Clivedurdle

But that is why I mentioned Hercules! The Jesusgod never became human but only appeared as such. Now, didn't someone say precisely that?

This idea of a human jesus is an enlightenment idea. It is actually anathema. Jesus is fully god fully man.

ApostateAbe

OK, cool. It is an Enlightenment idea and an anathema. You are referring to Marcion, I presume, and I take his theology to be part of the same evolution. He said that Jesus was fully god and no part man. In those times, gods and men were thought to be mutually exclusive, two separate spheres of existence, so he tried to make better sense out of the conflicting ideas that Jesus was both a man and God.

aa5874

But it was JESUS believers who VEHEMENTLY argued that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Creator of Heaven and Earth who was EQUAL to God.

spamandham

Very important points. It really makes no sense that Paul would latch onto a Jesus movement rooted in a historical Jesus of his own period and attempt to convert it into a mythical/mystical cult with him as the revealer. It's not *impossible* of course, but it is senseless. This was a period of rampant cults, and Paul has proven himself to be an excellent cult leader.

In modern cults, and so presumably in ancient ones as well, such people almost always invent novel new ideas that explain why they should be the guy getting all the attention, and create their own following from scratch. If Jesus was Paul's contemporary, this makes no sense. It's a possible explanation, but not the simplest.

ApostateAbe

I actually think that the majority of cults in the present day are adapted from existing cults, religions and ideologies. See this list of cults:

http://www.factnet.org/CultGroups.html

It seems to make sense in my mind, because it takes a lot of work, skill, and luck to build a persuasive new belief system from scratch. Why not adopt an existing belief system and adapt it for your own needs? The cult of Christianity was an ideal opportunity for Paul. It was a new and powerful belief system that had not yet been introduced to non-Jews.

spamandham

I would agree, but I suspect it is rare to find someone trying to branch his new cult off of a cult that is itself a new cult. It probably happens, but surely the norm is to twist well established beliefs rather than those that are themselves trying to be established.

aa5874

But, that is exactly what the NT Canon is about.

Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost came to earth according to the Synoptics and claimed he was the true Messiah and that the Jews would reject him and cause him to be killed by the Gentiles.

And because of the Jews rejection that God will destroy the Jews as was prophesied by the prophets.

Jesus was killed and was raised on the third day and did ascend to heaven according to the Synoptics.

Now, it was after Jesus was in heaven that Paul, a persecutor of Jesus believers, met him on the road to Damascus when he was blinded by a bright light and heard his voice .

The chronology of the Pauline character with respect to Jesus is most straight-forward.

Jesus came to earth, he left earth, ascended to heaven, then spoke to Paul and revealed certain things to him.

In the NT FABLE, Paul then travels all over the Roman Empire with his REVEALED gospel from Jesus, the gospel of uncircumcision.

What proof is there that "Paul" was an excellent cult leader? It is the reverse. There is no external non-apologetic source that can show Paul existed in the 1st century and was an excellent cult leader.

No Church writer claimed Paul was a cult leader not even the Pauline writers.

ApostateAbe

I do not know what the norm is, so you could be right. Regardless, I think early Christianity in particular deserves special attention, because there are exceptions to all patterns, and the particulars are far more important than the general. Christianity started as a Jews-only cult that, ironically, was less likely to be accepted among Jews. The Jews knew that Jesus did not fit the established messianic prophecies. Paul may have had that principle in mind. Whatever he was thinking, it worked. Paul's religion had all of the best elements of persuasion for his target audience.

spamandham

...unless there is no irony, which is another way of saying "historically unlikely", and Paul, or someone similar, is the author of Christianity as we know it.

I agree with you that the Jesus we know would not be appealing to modern orthodox Jews.

aa5874

But, what you are claiming about "Paul" is baseless. You cannot produce any historical non-apologetic source that can show any character called Paul had any religion or preached about a GOD/man called Jesus who was EQUAL to the God of the Jews.


Not even the Church writers appear to know what "PAUL" wrote.

Even an apologetic source, Justin Martyr, did not account for any Pauline writer and showed no influence from any of the writings. It was Constantine the Emperor who SAVED Jesus believers.

Now, in the NT Canon, Jesus was placed in Galilee and had thousands of followers but in reality there is no historical records external of apologetic that there was a character called Jesus who had a single believer in Galilee.