Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 06-15-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Methinks some mythicists have created their very own stumbling block: 'Paul' getting his gospel 'from no man'

.

I agree.

So far I think the very elite, the best of the mythicists rely far to much on it myself.

I just see it as easily explainable.

aa5874 · 06-16-2013, 01:14 AM

The Pauline writers did not start or develop the Jesus cult. The Pauline writings do not reflect the history of the Jesus cult.

Examine the Canon.

There is no author that used a verse from the Pauline Corpus.

The Revelation of John does not include a verse from the revelations in the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus was not used to develop the Jesus cult it was the Septuagint or a similar source that was fundamentally used by the Jesus cult.

The authors of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Non-Pauline letters and Revelation show ZERO influence by the Pauline Corpus.

In fact, they CONTRADICT the Pauline revealed Gospel.

The author of Acts mentioned Paul but NOT his revealed Gospel.

The author of 2nd Peter mentioned Paul wrote to the Brethren but 2nd Peter was PUBLICLY declared to be a forgery and did NOT belong to the Canon by the very Church of Christ.

The Pauline Corpus are without corroboration in the NT Canon.

It was the author of the short version of gMark that a massive impact on the Jesus cult. It was the short version of gMARK that was used to develop the story of Jesus.

1. The author of the long version of gMark copied word for word virtually 100% of short gMark--about 670 verses.

2. The author of gMatthew copied virtually all of the short gMark at times word for word.

3. The author of gLuke copied more than half of gMark at times word for word.

The Pauline Corpus was not used to start or develop the Jesus cult and was most likely unknown to the other authors of the Canon.

J-D · 06-16-2013, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would imagine that the translation of the Hebrew religious texts into Greek was probably the most significant originating factor.

I don't see how translation of religious texts from one language to another would start a new religion. Religious texts are often translated from one language to another without new religions starting.

spin · 06-16-2013, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Why did Apollos, who was preaching the religion of John and thus speaking, as christians believed, about Jesus truly, need to be taken aside and corrected?

We don't know what Apollos preached. You are making assumptions that may not be true. The passage, as we talked about the other day, may have been referring to his emphasis on water (John's) baptism, not knowing of the 'baptism of the Holy Spirt'. Anyway, an early Jewish cult of Christianity, with a hub in Judea, doesn't require that every Jew in the Roman empire, esp one from Alexandria, knows everything that the cult knew.

He was preaching John's baptism, not that of Jesus, just as those in Jerusalem were selling torah practice, unaware that Jesus had fulfilled the torah. For christians the coming messiah is Jesus, so, given the indications of Apollos's connection to John, ie knowing John's baptism, he would have taught as we see in the mouth of John in the gospels, and thus was talking accurately about Jesus from a christian perspective. He just needed an upgrade from Priscilla and Aquila.

We don't know what he was preaching, from the text. We can only assume. You are assuming more than what is said, and your assumption is the most common one. But it may be wrong. As I pointed out before, the next chapter speaks of BELIEVERS -- ie those who believed Jesus rose from the dead -- who knew of John's baptism but not that of Jesus -- ie the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Apollos may have been the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

Surely these were the earliest Jewish Christians, no?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh.

Where are the Jesus believers talked about? Yup, that's right: nowhere. You only get Jesus when Paul is talking to the Galatians.

I highly doubt that Paul would refer to believers 'in Christ', who had the same 'faith' as them without nary an indication that they didn't believe in Jesus and his resurrection. The idea is absurd. Paul's enemies make a HUGE deal about Gentiles not observing Jewish laws and Paul addresses that. Do you think those same enemies would simply be silent about Paul teaching a resurrected Messiah named Jesus if they didn't ALSO believe in one? Of course not!

One support for the claim that Paul was the first to preach about someone named "Jesus" that is made commonly here in this forum is his statement earlier in the chapter that he got his gospel 'from no man'. But, to derive that claim from his statement is an enormous stretch. Paul says he stayed with Cephas for 15 days, one of the 3 pillars in Jerusalem. And, in 1 Cor he again mentions Cephas as having been a fellow-worker in Christ among the Corinthians. Of course Cephas had heard of Jesus.

What was Paul's gospel? Very simple: Salvation to ALL men through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Gal 3:28

Quote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The unique part is the 'ALL' part. No man told him that Gentiles can be saved. This in no way should be interpreted to mean that Paul was the first to talk about Jesus!

