Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-26-2011, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

Again, "Paul" was AFTER the Jesus story was KNOWN. "Paul" was NOT responsible for the Christian Faith but WASTED it.

Ga 1:13 -

Quote:

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it....

The Pauline writers are the ones who CHANGED the Jesus story.

The author of short-ending gMark finished his story just at the resurrection but the PAULINE story BEGIN AFTER the Resurrection, AFTER the Post-resurrection VISITS and AFTER the Ascension.

The author of short-ending gMark wrote NOTHING about the Post-resurrection, and the Ascension.

The Markan Jesus did NOT come to ABOLISH the Law but the Pauline Jesus was the End of the LAW.

The Markan Jesus COMMANDED that the disciples TELL NO MAN of him but the Pauline Jesus was given a NAME above every other name in heaven and earth and was LORD.

Mr 8:30 -

Quote:

And he charged them that they should TELL NO MAN of him.

"Paul" changed the Jesus story.

Php 2

Quote:

.....9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It MUST NOW be OBVIOUS that it was the Pauline writer who was LAST and CHANGED the Jesus story.

And, now a Pauline writer ADMITS he was the LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus.

1 Cor.15

Quote:

.... 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once...

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And LAST of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

It was the Pauline writers that changed the Jesus story. The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the authors of the Synoptics.

aa5874 · 05-26-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was the CHURCH that placed "Paul" after gLuke not Marcion, Celsus or Skeptics.

It seems you find Eusebius much more credible than I.

Cheers,

V.

Are you suggesting that everything that was stated by Eusebius is ALL FALSE? You must understand that whatever Eusebius wrote can be examined for veracity.

It would appear to me that you have ASSUMED that Eusebius is NOT credible if he contradicts your position on "Paul".

I do NOT assume that all of Eusebius is NOT credible at all. I DON'T MAKE such BASIC Mistake.

"Church History" is the FUNDAMENTAL source to UNRAVEL the real history of the Church.

After all Eusebius could have REMAINED SILENT but he DECIDED to talk and what he wrote will be HELD against him.

Now, he did write that "Paul" commended Luke and that "Paul" meant to refer to gLuke wherever he wrote "My Gospel". See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25.4

And I will use the actual written statements of Eusebius and other CHRISTIAN writers to DEVELOP my theory that "Paul" was AFTER the Gospels were ALREADY KNOWN.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The problem, MaryHelena, is that the Gospel storyline is simply a parsing of the Hebrew scriptures. As Paul himself basically says; that his Gospel is the good news hidden throughout the ages but now revealed through the sacred writings (read Hebrew scriptures).

The gospel writers, as if to verify this proposition, simply cherry picked the LXX to flesh out the story. Of course, as good fiction writers tend to do, they plucked some recent anecdotes from closer to their own time to add the "warm and fuzzy".

The elephant in the room...

The gospels the means to "flesh out the story" - of course. The question is where did the 'story' originate? With 'Paul' or somewhere else. I don't think "Paul' invented the JC story. I think it's more likely that 'Paul' changed the direction of the JC storyline. That storyline could have remained, without 'Paul', just a pseudo-historical story. A crucified man who had followers who believed he was resurrected in some form, that he was dead only in body but lived in some spiritual form. 'Paul' transformed that story into a story of spiritual salvation. The cross was, for 'Paul', the true means to salvation. No earthly, no physical, no bodily, use of the cross as a positive element in human life is possible. Thus, without 'Paul', the gospel JC story would have, eventually, become meaningless, useless; a story about a failed messiah figure has no long term prospects - even hope can fade as the years go by and no earthly return materializes, or the judgement day fails to arrive. Long term survival of the JC story required a 'Paul' to remove the emphasis upon earthly things and place the primarily focus upon spiritual/intellectual interests. 'Salvation' now, not in the long term. Which in spiritual/intellectual terms simply relates to new ideas, new comprehension, new world outlook. In 'Paul's' case a move away from the old Jewish concepts to a more inclusive world view. The old ideas didn't work any more. Rome propelled a historical situation that required a response, a rethink. 'Paul' met the challenge. Yes, the past needed to be preserved, albeit in the pseudo-historical gospel JC story - but the new road forward was laid down by 'Paul'. Albeit a road leading to various off ramps. Travelling that road with 'Paul' is great for psychology, philosophy or just intellectual delight. It won't get one to an understanding of early christian origins. For that one has to deal with the gospel JC storyline. To really move forward we have to know where we have come from.....

