charles

I think Iskander's position is most reasonable. The question is which interpretation of Paul is more correct the gnostics or the Orthodox? Elaine Pagels seems to think the gnostics. It is hard for me to say either way

Toto

Please stop repeating old, stale, discredited arguments.

There is no evidence of any oral tradition. None.

You can't use Paul's alleged writing to show that Christianity was not a myth.

Toto

You claim the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true? Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning?

Toto

Again, please stop repeating stale arguments, based on logical fallacies such as the appeal to authority.

In fact, reputable historical scholars admit that the evidence for Jesus' existence is flimsy and unreliable.

Iskander

Is quoting American professors not allowed?

Goodbye

aa5874

What was the name of that school? Where was the school? And who were the students?

Why does Christianity need to transform? What went wrong?

But, it cannot be true that a man called Jesus a Messiah was the Creator of heaven and earth, was equal to God and was RAISED from the dead.

You must agree that Paul did NOT get any gospel from a resurrected DEAD.

Essentially the Pauline writings are non-historical.

Littlejohn

"..but reputable historical scholars all admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed.."

I fully agree with prof. Dale Martin. However, I would add that those who believe that the story of Jesus told in the Gospels is the true story of the Nazarene, they are even more wrong of those who say that he never existed.

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

I don't know about Dale Martin's reputation as a scholar but he appears to be wrong about a guy called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the Church writers there was NO GUY.

The Church writers claimed it was HERETICAL to call Jesus a GUY. See "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus.

According to Church writers Jesus was the offspring of a GHOST of God.

Jesus was some kinda Ghost/man or what.

Check your histories.

Kent F

Quotes from a reply to my post by aa5874:
?? I simply wanted to state that I'm an atheist since it was my first post in this forum after being a lurker for quite some time.

Well, the Pauline epistles themselves weren't exactly published by Bantam Books a couple of decades ago. They are a source of antiquity! As I said, they are a voice of somebody, whatever his name was. From the writings appear a person, someone who is confident, boastful, sarcastic, intelligent and does his utmost to hammer home his arguments. No other part of the Bible is anything like it. Verses have been added or changed, true, but the core of the writings is still a person communicating very strongly.

There are too many examples to quote. It's what he says and how he says it. If you get the feeling when reading Corinthians and Galatians that it's all fabricated, then that's your view. It's not mine. I simply don't believe it and I have no rational argument for it other than what I've just said. But if it's all fabricated, then it's YOU who have to answer WHY the epistles don't include much more of the beliefs of the early church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.

The belief of a human Jesus is earlier than the 4th century. It's at its latest from the 2nd century. IF the epistles were written AFTER Jesus believers became powerful, then WHY aren't they filled with verses which all point to a HUMAN Jesus? I want you to answer that.

I just did. WHY doesn't ”Paul” mention and visit the places where Jesus was supposed to have been crucified and buried? Why didn't the fabricator from the RCC make Paul ”take a tour” of the holy places guided by Peter? Why did he allow Paul to say that his gospel was of no man? Why did he allow Paul to say that he was brought up into the third heaven and heard words which no man before him had heard, including Peter and the like? WHY?? That's clear proof that the RCC didn't write the epistles.

If you are claiming that the four gospels were written before the epistles, then you are in a very small minority. Almost every scholar, even the atheist ones, believe that the so called genuine epistles certainly are older than at least the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, and probably Mark as well.

How can you say that what Paul believed was false? From an atheist viewpoint, I sure agree, but now we're talking about what HE believed and wrote at that time. Paul believed Jesus was the son of the most high god and that he was crucified in the lower regions of heaven. See 1 Cor 2:6-8. The rulers of that world, i.e. the Demiurge and his angels, didn't know who Jesus was and crucified him but he resurrected and liberated the souls trapped in that region. That's what I think Paul believed and what he wrote about. That's why Jesus was equal to god, not that Paul believed Jesus was a human being who had resurrected.

No, they are a new law for Jews and gentiles alike. The symbolic crucifixion of Jesus in the lower regions of heaven may have had a counterpart on earth, perhaps the gathering at Mount Gerizim which Stephan Huller has written about and which cost Pilate his job, but that's not really important. What's important is that Paul believed that the most high god had a son who had been crucified and resurrected and that this son, Jesus also called Chrestus (the Good one) was the messenger for the one about to come, the Messiah, and that Messiah was Paul himself!

I fully agree. The early Roman Catholic Church was such a cult with their belief in a human Jesus. But the Marcion church was earlier and more powerful.

If you believe that ”Paul” really was Marcus Julius Agrippa, as I do, then this is not a problem. A king surely is well-traveled and powerful!

We don't know the exact doctrine of Marcion. We only know what the RCC have said about him. But there is dualism in the Pauline writings. A higher god and a lower creator god, the Demiurge? Talk of hidden wisdom? What's that then?

Let me conclude by clarifying my point of view, as is at the moment (it can change depending on new evidence!):

1.The king Marcus Julius Agrippa was believed to be the Messiah and he was heralded as such in Alexandria. The temple in Alexandria functioned as a ”spreader of the news". Agrippa's thinking might have been heavily influenced by Philo, who lived there at the time. The Messiah was believed to be a warrior king, and someone like Moses. As such, he was expected to reveal the true meaning of the law. If that meant a NEW LAW, then so be it. Agrippa's new law was the epistles.
2.When the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, it strengthened Agrippa's position. The old ways lay in ruins. Was Agrippa's new law established in Jerusalem as well? Probably.
3.When Agrippa died, very early in the 2nd century, it was inevitable that his claim to be the Messiah lost its appeal. No kingdom of God had been established. It was at this time that the belief of a human Jesus started to grow. Since Agrippa was a failed Messiah, Jesus became the new one? But by this time Agrippa's epistles had been read and heard by the thousands. The emerging RCC didn't dare to change them at free will.
4.The RCC grew in power during the 2nd century. Many followers of Marcus Julius Agrippa were assimilated into the RCC because they adopted his writings. Those who didn't comply were persecuted and killed.
5.The four gospels were fabricated out of one older, original gospel. The fairy tale of Acts was written to downplay the importance of the epistles. The recipients of the epistles were changed, from Alexandrians to the Corinthians etc. The name of the author was obscured. Agrippa as the Messiah and as the author of the new law was (almost) erased from history.
6.After the reign of the mad emperor Commodus, the RCC was by far the most powerful church. Marcus had been obscured even further, by naming him Marcion and placing him in the 2nd century instead of the first.
7.And the rest is the history of the winners.

Kent F

Well, let me flatter you even more! I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and your pioneering research about Agrippa, and the Alexandrian origins of christianity. I bought your book The Real Messiah when it was new and it was an eye-opener for me. I have also read almost everything you have written on your current and previous blog.

The evidence you have provided have convinced me that Agrippa in his time was believed to be the Messiah and also that the origins of christianity is to be found in and around Alexandria.

So for what it's worth, you have a fan in perhaps the most secular country in the world!