Paul even says that the gospel revealed to him pertained to the Gentiles:

Quote:

reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles

If Jesus hadn't been previously preached before Paul, why does Paul make the above statement and not stress salvation to Jews too? Why does Paul stress the Gentiles? Makes no sense. The part of Paul's 'gospel' that was unique to Paul was about Gentile involvement, and NOT about whether there was a Jewish Messiah named Jesus who had lived, died, and resurrected.

Paul gives us NO reason to conclude anything other than this: The message of salvation to Jews through a resurrected Jewish Messiah was the SAME gospel Cephas believed, James believed, John believed, and all of the believers he persecuted in Judea who had the 'same faith' believed. This in my view is what the text most clearly supports.

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.

As you can see you have no evidence for a Jesus before Paul. Most of what you have said has been dealt with. When you find something concrete about a Jesus before Paul, then you will have something to trumpet. As it is there seem to be people who know nothing about Jesus's teaching running the Jerusalem group.

And you can play Apollos's Johannine teaching however you want, but you know that christians interpret the Johannine message as referring to Jesus, but John's followers didn't automatically become christians, so you know a messianic message existed that was not christian, but interpreted by christians as christian. You seem to be hedging your bets hoping Apollos was not as it seems from this chritian passage given his knowledge of only John's baptism, preaching John's messianism. It is obvious despite the tendentious context that that's what is indicated.

I have to leave you with that. Enjoy.

spin · 06-16-2013, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would imagine that the translation of the Hebrew religious texts into Greek was probably the most significant originating factor.

I don't see how translation of religious texts from one language to another would start a new religion. Religious texts are often translated from one language to another without new religions starting.

Decontextualization of religious texts is an invitation for their creative recontextualization. There are rarely truly new religions. We have christianity from Judaism and signs of other sources. Manichaeism comes from christianity. Islam from Judaism with undercurrents of christianity and local beliefs. How does messianism fit within Mosaic Judaism? You should say it doesn't. What happens when you take messianism out of its Jewish context? Decontextualization -> recontextualization. How does decontextualized messianism develop in a salvific mystery religious ethos such as was found in various parts of Cilicia, where Mithra was worshiped? I don't think it is difficult to conceive how a new religion could spring from the decontextualization of religious literature due to translation. I can't say that it is what happened, but I find your inability to see how it could a little difficult to believe.

dog-on · 06-16-2013, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would imagine that the translation of the Hebrew religious texts into Greek was probably the most significant originating factor.

I don't see how translation of religious texts from one language to another would start a new religion. Religious texts are often translated from one language to another without new religions starting.

New eyes carrying distinct baggage along with a tendency to do just such a thing.

I suppose I would say, on the contrary, how couldn't it considering the parties involved?

TedM · 06-16-2013, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.

As you can see you have no evidence for a Jesus before Paul. Most of what you have said has been dealt with. When you find something concrete about a Jesus before Paul, then you will have something to trumpet. As it is there seem to be people who know nothing about Jesus's teaching running the Jerusalem group.

I see you don't want to deal with it again. Ok, but your claim seems to be empty then. If your basis for hanging on to this idea is the claim that Paul got his gospel from no man, then I think you have little basis for your conclusion. Common sense DOES make 'sense' sometimes, spin.

spin · 06-16-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you believe Galatians is legit, then prior to Paul there were Jewish Christians throughout Judea who believed Jesus was their Messiah who had died and been resurrected, and their leaders resided in Jerusalem.

As you can see you have no evidence for a Jesus before Paul. Most of what you have said has been dealt with. When you find something concrete about a Jesus before Paul, then you will have something to trumpet. As it is there seem to be people who know nothing about Jesus's teaching running the Jerusalem group.

I see you don't want to deal with it again.

Deal with what? Your will to christianize the narrative? That's what you cannot help doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, but your claim seems to be empty then.

When you have said nothing you give yourself nothing to judge by.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If your basis for hanging on to this idea is the claim that Paul got his gospel from no man, then I think you have little basis for your conclusion.

Talk about selective blindness, TedM. I've gotta learn that you will not stop. You have completely overlooked facts like the lack of the use of the name Jesus connected to those messianists prior to him, you ignore the fact that those messianists didn't learn anything obvious from Jesus, as they were still observing the torah without the freedom of Jesus. These things are important and you ignore them. What can I expect from you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Common sense DOES make 'sense' sometimes, spin.

