FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-2013, 11:20 AM   #51
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Then you are convinced the authors of the epistles intended to back up the gospel writers, even though the authors of the epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in those gospels.
The authors of the Epistles alluded to the Gospels far more than any other Canonised Epistle.

In fact, the Pauline Corpus backed up the Later Gospels.

1. The author of Galatians 4 claimed Jesus was made of a woman.

The author backed up the later birth narratives in LATE Gospels of gMatthew 1 and gLuke 1 where Jesus was born of a woman.

There is no birth narrative in the earliest gMark.

2. The author of 1 Corinthians 15 claimed Jesus was made a quickening Spirit.

The author alluded to the birth narrative in LATE Gospels of gLuke, gMatthew and gJohn where Jesus was born of the Spirit and Fathered by the Holy Ghost.

There is no claim that Jesus was made a quickening spirit in the earliest gMark.

3. The author of Romans 1 claimed Jesus was of the seed of David.

The author backed up the LATE stories of gJohn 7, gMatthew 1 and gLuke 3.

There is no claim that Jesus was of the seed of David in earliest gMark.

4. In Philippians 2, the author claimed Jesus was equal to God and also in God's image.

The author backed up the LATE Gospel of John.

There is no claim that Jesus was equal to God in the earliest gMark.

5. In 1 Corinthians 11, the author claimed that the ritual of the Last Supper was to be carried out in the Remembrance of Jesus at the request of Jesus himself.

The author backed the Late Gospel of gLuke.

There is no claim that there should be a Ritual of the Last Supper in the earliest gMark.

6 . In Galatians 2, the author claimed Peter was commissioned by Jesus to preach the Gospel.

The author backed up the POST-Resurrection commission in the LATE Gospels of gMatthew 28 and gLuke 24.

There is no claim that the resurrected Jesus commissioned Peter to preach the Gospel to anyone in the earliest gMark.

7. In 1 Corinthians 15, the Pauline author claimed there were POST Resurrection visits by Jesus to the disciples.

The author backed up the LATE Gospels of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

There are NO Post Resurrection visits in the earliest gMark.

8. In 1 Corinthians 15, it is claimed Jesus died for our sins and resurrected on the Third Day.

The author backed up the LATE Gospels of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

There is no claim that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that he would resurrect on the THIRD day in the earliest gMark.

9. In 1 Corinthians 14, the Pauline writer claimed he spoke in Tongues.

The author backed the LATE Gospels of gLuke.

There is no claim by the resurrected Jesus that people would speak in tongues in the earliest gMark.

10. In Galatians 2, it is claimed that God LOVED all mankind by sacrificing his Son.

The author backed up the LATE Gospel of gJohn.

There is no claim that God loved people and sacrificied his Son in the earliest gMark.

The Pauline writers were aware of and BACKED up the LATER stories of Jesus from Conception to the Post Resurrection visits.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 11:50 AM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.
Then you are convinced the authors of the epistles intended to back up the gospel writers, even though the authors of the epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in those gospels.
I have already explained my personal views and reasonings on this.

A short recap. All the 'Pauline epistle' writers wanted from the 'Jerusalem' apostolic Gospel, was to be able to claim to be the apostolic descendent's of these Gospel 'apostles', in support of the late Church's claimed 'Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.

The 'Pauline' authors -did not want- the form of Doctrine that is reflected in the 'Jerusalem' Gospels, and that the original 'Jerusalem apostles' (real or fictional) obviously followed. ...adherance to the Torah, observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath, and other 'Jewish' practices.

So the epistle writers have their 'Paul' have a 'vision' and a 'Gospel that is according to Paul', .....which just incidentally and not too surprisingly coincides nicely with the dogmas and doctrines of the 'orthodox' of a late 2nd century Christian church.

