dog-on

Same can be said for the writings of J. Smith, but, OK.

aa5874

And it could be translated as "advantage" or "beneffit". It is a bit naive to think only capitalism can be profitable. Other systems are profitable that is why they exist even with capitalism.

The letters of the writer called Paul were written to be profitable to the Church.

Amaleq13

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed as though you did and I was hoping for a more coherent explanation of the evidence from you than I have obtained from others who do argue that point.

I think we agree more than not. :wave:

Amaleq13

No question about it. He wrote a letter in one of those old sci-fi serials (IIRC Science Fiction Digest) explicitly stating that, if he wanted to make some real money he would start his own religion. I lucked into a copy when a friend of my father gave me a big box full of issues from a couple different titles.

I'm just glad we no longer have to read new sci-fi stories a chapter at a time with a long publishing delay between chapters.

spin

The word, euxrhstos, has nothing to do with financial matters.

Liddell & Scott provides "useful" and "serviceable" as definitions, so it's not strange that a modern translation such as the NRSV uses "useful". The reference for this word (euxrhstos) is a person: the writer makes a request that Mark bring him for he is useful in the ministry. One can try to force the meaning "profitable" here but they would fail, as it wouldn't make much sense in the context. The word "profitable" carries an Elizabethan meaning in the KJV, ie "useful/serviceable".

The word is only found in the "pastoral letters" which were written a century after the time of Paul.


spin

Elijah

It’s not a fact, it’s your interpretation about what was revealed. An interpretation that you haven’t even bothered trying to support.
Sure blame it on your perceived shortcomings of mine for why you can’t illustrate what your theory is beyond a guy named Paul had a vision that was confused for history. Maybe when Doherty’s new book gets out you can come back with a more fleshed out theory. :wave:

Fenris_Wulf

Hi,me butting in again.....

After 13 pages of back and forth, let me see if I have this straight.
Spin: Paul's messiah was a recasting of the Jewish Messiah as a Greek salvic figure deciphered entirely from revelation and scripture. The existance or non-existence of an earthly Jesus wasn't pertinent to Paul's teaching, as it was the crucifixion which mattered rather than the life of said (non)person.

Elijah; I don't understand how a myth can be seen as real, so there MUST have been a historical Jesus. The existence of the Jerusalem church points to a historical founder. Pauls letters point to their existence prior to his preaching career. Their founder inspired them by accepting death at the hands of the Romans rather than renounce his own teachings.

Could it be you are both right? If stories of the founder of this new branch of Jewish philosophy was well known in Judaea then Paul wouldn't need to speak to any person to know of him. However, his interpretation of the significance of this person was "revealed to him" through scripture.

The whole problem of trying to find a "historical Jesus, is that (most likely) he isn't anything remotely resembling the person we expect him to be.

i.e. Elijah's "Suicide Christ" could describe Judas of Galilee quite nicely. We don't know how he died, but he did inspire resistance unto death in his followers, Josephus tells us that they were uncaring of their lives or even the lives of their families. (A form of even hating your own family?)

I haven't decided for myself which scenario makes the most sense in light of the evidence I've read so far, so this is just me throwing my 2 pence into the mix.

fatpie42

Through Jesus' sacrifice. However, the whole point of the debate here is whether this 'sacrifice' was historical or mythical. Since you are arguing for 'historical' I took "someone" to refer to a historical someone.

That salvation comes from a sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean that the sacrifice was historical. Take Dionysos' sacrifice for example.

Faith that salvation is possible.

Followers of Christ began as Messianic Jews. It only became 'Christianity', separate from Judaism, later on.

Is Jesus' crucifixion a story/myth/metaphor or did it supposedly happen in reality? Well since the story involves quite blatantly fictional events, I'd have to say the former is more likely. The Romans did not release murderers on the behest of the Jewish people and Jesus was not high enough profile to warrant Pilate's travelling to Jerusalem from Rome.

It could be legitimate or it could be added into make it look like he was fulfilling messianic prophecy. In what ancient text do you think the event should have been recorded in? What does it matter if he did that or not?[/QUOTE]

Josephus or another Jewish historian could have mentioned it. Anything causing huge crowds of people to amass in welcome of a celebrity seemingly with full knowledge of his significance might be expected to warrant a mention. Josephus writes about other messiahs, so why not Jesus? Why, for that matter, do NO Jewish historians make any mention of Jesus?

fatpie42

Um... don't you mean "Christ believers" i.e. believers in a non-specific Messiah (Christ is the greek for Messiah).

Even conservative Bible scholars would not agree with Eusebius on that issue. It is widely accepted that many of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were not written by him. Where are the numerous spurious letters with the name Paul? In the Bible; that's where!

Elijah

I do not understand your take on salvation here. I could make assumptions but it would be better if you clarified what kind of salvation they are receiving and how.

How was salvation with Dionysos understood? What text are you getting your understanding of that salvation from?
Oh so this is just a labeling issue.
You don’t know enough about the time to make those statements with any type of confidence and you don’t know what was added to the legend later. The “this isn’t possible” doesn’t do much to support a mythical origin when the other side has legend being added to the historical core.
Give me the list of names of Jewish historians you think should have mentioned him and the text that he should have been mentioned in. I have had the conversation on here previously and nobody came up with anybody but feel free to give me some examples if you can find some.