Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-13-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

A Jewish troublemaker crucified Rome, then within a few short years hailed by followers as the divine Son of God who rose from the dead, his actual life and times forgotten, Roman culpability forgiven--all of that is a little hard to swallow.

There is no evidence that the original followers thought he was God, or even that he physically rose from the dead.

When you talk about "forgiving" the Romans, you have to remember that these Pauline Christians were Romans. The author of Mark was Roman. Pauline Christianity was a Gentile movement, not a Jewish one, and it was rather divorced (even by Paul's own admission) from the original Jerusalem sect, which Paul says still followed the law and kept kosher. That would indicate that the Jerusalem sect was not aware of any new covenant, and had no belief that Jesus had been a redeemer of sins, so Paul was already pretty far afield from them.

I see the original Jerusalem sect and Paul's own mission as basically two different movements with different beliefs. After 70, only Paul was left.

Personally, I think the original sect was probably pretty similar to the Ebionites.

probably so

most people dont even understand how wide and varied the early movement was

let alone how the romans stole the religion right our from under the very people who hated them with a passion.

Romans burned gospels of other movementas with different views.

Historians think there were up to 50 other gospels all lost now.

Because we are left with a roman version doesnt mean this was the only game in town. As you pointed out, its just the only other game to survive.

and thats what sinks all mythers boats

outhouse · 04-13-2012, 07:47 PM

remember, the real disciples were a bunch of illiterate fisherman, peasants, poverty stricken real jews. not christrians.

They took the movement to the streets that built the oral tradition.

the oral tradition is the unseen foundation in which the romans built on and formed the gospels. When your dealing with cross cultural oral tradition, all bets are off for keeping historical facts. Now we have to sift through text for them instead of having things layed out clearly. This feeds the mythers due to the mythical nature romans wrote

GakuseiDon · 04-13-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

3) That Paul would write Romans 13 knowing that the Romans tortured and crucified Jesus.

It would be like the Governor of Texas executing Jesus, perhaps according to the law but based on falsified evidence by powerful interests in Texas, and then Paul writing to Christians in Washington saying: "We must be good Americans". Paul could still believe that the current regime in Washington had dispensation from God to hold power.

aa5874 · 04-13-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

.... Paul is pretty vague about what his alleged "persecution" of the Jesus cult really constituted, and we know he was a bullshit artist prone to self serving exaggeration, and even outright prevarication. It's entirely possible this "persecution" he was engaged in was nothing more than being sent out to toss somebody out of a synagogue, or to collect money. Maybe they had stopped paying the Temple tax or something. Paul doesn't say he killed anybody (I think we can ignore Acts). I think he's probably making both himself and Jerusalem Jesus cult sound more significant to the Temple than they really were....

Again, you have discredited your sources but still want people to accept what ever you believe about Paul.

You ignore Acts of the Apostles the ONLY source with any significant details about Saul/Paul so you have Nothing but your imagination.

History can be reconstructed from credible sources of events of the past so you really cannot reconstruct the history of Paul without a source.

Now, Romans 13 is anachronistic. It was probably written After "Against Celsus" by Origen.

Examine "Against Celsus" 1 attributed to Origen

Quote:

.......It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth...

Romans 13

Quote:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same...

The writer of Romans does NOT represent the views of Christians up to the time of Origen.

Against Celsus 1

Quote:

if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy, and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness, enter into associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself...

Based on Origen, Christians should Resist Goverments that make LAWS that are unholy and up to the 4th century Christians were wantonly abused and persecuted by the Roman Goverment.

The very fact that Apologetic sources claimed Paul himself was Martyred was because he RESISTED the POWERS.

Apologetic sources IMPLIED Paul RESISTED NERO and preached the Gospel and was executed.

Romans 13 reflects the views of Christians AFTER the Roman Government made Jesus the New God of the Roman Empire or sometime AFTER the end of the 3rd century.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 09:48 PM

Acts is not a reliable source about Paul. Why would I bother with it?

aa5874 · 04-13-2012, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Acts is not a reliable source about Paul. Why would I bother with it?

So, you have discredited the Only supposed corroborative source for the activities of Paul in the Canon.

steve_bnk · 04-13-2012, 11:15 PM

Between recent dialogue around here and a decent Easter show on JC and the NT, it is obvious. JC of the tale was mucking about in the financial and power arangements between the temple and Rome. I always understood that, but is is clearer now with morer details.

A character like JC may have had a following.

Rome had two basic rules.

1. That which promoted order and economics was good.
2. Anything contrary to 1 was ruthlessly repressed.

outhouse · 04-13-2012, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Between recent dialogue around here and a decent Easter show on JC and the NT, it is obvious. JC of the tale was mucking about in the financial and power arangements between the temple and Rome. I always understood that, but is is clearer now with morer details.

A character like JC may have had a following.

Rome had two basic rules.

1. That which promoted order and economics was good.
2. Anything contrary to 1 was ruthlessly repressed.

glad your coming around.

I watched them all [tivo'd] every one and seen them multpile times, and the ones on HJ from xmas.

mess with roman money is a instant way to die, to walk into the temple which was the bank and treasury and to start a riot on their big payday or even just attack a booth and run into the crowd. is all it would take

marvin meyers does a good job, him and johnathon greene

aa5874 · 04-14-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Between recent dialogue around here and a decent Easter show on JC and the NT, it is obvious. JC of the tale was mucking about in the financial and power arangements between the temple and Rome. I always understood that, but is is clearer now with morer details.

A character like JC may have had a following.

Rome had two basic rules.

1. That which promoted order and economics was good.
2. Anything contrary to 1 was ruthlessly repressed.

Jesus paid his taxes in the NT myth fable called gMatthew.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-14-2012, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Acts is not a reliable source about Paul. Why would I bother with it?

So, you have discredited the Only supposed corroborative source for the activities of Paul in the Canon.

That's correct. I discredit it. Why shouldn't I? It's not creditable.

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

04-13-2012, 07:47 PM	#42
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	remember, the real disciples were a bunch of illiterate fisherman, peasants, poverty stricken real jews. not christrians. They took the movement to the streets that built the oral tradition. the oral tradition is the unseen foundation in which the romans built on and formed the gospels. When your dealing with cross cultural oral tradition, all bets are off for keeping historical facts. Now we have to sift through text for them instead of having things layed out clearly. This feeds the mythers due to the mythical nature romans wrote

04-13-2012, 09:48 PM	#45
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Acts is not a reliable source about Paul. Why would I bother with it?

04-13-2012, 11:15 PM	#47
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Between recent dialogue around here and a decent Easter show on JC and the NT, it is obvious. JC of the tale was mucking about in the financial and power arangements between the temple and Rome. I always understood that, but is is clearer now with morer details. A character like JC may have had a following. Rome had two basic rules. 1. That which promoted order and economics was good. 2. Anything contrary to 1 was ruthlessly repressed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.