Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-30-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

FFS, start with the evidence which points to a very much lower class cult spread throughout Greek speaking communities around the Mediterranean (including Rome). A Roman god indeed?!

the movement failed quickly in judaism to a number of factors, before it became a gentile/roman shall I say hellenistic version of judaism and spread through the roman empire that paul traveled. The lower class you speak of failed within judaism due to its leaders [the real apostles] being illiterate and only relied on oral tradition.

Not getting the word out like paul did focusing on capitol's and city centers killed the real apostles movement. the movement wasnt well accepted in judaism to begin with. this low class movement would have went no where had paul not taken it.

Paul took the religion, recorded his own hellenistic version of this deity and hit the road with it preaching to romans and trying to steal god-fearers from synagogues.

a pine tree grew from a small nut, as did the jesus movement into a jewish roman deity.

you want evidence, I call saul to the stand for starting the movement in a way that worked.

I had a thought about paul persecuting the sect, what he spends 3 years chasing down the sect leaders. The movement was so small, a good headhunter could get all the apostles of thi ssmall movement in that time, and then what?? all of a sudden after the real apostles are dead, a roman version is born through saul, saying pay your taxes to romans.

I dont put stock in my mythology of saul, but it beats what mythers excuse's are.

but you didnt answer the question, why a peasant jew with unique parables??

This is all too fuzzy to pull apart in order to clarify it. Even the last question makes little sense. "why a peasant jew with unique parables??" What are you trying to ask?

spin · 04-30-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

or, the Pauline content could have been borrowed and altered to align with the canonical gospel stories as they were being written, collated, or re-written.

or, the Pauline content could have been written fully to align with the canonical stores

Or Paul was responsible for the name of his figure who represents and brings salvation. Jesus = Yah saves.

yeshua was a common name as mike, I like philo's refference better.

You can like whatever you choose, but why are you asserting whatever you are referring to here?

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

the movement failed quickly in judaism to a number of factors, before it became a gentile/roman shall I say hellenistic version of judaism and spread through the roman empire that paul traveled. The lower class you speak of failed within judaism due to its leaders [the real apostles] being illiterate and only relied on oral tradition.

Not getting the word out like paul did focusing on capitol's and city centers killed the real apostles movement. the movement wasnt well accepted in judaism to begin with. this low class movement would have went no where had paul not taken it.

Paul took the religion, recorded his own hellenistic version of this deity and hit the road with it preaching to romans and trying to steal god-fearers from synagogues.

a pine tree grew from a small nut, as did the jesus movement into a jewish roman deity.

you want evidence, I call saul to the stand for starting the movement in a way that worked.

I had a thought about paul persecuting the sect, what he spends 3 years chasing down the sect leaders. The movement was so small, a good headhunter could get all the apostles of thi ssmall movement in that time, and then what?? all of a sudden after the real apostles are dead, a roman version is born through saul, saying pay your taxes to romans.

I dont put stock in my mythology of saul, but it beats what mythers excuse's are.

but you didnt answer the question, why a peasant jew with unique parables??

This is all too fuzzy to pull apart in order to clarify it. Even the last question makes little sense. "why a peasant jew with unique parables??" What are you trying to ask?

why would Paul deify a poor peasant jew who spoke in unique parables??

if jesus was a myth, it would have more myth and less of a poor peasant teacher, thats my point.

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common name as mike, I like philo's refference better.

You can like whatever you choose, but why are you asserting whatever you are referring to here?

apology, I took yah saves out of context.

sorry, brain has been spun the last few days, lack of sleep, ect, ect

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

heres where all mythers fail, WHY?

why use a jewish peasant as a roman god?

They wanted something that the Jews had and they didn't: monotheism. Not just that, but a venerated and ancient monotheism. Not only that, but priceless intellectual property in the form of ancient scriptures and prophecies that went back to the creation of the world.

Jesus's financial status was irrelevant to this emerging theology. He was sent by God as a prophet, wasn't recognized as one by the Jews (as prophesied), and was killed by them on Passover (also as prophesied). The only people who acknowledged him as the Messiah was -- surprise! -- the Gentiles. Shocking, huh?

thanks for the reply

not bad, but they could have kept Yahweh for montheism though.

why would this emerging theology contain a poor peasant teacher though.?

its a embarrassment for them to have a lousy tekton as a deity

Sheshbazzar · 04-30-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

why would Paul deify a poor peasant jew who spoke in unique parables??

You are talking about someone that 'Paul' apparently never knew. Where does 'Paul' ever even mention any of these unique parables?
Where does 'Paul' say anything about his Christ ever being 'poor' or a 'peasant Jew'?
Paul's Christ Jezus was The Almighty Gawd incarnate, the Supreme Lord and Owner of the entire Universe, and always had been from the beginning.