When you have an example in our topic, let me know.

aa5874 · 06-16-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As you can see you have no evidence for a Jesus before Paul. Most of what you have said has been dealt with. When you find something concrete about a Jesus before Paul, then you will have something to trumpet. As it is there seem to be people who know nothing about Jesus's teaching running the Jerusalem group.

Your claim is not only a fallacy but a known fallacy.

You very well know that the Pauline writer admitted there were Scriptures that Jesus DIED for OUR Sins, was Buried and Rose Again on the Third Day and that was Last to be Seen of Jesus AFTER Over 500 persons.

The very Pauline writers contradict you.

1. Over 500 persons was seen of Jesus BEFORE Paul.

2. Scriptures were ALREAY written about the death, burial and resurrection on the Third Day.

The Pauline writer will contradict you again. The Gospel of Jesus was preach to the JEWS FIRST before Paul preached Jesus to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16 KJV

Quote:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Peter was commissioed to preach the Gospels to the JEWS BEFORE Paul was commissioned to preach to the Gentiles.

The Pauline writer contradicts you again. The Gospel of Jesus was preached to the JEWS by Peter in Jerusalem according to the very Pauline writers.

Galatians 2

Quote:

1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.................................................. .................................................. ........7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles...

1. Again,logically, if Jesus Christ did exist he most likely would have preached his Gospel BEFORE Paul.

2. Again, if all we have are stories about Jesus, then the Jesus story was ALREADY found written in the Scriptures according to Paul.

3. Again, if all we have are visions of Jesus then the Pauline writer was the LAST AFTER over 500 persons.

4. Again, the Pauline admitted the Gospel of Jesus was preached to the JEWS FIRST.

5. Again, the Pauline writer admitted he persecuted the Churches of Christ in Judea.

The Pauline writers were DEAD LAST in the Canon and did not start the Jesus cult.

DCHindley · 06-16-2013, 09:49 AM

aa,

I am not at all sure what exactly you were asserting when you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology. The Jesus cult started when people a fabricated story that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

...

The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews and those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

The relative lack of punctuation makes it a bit difficult to break this down into sense units, but it appears you were making the following statements:

The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology.
The Jesus cult started when people fabricated a story
that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews
After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate
as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.
The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews
those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

If I move around these statements, I can make a more or less coherent statement out of them:

[1] The conception of Jesus in the NT is mere Mythology.

[4] After the Temple fell and the Holy City was made desolate
[2] The Jesus cult started when people fabricated a story
[3] that the Jews killed the Son of the God of the Jews
[5] as predicted by the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.
[6] The story [that God had become a human being] was fabricated To deceive the Jews
[7] [but] those who are called Christians BELIEVED the story was true.

I get the impression that you think that the people who fabricated the story of Jesus Christ the Son of God in order to deceive the Jews, were different from those called Christians who actually believed that story.

Who are the "fabricators" of the story? The Roman Government? The Roman aristocracy? Those called Christians?

What was the purpose of this deception? To deflate the expectations of the rebellious faction among the Jews?

Why did those called Christians actually believe a story originally created to deceive the Jews?

"Inquiring minds want to know!" (motto of the National Enquirer tabloid)

DCH

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

06-16-2013, 01:14 AM	#192
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Pauline writers did not start or develop the Jesus cult. The Pauline writings do not reflect the history of the Jesus cult. Examine the Canon. There is no author that used a verse from the Pauline Corpus. The Revelation of John does not include a verse from the revelations in the Pauline Corpus. The Pauline Corpus was not used to develop the Jesus cult it was the Septuagint or a similar source that was fundamentally used by the Jesus cult. The authors of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Non-Pauline letters and Revelation show ZERO influence by the Pauline Corpus. In fact, they CONTRADICT the Pauline revealed Gospel. The author of Acts mentioned Paul but NOT his revealed Gospel. The author of 2nd Peter mentioned Paul wrote to the Brethren but 2nd Peter was PUBLICLY declared to be a forgery and did NOT belong to the Canon by the very Church of Christ. The Pauline Corpus are without corroboration in the NT Canon. It was the author of the short version of gMark that a massive impact on the Jesus cult. It was the short version of gMARK that was used to develop the story of Jesus. 1. The author of the long version of gMark copied word for word virtually 100% of short gMark--about 670 verses. 2. The author of gMatthew copied virtually all of the short gMark at times word for word. 3. The author of gLuke copied more than half of gMark at times word for word. The Pauline Corpus was not used to start or develop the Jesus cult and was most likely unknown to the other authors of the Canon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.