know if there ever was a belief about that curtain ripping in who, I think not. It's most likely a literary invention, highly symbolic to the intended audience, conveying a meaning about the significance of the death of Jesus. Maybe the zombie army too.

Was the resurrection of Jesus then also a literary invention? No. Why? Let's never forget that Christianity as a literary philosophy did not arise until the advent of "theology" with the apologetic fathers and what not. There were practitioners first, not authors of the gospels and epistles. Christianity was at first a cult with members practicing the worship of the risen Jesus, it was not at first a literary phenomenon.

In the matter of the resurrection-belief I'm way more interested in Paul than the gospels for several reasons. In my view he's the earliest witness to Christianity that has come down to us, where the gospels reflect a later stage in the history of Christianity, coupled with the fact that they are a different genre altogether. What genre? I don't know precisely, but they are stories told by storytellers mainly for theological and religious purposes.

//

So let's stay with Paul and just forget the gospels for a while. This exercise requires for a minimum the premise that Paul existed of course.

Paul was the first witness in that it happened to him in the same way as it happened to Joseph the Jew. And it matters not whether Paul was real, or was not, because his repeat of the same event made him witness to it, with 'it' being the transformation of the human mind into the mind of Christ. That is what transformation is all about (that obviously counts for the most), wherein Jesus must die to set the Christ free in the mind of the same man, now no longer human but Christian in his own right.

So the difference here is in not seeing the Christ in Jesus but liberating the Christ in yourself and for this you (impersonal always) must be a Jesuit as follower of Jesus yourself, and drink of the cup he drank in the same way.

In the Gospels these were called Nazoreans and their transformation stage was called Galilee where the fire was at that purified them. While there, and thus from inside this fire, they were chosen to be crucified and from there they either go back to Galilee or to heaven inside their own mind where the upper room must be occupied to make heaven known on earth in that same mind. This so makes the difference between comedy and tragedy known as the final end of this transformation event.

This so now makes crucifixion the crisis moment from which resurrection is inevitable to make destiny known in the difference between heaven and hell.

So now unlike all those self proclaimed Christians who were followers of Jesus while worshiping him, Paul came to point out their error and showed them how to become a Christian in real life and not worship Jesus who only showed us how to do it our self.

In this sense was Paul witness to this as it happened to him in the same way to give this 'first-hand' account, now as first Christian himself wherein also he became known as Paul no longer Saul who was the antagonist as persecutor first.

Notice that in this movement Christ is set free as the end for us all to reach on our own, that so is just opposite to worshiping Jesus who died on our behalf . . . that by extent was real, but only in that he died to the OT on our behalf to set us free from their bondage and slavery to sin so that the NT can be a new religion that is different, wherein now Christ is Lord above all and no longer the [unknown] God of the Jews that they referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who hath no name of his own, and was therefore not home among Jews.

Notice here how Matthew himself denies Christ in 22:32 where Jesus still points at the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so denies his own effort in purpose to die on the cross, and that should spellbound anyone here.

Mark does the same in 12:26, while that line will never be found in Luke or in John to make Matthew and Mark satires at best for Christians to follow and spread the 'so called' good news (that really was bad news) like a wildfire that feeds on itself [also] from an infinite source.

jdboy · 05-14-2013, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

There were saints in christ jesus who were of Caesar's(1stce 2ndce?) household. Maybe this is why the writings of Paul are known today. The more i see the more Atwill's Caesar's Messiah makes sense.
Epistle to the Phil.
4:21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who are of Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

http://ebible.org/web/Philip.htm

Hello jdboy, I havn't seen the movie, but is there anywhere I can see it?

I think you can watch it at amazon . com. I would read the book also check out Cliff Carrington's work http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/FlavianT.htm

Sheshbazzar · 05-14-2013, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Now you're a little too quick, aren't you? There are no indications anywhere, in OT or apocrypha or secterian writings, of a belief that the messiah would be rising from the dead. If there is, that's what I'm missing.