Conquering the Empire with the pen. A political and religious ploy to attain ascendancy of control, power, and wealth by the 'catholic' clergy.
Not just Rome, but all 'catholic' Christian religious leaders were the beneficiaries of this.
...not omitting that the majority were entirely sincere and convicted in their beliefs, having bought into these anonymous manipulators written stories lock stock and barrel.
As 'Christian's' still do. They are (mostly) sinciere, but nonetheless deluded by and the victims of a fictional story.


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 11:53 AM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Either the Classic Theory (Christus Victor as revived by Gustav Aulen) or Abelard's 12th Century concept get around the objection raised by your OP.
Both of these theories also get around what the Bible says.

Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood

1 Corinthians 5:7
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:12
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Hebrews 10:14
For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 10:18
And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
I took your OP to be a smug proof for MJ by quibbling about what a "sacrifice" means. So I showed that Atonement can have other meanings. Now it seems you're waging an anti-Fundamentalist battle against the Bible, especially Paul, even though Paul is usually cited for MJ.

Surely "sacrifice" can mean something else than what you require it to be, so your logical conundrum fails. Nor do any of those biblical meanings necessarily exclude the Classical or Moral view of the Atonement.
Adam is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:58 PM   #54
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Again, you must present the evidence from antiquity for what you write.
Around the turn of the first century, the “fire of faith” flared anew, throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the east. A number of mystery religions exploded in numbers. Christianity was only one of them. Another was Mithraism, which had already gotten a foothold in the Roman world when Pompey, erstwhile collaborator of Julius Caesar, joined Mithras, around 63 BCE. Other similar movements sprang to life, some of them brand-new, others founded on older movements.

Orphean-inspired people were, apparently, among the first to latch on to the young Christian movement. They saw Jesus Christ as an embodiment of the “divine knowledge,” or λογος (Logos), to whom the “divine wisdom” or σοφια (Sophia) had given birth. They considered the ancient Hebrew God, YHWH, the Demiurge, or the author of the woes of the material. To them, Jesus represented deliverance from the enslavement of the Demiurge, as well as the architect of spiritual advancement. Furthermore they believed that Jesus had taught the apostles things which were never put in writing, and which should not be put in writing, which they, themselves, were privy to; these were their “secret doctrines,” open only to the initiated, and only after the “outer mysteries” or publicly-acknowledged teachings, had been mastered.

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/gnostic.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
In Acts, Paul did not preach a Cosmic Christ.
That's debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
are merely speculating. Maybe this and maybe that is not evidence of anything.
True. But the Church covered it's tracks so well that a lot of what passes for Church history is open to speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Again, the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline letters and did not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote Pastorals or letters to Seven Churches of the Jesus cult before 58-62 CE or before the time of Festus, procurator of Judea..
And, as I pointed out, there are scholars who see Acts as post-dating Galatians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I am delighted that you now show that in Acts Jesus was on earth doing miracles among the Jews and was put to death by the help of wicked men.
There is NO Cosmic Christ in Acts and the Pauline letters.

... up to the mid 3rd century it was NOT taught that Jesus was a carpenter..
I certainly agree that there is no Cosmic Christ in Acts

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I am saying that it is documented in "Against Celsus" that it is claimed it was not taught in the Churches that Jesus was a carpenter.
And I do not dispute that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
, why do you insist on guessing? You must know that in "Against Celsus" that it was claimed the father of Jesus was Panthera a Roman soldier.
I have heard that, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You must know that the Pauline writings were unknown to Celsus.
Yes. I like Dettering's theory that Paul was a 2nd century invention as well.

It all just goes to show that Christian history as it is presented to us has little resemblance to what really happened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
cannot present any actual evidence from the Canon that Paul died and cannot present any evidence from antiquity Paul was alive when the Pauline Corpus was invented.
That's true.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:16 PM   #55
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
except in context

Paul only wants the next life, because Jesus is there in death.



