douglas

Fair enough. What would you accept as proof? Would you agree that the section of Matthew I quoted contradicts the gospel that Paul was preaching, and directly condemns people such as Paul?

I don't see it as a contradiction. It makes sense to me, and seems very consistent with what we know of Paul, what Paul says about himself, and the historical situation he was operating within.

Roger Pearse

Use of it in those senses with those implications by ancient writers? A list of all of them that discuss it would be a first step. Otherwise, isn't it merely modern speculation? What do the ancients say on this subject?

What sort of proof do you think we should look for? Note that Wilson probably doesn't even attempt it; does he just rely on assertion? I bet he does -- see below for why.

Note any time you see statements about Ebionites, be wary. We really know very little about them.

Of course. Eric von Daniken's ideas had the same merit, in his own day. But appealing to what people find believable at the time of publication is the first element in all these dreary revisionist books.

I remember doing a search 10 years ago in some cd of the articles in the Times, Guardian, etc for "Jesus" and getting back a load of book reviews. There must have been a dozen of these "real Jesus" books, all using the same tricks, all telling quite different (but trendy) stories.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble, or sounds unduly dismissive, but all these sorts of books are a con, always in the same way. They prey on people with only a limited knowledge of the subject. We have to step outside of the author's way of looking at things, and start to formulate our own thoughts, and evaluate what we are being told. The way to do it is to cast his ideas and insinuations into some testable statement in your own words, and then find a way to test it against the historical record. And never, ever, allow him to get away with "this sounds plausible = this is true". Anyone with a good writing style can make things sound plausible.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

douglas

Thank you. Although your judgment that "all these sorts of books are a con" says more about you than it does about Barrie Wilson or his book, I would agree that I have a limited knowledge of the subject and am guarding myself against failing pray to unfounded arguments.

Would you mind addressing my other question? Jesus says in Matthew...

While Paul says in Galatians...

What other information do I need in order to determine that these two statements are in opposition to each other?

wordy

I find such texts interesting.

One would need to list years. when did things really happen. Which groups had political power at the time of the Masada? 70CE? which groups was strong enough to oppose them enough to have a following. What did the Diaspora Jew think about it.

Josephus writing for the Rome establishment? How much had he to twist what he write and what personal take did he have to skew his priorities when describing competing groups and so on.

As is obvious I know nothing but is it not telling that there where a group strong enough to take time to write like this?

Originally Posted by Thomas 12
12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came
into being."

I mean they obviously knew they had people eager to read their stories?

How spread where their ideas and held by how many and so on?

aa5874

• Quote:

  The four major Jewish movements that emerged after the destruction of the temple were The Jesus Movement (Ebionites), Gnosticism, Rabbinic Judaism, and the Christ Movement (Paul).

  But, what the about the physical Messiah? The Jews expected a physical Messiah and there was a physical Messiah called Simon bar Kokchba at around 133 CE based on the evidence. There is no historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
  
  Quote:

  There was an active “cover-up” by the Christ movement to snuff-out the Jesus movement beliefs, which eventually succeeded.

  Where can I find evidence of a "Christ" movement. In the NT, the writer called Paul wrote that Jesus died and was resurrected. He also wrote that over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected.
  
  Quote:

  Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who preached and followed Jewish law and would have been appalled by Paul’s “gospel.” The Ebionites where the rightful “heirs” to the gospel of Jesus.

  Where can I find historical evidence of Jesus as a Rabbi?
  
  Jesus in the NT was presented as the offspring of the Holy Ghost. The writings of the church and non-canonised writings described the creature in similar fashion.
  
  
  
  Quote:

  The Book of Matthew is, in some ways, a direct attack by the Jesus Movement on Paul and the Christ Movement.

  Well, the information provided by the church writers is that the letters of Paul and the writings according to gLuke were used to attack Marcion
  
  Quote:

  The primary role of the Book of Acts is to concoct a fictitious link between Paul and Jesus. In other words, Luke was trying to give Paul legitimacy that he otherwise did not have, nor deserve.

  This is reasonable. Acts appears to be fiction or highly incredible.
  
  So how did fiction as found in Acts become sacred? How did the implausible and fictitious conversion of Saul/Paul become sacred and was canonised?
  
  
  Quote:

  There are parts of Acts that directly contradict what Paul claims in his epistles.

  This is true. There are massive holes in Acts of the Apostles and the letters of the writer called Paul. Both authors are not credible.
  
  Quote:

  The book of James is also a direct attack on Paul and his teachings.

  Perhaps it is the other way. The writer called Paul placed himself after the apostles. The writer called Paul claimed he persecuted the Church. Bsaed on the evidence, then, it was the writer called Paul who attacked what was there before his so-called conversion.
  
  Quote:

  In general, when Paul speaks in his epistles of “some people” trying to pervert the gospel that he has taught, he is talking about representatives of the Jesus Movement.

  The writer called Paul placed himself after the faith was already being preached, it was the writer then who "perverted" or changed the way the gospel was already being preached.

Now , look at the evidence.

This is the writer called Paul. The writer even claimed he was not lying.

Galatians 1.20-24. Based on the writings of the writer called Paul, it would appear he was the one who "attacked", "perverted" or changed the faith that was before him.

And, now upon reflection, after reading your post, it now appears to me that the writer called Paul upgraded himself from a physical persecutor of the Messiah to a spiritual perverter of Christ.

wordy

I took that straight from the email so don't remember who said who. HTML is off here in mail.

I like that story about the real Jesus. Simon the son of the Stars?

"Simon bar Kokhba at around 133 CE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba

No wonder that Christians wanted to silence and burn every instance of texts about it.

Maybe the Jesus story is based on this Simon.