Some things are not explicitly spelled out, and others get lost in interpretation or translation.

The OT concept is of a 'seed' (in this case the 'seed' of David') needing to be 'planted' (buried) in order to bring forth fruit, beginning with the 'Firstfruit' (1 Cor 15:20-23)
and from that a vine having branches bearing fruits (Jn 15:5, Rom 11:16) to be gathered at the great harvest 'Ingathering Festival' at the end of the season.

As I said, the concept is founded upon textual interpretation and interpretation of the meaning and the significance of the annual sabbatical Festivals, and is very old and fundamental to the idea being presented in 1 Cor 15 & Jn 15:5, Rom 11:16

That 'Paul' is not an authentic character in no way affects the fact that these authors are supplying us with what they understood these OT 'firstfruits' and 'harvest festival' observances to signify and 'point toward'..

I'm a bit intrigued by this, I hadn't thought of the 'seed of David' having to be 'planted', i.e. buried.

But the whole thing sounds secondary to me in that it seems more likely that the resurrection-belief came first, and then secondarily came an interpretation that said that the buried and risen Jesus was the 'seed' of David having been 'planted'. It's the burial=planting bit which is my stumbling block here (but also the interesting part), to me it doesn't seem to be an OT concept as such.

Do we have the idea in the OT or in any Jewish writings that the messiah, "the seed of David", would first have to be "planted" in the meaning 'die and buried'?

Depends on whom the "we" refers to.

As I said it is a matter of textual interpretation, and it is a fact that not all men interpret what they read within the Scriptural texts the same.

Many, observant keepers of the Scriptural 'Feasts' (Lev 23) in their appointed seasons, do interpret it in this way, and as far as I know, since the institution of these Feasts, there have been those among men whom have so understood these things. But it has never been anywhere near to being everyone.
But the expectation and anticipation among the quietly 'observant', is of a time yet coming when everyone from the least to the greatest, will.

The Scriptures make a lot of poetical and figurative plays upon agricultural words and motifs.
After all what is any 'seed' given for, and what is it good for?
Is it not to be either to be planted to bring forth abundantly? or prepared (Eph 6:15), eaten for food to nourish the eater? (John 6:53-58)

The Messianic 'seed' planted (buried - John 12:24), sprouted, put down deep 'roots' (Isaiah 11:10), rose up from the earth as a mighty 'vine' and brought forth many 'branches' (John 15:5) and each of these 'branches' even now bear 'fruits' of various kinds, some sweet, some bitter, some good, and some evil.

The Messianic 'seed' is that seed which was once planted, and risen up, is also eaten (Mark 14:22)

Least any be offended by what may here appear to be preaching, to those whom have never before heard such things, I am an atheist, just that I learned of these matters before rejecting religions claims.

.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2013, 02:19 PM	#51
jdboy Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: NW United States Posts: 155	There were saints in christ jesus who were of Caesar's(1stce 2ndce?) household. Maybe this is why the writings of Paul are known today. The more i see the more Atwill's Caesar's Messiah makes sense. Epistle to the Phil. 4:21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me greet you. 4:22 All the saints greet you, especially those who are of Caesar’s household. 4:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. http://ebible.org/web/Philip.htm

05-13-2013, 09:43 PM	#54
jdboy Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: NW United States Posts: 155	Mark 12:For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: you therefore do greatly err. Jesus explains the dead don't pop out of their graves and get married on earth, they rise as angels in heaven. The resurrection Jesus talks about is for the living. If you want history as propaganda this is a story about those who had power over life and death during the first ce and beyond. And it wasn't the zealots(Pharisees), it was Rome represented as caesar's messiah Jesus. Jesus raising Lazarus(rebel leader Eleazar) is demonstrating that Rome had the power of God on their side not the zealots. If you surrendered to Rome you lived if not you died with the zealot rebels per Wars of The Jews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.