If anything that is more evidence Paul didnt place Jesus as a celestial only deity, as the only way Paul can be with him is in death.
Whereas Jesus only wants this life because he does not desire to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:17 PM   #56
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
This place used to be a lot more open and receptive to skeptical and competing ideas.
Now it is more concerned with establishing some patina of 'respectability', and thus is becoming transformed into a bastion of 'the status quo', 'convention' and to the maintenance of good old boys academic cliques frozen in time opinions.
If it's any consolation, I would never join any club that would have me as a member.
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:22 PM   #57
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Or the passage is an interpolation.
I am happy to hear the argument for that. It should not be claimed just to keep a hypothesis unfalsified. Any unlikely hypothesis can work that way.
THe following cite provides an argument for Romans 1:3 being an interpolation.
http://vridar.info/xorigins/Romans/1_2-6.htm
jgreen44 is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:43 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Then you are convinced [...] "the authors of the epistles intended to back up the gospel writers, even though the authors of the epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in those gospels."
Not necessarily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Around the turn of the first century, the “fire of faith” flared anew, throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the east. A number of mystery religions exploded in numbers. Christianity was only one of them. Another was Mithraism, which had already gotten a foothold in the Roman world when Pompey, erstwhile collaborator of Julius Caesar, joined Mithras, around 63 BCE. Other similar movements sprang to life, some of them brand-new, others founded on older movements.

Orphean-inspired people were, apparently, among the first to latch on to the young Christian movement. They saw Jesus Christ as an embodiment of the “divine knowledge,” or λογος (Logos), to whom the “divine wisdom” or σοφια (Sophia) had given birth. They considered the ancient Hebrew God, YHWH, the Demiurge, or the author of the woes of the material. To them, Jesus represented deliverance from the enslavement of the Demiurge, as well as the architect of spiritual advancement. Furthermore they believed that Jesus had taught the apostles things which were never put in writing, and which should not be put in writing, which they, themselves, were privy to; these were their “secret doctrines,” open only to the initiated, and only after the “outer mysteries” or publicly-acknowledged teachings, had been mastered.

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/gnostic.html
Yes, there were many fore-runners to the Christianity that eventually developed - Zoroastrianism, Doceticism, Montanism, Arianism, Marcionism,
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 03:08 PM   #59
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NW United States
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgreen44 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Yeah, I don't think it would follow that Paul believed Jesus to be merely myth, or else it would also follow that most Christians living today believe Jesus to be merely myth, because they generally accept the same contradicting beliefs.
Most Christians living today import the gospel accounts of a terrestrial Jesus into the Pauline accounts of a Jesus who never seems to have spent any time on earth.
Paul's Jesus definitely spent some time on earth. There would seem to be a significantly greater contradiction if Paul believed Jesus to be born of a woman and born under the law (Galatians 4:4) yet was never on earth. Paul very often mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus, which often happened on the earth in that time and place, and nowhere else, as far as the evidence of ancient myths indicates. And Paul never tried to reconcile the belief that Jesus was never on Earth with the many descriptions that otherwise seem to place him on earth. The contradiction you pointed out--that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice yet he went on to better things--seems mild in comparison. The belief that Paul's Jesus was never on earth is popular among authors who themselves believe Jesus was nothing more than myth, and it is a bit hard for me to understand why, because I know at least some of them at least try to make the best sense of the evidence.
Myths were powerful stories told to show man's relationship to God so when you say merely a myth you miss the point.
The Jesus story explains the destruction of the temple a new covenant etc. It's not history.
jdboy is offline  
Old 05-31-2013, 04:35 PM   #60
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdboy View Post

Myths were powerful stories told to show man's relationship to God so when you say merely a myth you miss the point.
The Jesus story explains the destruction of the temple a new covenant etc. It's not history.
Myth is true, or eternally true and that is for some pple difficult to understand.

It means that if timeless is real, we are not real as huans until we become eternal ourself . . . and then no longer are human, obviously not, and that is what this shit is all about. So who really cares as I do not see much wrong with anybody here.

The problem really is that we all have intimations of immortality becasuse in our right brain we are eternal while in our left we are not.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.