Steven Carr

http://share-international.org/

'While the name Maitreya is used by others, their understanding of the World Teacher may not correspond to that presented on this site. Anyone presently promoting him- or herself as Maitreya or the World Teacher is definitely not the same individual we refer to.'

How does this differ from Paul's writings?

2 Corintians 11
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

The trouble with non-existent people is that different groups have different ideas of what this non-existent person should be like.

Historicists just laugh at the idea that when Paul talks about different Jesus's being preached, he might mean there were different Jesus's being preached.

But I know for a fact that exactly this sort of thing can happen, and is happening right now!

How do we know that all Christians believed in the same historical Jesus?

Huon

How do we know that all Christians believe (today) in the same historical Jesus?

Analyst

Or that there ever was a particular one or what he was named?

DCHindley

I'm sorry, but your post seems a bit confused.

"Maitreya" (World teacher) seems to correspond to Jesus' title "Christ". The point of your quote was that individual (historical) claimants to that title (i.e., World Teacher) were not what the creators of that particular site consider the World Teacher, because they believe s/he is yet to be revealed.

Personally I think the Jesus commentary in Paul is secondary, but for the sake of argument let's say Paul admits there are alternate views of Jesus floating around.

Consider also 2 Corinthians 5:16-17

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, [like him] he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

For "Paul" the human christ (notice he doesn't say "Jesus") was surpassed by his new, and what he obviously considered better, "Christ." I'd explain this as a transition from belief that Jesus was a human messiah (christ) to belief that "Christ" signified something quite different, a divine sacrifice for the whole believing world.

If "Paul" can develop a view of Jesus completely divorced from the human Jesus (however that may be perceived), why can't others? Why can't the "other Jesus" simply be those who still regarded Jesus as a Jewish messiah figure?

So, I don't think it is a good idea to equate "Jesus" (a "historical" figure) with "Christ" (an "office," the nature of which is different in differing world views), any more than one should equate a specific historical claimant to the title "World Teacher."

DCH

aa5874

It is completely erroneous to claim the letter writers called Paul did not mention or did not say "Jesus", when the very first verses of the letter called Romans, the letter writer did call his Christ, Jesus Christ.

Romans 1.1-3 So, the letter writers using the name Paul, did say Jesus Christ and that he had flesh.

And further, there are over 180 passages in the letters where the writers said Jesus Christ.

Just from the opening passages in Romans, it is unmistakeably clearly shown that the writer was making reference to some person who had died and was resurrected.

And, to claim that the letters depict a non-human Jesus, is to claim that there was wholesale mis-understanding of the writings of the writer, that is, all the converts of the churches, all the church writers, and even the letter writers themselves did not know or did not care that their letters were mis-understood, even while the letter writers were alive.

The canonised letters were used to destroy Marcion, a champion of the God-only Jesus, according to Tertullian, and were canonised to propagate the God/Man Jesus.

DCHindley

That's all well and nice, but I as referring to 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, where the author does not use the name Jesus, but "Christ."

DCH

Analyst

Except that the copies we have are not reliable and the term may have been inserted by copyists.

aa5874

So it is your position that anywhere the word "Christ" is found without Jesus, then the letter writers refer to some other Christ than Jesus Christ?

The letter writer used the words Christ Jesus, Jesus, and Jesus Christ in 2 Corinthians 4 and in 2 Corinthians 5.15-17, the writer claimed Christ was known "after the flesh" and that he died, which is consistent with Romans 1.1-4.

[b] And there is a complete chapter in Romans where the letter writer did not mention Christ at all only Jesus, and this is what is found about Jesus in Romans 4 where no mention of Christ can be found.

Romans 4.24 It is quite unrealistic to expect that every time a writer used the word "Christ", it must be immediately followed or preceeded by the word "Jesus" when the letters did do just that, they did say Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, over one hundred and eigthy times, and did use the word "Jesus" over two hundred times.

The letters are about someone called Jesus Christ that was crucified, was dead, resurrected, ascended and had revealed himself to the letter writers.

Analyst

Problem is that the autographs may have said Christ, copyists may have added Jesus in the margin, and later copyists merged the margin note into the main text. It has happened often during copying of the books.

aa5874

Are you claiming that the letters existed in a vacuum?

Are you claiming that there was no history of the letter writer, no-one knew what the writer preached or wrote, none of his converts from the churches survived after the letter writer died, and all the church writers never noticed that the copyists were adding the word "Jesus" to passages?.

Are you claiming that skeptics and pagans never noticed that the original letters did not have the word "Jesus"?

The problem is the autographs may have said JESUS and the copyist may have added Christ in the margin.