In that case you have a historical Jesus with no relationship to Christianity other than Paul used it as a starting point.

IMHO Had not Constantine needed the orthodox church at Rome and its resources, Christianity would have suffered the same fast as the Jerusalem cult. Using an evolution analogy, the Pauline mutation allowed a sect of Christianity to survive beyond Judea and mutated more to survive long enough until Constantine made it the state religion.

No, I've no historical gospel JC - I've been an historicists/mythicist for well over 25 years - and I'm not about to change my tune anytime soon.......

jgoodguy · 05-26-2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In that case you have a historical Jesus with no relationship to Christianity other than Paul used it as a starting point.

IMHO Had not Constantine needed the orthodox church at Rome and its resources, Christianity would have suffered the same fast as the Jerusalem cult. Using an evolution analogy, the Pauline mutation allowed a sect of Christianity to survive beyond Judea and mutated more to survive long enough until Constantine made it the state religion.

No, I've no historical gospel JC - I've been an historicists/mythicist for well over 25 years - and I'm not about to change my tune anytime soon.......

My view is that there was a HJ and a JM. The only thing shared between them was a name 'Jesus' which functioned in roughly the same manner as a trademark does today to give some credibility to a product. Paul appropriated that name for use in his ministry either with the permission of the Jesus cult at Jerusalem in exchange for collecting contributions for them or without permission. As it happened, Paul's 'knock off' brand was ultimately more successful.

My HJM theory has the advantage of letting the mythers concentrate on how the mythology of Christianity developed without worrying about a historical Jesus and the historicists get a historical Jesus without worrying about the mythology.

aa5874 · 05-26-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No, I've no historical gospel JC - I've been an historicists/mythicist for well over 25 years - and I'm not about to change my tune anytime soon.......

My view is that there was a HJ and a JM. The only thing shared between them was a name 'Jesus' which functioned in roughly the same manner as a trademark does today to give some credibility to a product. Paul appropriated that name for use in his ministry either with the permission of the Jesus cult at Jerusalem in exchange for collecting contributions for them or without permission. As it happened, Paul's 'knock off' brand was ultimately more successful.

My HJM theory has the advantage of letting the mythers concentrate on how the mythology of Christianity developed without worrying about a historical Jesus and the historicists get a historical Jesus without worrying about the mythology.

Now, HJM is the TWO in ONE.

There can be NO such single character.

Again, we have concoctions of the Jesus story WITHOUT a single shred of evidence from antiquity.

Why is it so difficult to ACCEPT the evidence as PROVIDED in the CANON of CHURCH WITHOUT making any ALTERATIONS to the Jesus story.

It was the CHURCH who claimed their Jesus was the Child of a Ghost why do I have to CHANGE their story?

Why????? Why????

Let the Church change their story.

The Church gave us GHOST stories of Jesus.

Why MUST I change their stories and WITHOUT a single shred of evidence from antiquity?

The Jesus story as PRESENTED in the Canon of the Church is a MYTH FABLE that people of antiquity BELIEVED just like CHRISTIANS Believed that Marcion's Phantom was a figure of history even WITHOUT birth and flesh.

I have NO intention of changing the Jesus stories just like archaeologists do NOT ALTER what ever was found. Every thing MUST be LEFT PRECISELY as they were found.

The Jesus stories CANNOT be ALTERED.

Jesus was the CHILD of a Ghost.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

In that case you have a historical Jesus with no relationship to Christianity other than Paul used it as a starting point.

IMHO Had not Constantine needed the orthodox church at Rome and its resources, Christianity would have suffered the same fast as the Jerusalem cult. Using an evolution analogy, the Pauline mutation allowed a sect of Christianity to survive beyond Judea and mutated more to survive long enough until Constantine made it the state religion.

No, I've no historical gospel JC - I've been an historicists/mythicist for well over 25 years - and I'm not about to change my tune anytime soon.......

My view is that there was a HJ and a JM. The only thing shared between them was a name 'Jesus' which functioned in roughly the same manner as a trademark does today to give some credibility to a product. Paul appropriated that name for use in his ministry either with the permission of the Jesus cult at Jerusalem in exchange for collecting contributions for them or without permission. As it happened, Paul's 'knock off' brand was ultimately more successful.

My HJM theory has the advantage of letting the mythers concentrate on how the mythology of Christianity developed without worrying about a historical Jesus and the historicists get a historical Jesus without worrying about the mythology.