Even in the Gospels, Jezus is never portrayed as being a 'poor peasant' but rather as a wandering 'Holy man'/ Prophet by choice, evidently one always with sufficient funds on hand to meet whatever his needs. (Judas held the 'bag')
And who needs much money when you can feed thousands by simply pulling a rabbit, ..er, fish out of yer hat? Same thing as being loaded to the hilt.

And if Jezus was ever caught a little short on pocket change, no problemo, go pull some coin out of a fish, or whatever. No one ever needs to be 'poor' or broke, when all that is needed is another shazamm! offhanded miracle to rustle up enough jingle.

maryhelena · 04-30-2012, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Regardless of the way one comes to the ahistoricist/mythicist position - the important thing is that one arrives there. Important because it's only by arriving at that position that one can move forward in searching for early christian origins.

On the contrary. The argument I offer is that searching for the origin of Christianity is impossible. Where our sources stop, so too must our endeavour.

I'm truly sad to read that...:constern01:

aa5874 · 04-30-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Paul never met a Jesus....

So, did he NOT get the name Jesus from someone else??

Once you admit that Paul never met Jesus then there are TWO fundamental ways he could have gotten the name Jesus and information about the character.

Either orally or by written sources ....

or, the Pauline content could have been borrowed and altered to align with the canonical gospel stories as they were being written, collated, or re-written.

or, the Pauline content could have been written fully to align with the canonical stores

Or Paul was responsible for the name of his figure who represents and brings salvation. Jesus = Yah saves.

From Josephus we know that the name Jesus was given to any "Tom, Dick or Harry".

Mad men, murders and robbers were called Jesus.

Jesus the son of Ananus--madman, Jesus the Son of Sapphias--leader of robbers, and Jesus the Son of Gamala were mentioned in Josephus and their names had no real signifcance as Saviors.

Jesus the Son of Ananus, Jesus the Son of Sapphias, and Jesus the son of Gamala should have been Contemporaries of the supposed Paul.

maryhelena · 04-30-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

thief of fire
Do you think other "messianic" type figures mentioned by Josephus around that period existed? Like Judas the Gallilean, Theudas, The Samaritan prophet or the Egyptian.

Probably. Mostly because we know what Josephus was doing. We know who he was. We know where he was. We know more about him than we do about all four of the gospel authors combined.

We can be confident that Josephus is employing his own historiography. We have no reason to suppose the gospel authors are doing anything of the sort.

So its OK to let Josephus off the hook because he is writing 'history' - and yet the gospel writers are taken to task for their 'history'.....?? Whether Josephus is a historical figure or whether 'Josephus' is a pseudonym is besides the point here. What we have are writings that are relevant to the gospel time period. As such, these writings can no more be taken on face value than anything the NT writers wrote. Particularly so as recent Josephan research is painting a very interesting picture - Josephus as a prophetic historian.

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Quote:

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine:The Evidence from Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rebecca Gray

Quote:

There is no denying that the picture we now possess of Josephus as a prophet has been refined and developed in various ways. For example, the ideas that he claims first came to him in a moment of prophetic revelation at Jotapata – that God was punishing the Jews for their sins and that fortune had gone over to the Romans - have become major interpretive themes in the War as a whole. Josephus also sometimes reinforces the prophetic claims that he makes for himself by subtle changes in his presentation of the ancient prophets. And it is probable that, with the passage of time, Josephus’ image of himself as a prophet became clearer in his own mind.

my bolding

Quote:

Preface to the War of the Jews, ch.1.par.6

....many Jews before me have composed the histories of our ancestors very exactly;......... But then, where the writers of these affairs and our prophets leave off, thence shall I take my rise, and begin my history.

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

why would Paul deify a poor peasant jew who spoke in unique parables??

You are talking about someone that 'Paul' apparently never knew. Where does 'Paul' ever even mention any of these unique parables?
Where does 'Paul' say anything about his Christ ever being 'poor' or a 'peasant Jew'?
Paul's Christ Jezus was The Almighty Gawd incarnate, the Supreme Lord and Owner of the entire Universe, and always had been from the beginning.

Even in the Gospels, Jezus is never portrayed as being a 'poor peasant' but rather as a wandering 'Holy man'/ Prophet by choice, evidently one always with sufficient funds on hand to meet whatever his needs. (Judas held the 'bag')
And who needs much money when you can feed thousands by simply pulling a rabbit, ..er, fish out of yer hat? Same thing as being loaded to the hilt.

And if Jezus was ever caught a little short on pocket change, no problemo, go pull some coin out of a fish, or whatever. No one ever needs to be 'poor' or broke, when all that is needed is another shazamm! offhanded miracle to rustle up enough jingle.

well its a nice description of a part of the biblical jesus.

your wrong on how the bible portrays him though, the word tekton speaks volumes to the original audience intended.

these were handworkers of no special trade that were probably renters. these were very low class starving peasants.

maybe you dont fail to see the mythical cover up

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.