Yes, there are two stories - the gospel JC story and 'Paul's' spiritual JC figure. Thus, history and it's 'salvation' interpretation. The question is what was that history. If, as I think, the gospel JC story is a pseudo-history - then one is not getting to the real history of early christian origins by interpreting that story, ie re-interpreting an interpretation. One needs a history book and one needs to consider historical figures. One needs to move away from the gospel JC carpenter story and look to the historical figures that had the wherewithal to be considered movers and shakers.

In other words - the historicists are correct in that history matters. The ahistoricists/mythicists are correct when they say that a spiritual/intellectual context matters. The historicists need to recognize that the history they insist is there is not the history of the gospel JC character. The ahistoricists/mythicists need to realize that 'Paul's' flights of spiritual/intellectual adventurers are nothing more than wishful thinking, floating abstractions, without a foot in historical realities.

Sheshbazzar · 05-26-2011, 11:17 AM

I see more than one 'Paul' at work. A 'cosmic christ' 'Paul' who wrote before the Gospels were composed, and after the composition of the Gospels, a totally different set of 'Jebus in the flesh' 'Paul's' who took over, edited, revised and greatly expanded that original 'Paul's writings.
Thus the Pauline epistles are really neither before or after the Gospels, but are compromised compositions straddling the Gospels with elements that are both earlier and latter, all being cobbled together and revised to suit Christianities evolving religious conceptions.

maryhelena · 05-26-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I see more than one 'Paul' at work. A 'cosmic christ' 'Paul' who wrote before the Gospels were composed, and after the composition of the Gospels, a totally different set of 'Jebus in the flesh' 'Paul's' who took over, edited, revised and greatly expanded that original 'Paul's writings.
Thus the Pauline epistles are really neither before or after the Gospels, but are compromised compositions straddling the Gospels with elements that are both earlier and latter, all being cobbled together and revised to suit Christianities evolving religious conceptions.

The writings we do have are pretty obviously writings that have been given numerous work overs. I don't think 'Paul' wrote before the JC story - and by that I'm not referring to the storyline we now have in the gospels. The gospel storyline is the end product. The miracle worker story in Slavonic Josephus, the Infancy gospel of James - indicate, to me, that the JC story has a much older tradition than the story recorded in the gospels. Hence, a story that preceded 'Paul's' writings or the gospel writings. So, with 'Paul' and the gospels it's perhaps a bit of a chicken and egg situation. One storyline fed off the other and developed into the NT. But that there was a pre-gospel JC storyline - a Jesus storyline that preceded 'Paul' - would be my basic starting position - which simply means that the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.

blastula · 05-26-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was the Pauline writers that changed the Jesus story. The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the authors of the Synoptics.

All the red and ALLCAPS in the world can't make your assertion much more certain than mere speculation

avi · 05-26-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

All the red and ALLCAPS in the world can't make your assertion much more certain than mere speculation (emphasis avi)

So, blastula, three possibilities would seem to be present:

a. Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels;
b. Paul's epistles were composed AFTER the Gospels;
c. Paul's letters were written before, during, or after, creation of the gospels, but regardless of when they were composed, no one who composed the gospels, appears to us, to have known about them.

Do you have any evidence to present in favor of one of these three competing theories?

Please correct me, if I err, here, blastula, but, notwithstanding the red ink, and profuse quantity of capital letters, didn't aa5874 offer some data to support his contention that the synoptic gospel writers did not know of the writings of Paul?

Is his evidence misguided? Can you offer some evidence in support of the converse hypothesis? Alternatively, can you impeach his evidence? Is the English translation of the original Greek in error?

I too have misgivings about citing Eusebius, as aa5874 has done, but his quote appears, to my eyes at least, as relatively non contentious: aa5874 merely cites Eusebius writing that Paul praised the gospel of Luke, and concluded then, from that citation, the notion, which strikes me as not far fetched, that Paul's epistles, therefore, could have been written after Luke was composed.

I am eager to read your evidence to the contrary....

avi

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

05-26-2011, 11:17 AM	#117
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I see more than one 'Paul' at work. A 'cosmic christ' 'Paul' who wrote before the Gospels were composed, and after the composition of the Gospels, a totally different set of 'Jebus in the flesh' 'Paul's' who took over, edited, revised and greatly expanded that original 'Paul's writings. Thus the Pauline epistles are really neither before or after the Gospels, but are compromised compositions straddling the Gospels with elements that are both earlier and latter, all being cobbled together and revised to suit Christianities evolving religious conceptions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.