Sheshbazzar

Lots of questions (and good ones at that), I could reply with a lot of "educated guesses" but in all honesty I do not claim to have all the answers, or to be able to provide the definitive answer to any and all questions that might be posed.

I wonder though, are you certain that other contemporary cults didn't employ hierarchical governing structures?
It seems natural given that most governments and social institutions had since time immemorial employed such governing methods, it would seem strange if there was no emulation of this model within the pre-christian, or contemporary religious world.

spamandham

Well, what if we don't start by assuming that? If we ignore Acts when trying to date the letters attributed to Paul, what are the earliest and latest dates we could come up with? If we further throw out the assumption that 1 person wrote them entirely, what then are the earliest and latest dates for portions thereof?

The earliest date for portions of these letters must certainly be several hundred years BCE. The latest possible date for portions could be a couple of hundred years CE, with perhaps a mean date of around 125 CE (guessing here).

IamJoseph

The most important issue does not, IMHO, relate with the minutae details of such writings: we have nothing which is determinable here. The most vital factors, which is not entertained, comes when a zoom out big picture is examined.

Here, we have christianity, supposedly an offshoot of Judaism, making big claims, but which are wholly rejected as such by Jews - with no plausable reason why Jews would do so: who says the jews are wrong - who can prove this? The evidence says only that the Jews were indisputably right - but never on the radar. Why is that?

Secondly, we 'MUST' look at this question in parallel with Islam. There are TWO - not one religions making a claim of Jesus - and both are contradictory of each other. This makes the Jews even more right and correct, by virtue of both the Gospels and the Quran cannot both be right. There can be no question that one of these is false or incorrect, in theological, historical and any other level as well. The situation is very precarious: if a singe factor of Gospels is proven false - the Quran falls also instantly and simultainiously in one stroke - I site the immaculate birth factor condoned by Islam?

The primal people speaking on behalf of Jesus are those who never met him, never spoke Hebrew, never followed any of his observances and lifestyle, and have no evidence of anything they claim - except that all they claim is in total contradiction of those who were present at this time - and desperately awaiting a savior - and it never happened.

Jews never wrote in Latin - there is no prophetic writings aside from Hebrew [aside from the Book of Esther, written in Babylon]. There is no Jewish writings where the author is not mentioned - or that another wrote on his behalf! So why are such anomolies accepted and even debated of their minutae details? Islam had no writings in the said period it claims revelation [Arabic writings emerged in 400 CE]. So both the Gospels and the Quran are speaking on behalf of Jesus as total outsiders.

This makes the plausability of both the Gospels and the Quran both being in error - and only the jews right! This is not a negatable issue by anyone, while it is fastediously deflected from the radar. In fact it is the most pivotal factor - Jewish writings are the most honest and binding. All else is secondary.

The consequences of this can be highly volatile for humanity - it purports to over-turn the beliefs of 3.2 B peoples, of history as we know it today, who are totally attached in their beliefs for 2000 years - with no place to go if they were wrong. should humanity not be thinking the unthinkable - and prepare for a softer landing?

bacht

Obviously Christianity and Islam were built on the Hebrew Bible. I think you're overstating the case; this is religion, where subjective truth is more important than objective data. In the early centuries CE Roman subjects might reasonably conclude that the God of Moses had rejected his people; why shouldn't gentiles adopt Him?

Who's to say whether there isn't a Saviour in heaven, or a reward after death for believers? (I don't accept supernatural teachings, but many people do)

A skeptic would go all the way and reject the God of the Hebrews as just another fantasy, no more or less plausible than Allah or Zeus. Just because the Jews were first doesn't mean their religion is any more credible than Christianity or Islam.

gentleexit

But to go big, we still need to narrow down, assume. And the assumptions, unstated definitions are the interesting things.

Which Jews rejected? Who do you mean by Jews? The later Rabbi's? The obliterated Temple guys? The diasporan Greek speakers, the successors of men like Philo in Alexandria? These are all Jews. Read late fourth century John Chrysostom and there was obviously still a lot of Christian-Jew mixing even then. Christianity experienced a lot of separation anxiety.

Again which Jewish writings? The Septuagint? The speculations of Philo and his ilk? Maccabees and other books in Greek (with notions, I think it's Macc IV that is very like Christian theology). These works are all Jewish (big J!). Just because a rump of Hebrew lovers rejected them in the mid second century doesn't disqualify them, make them less "inspired" than other Jewish books.

(BTW, to me Islam is uninteresting. It is late. Probably drew on "heretical" Christian writings. We have enough from the first through fourth centuries to tease out its thought).

Susan2

This makes the plausability of both the Gospels and the Quran both being in error - and only the jews right! This is not a negatable issue by anyone, while it is fastediously deflected from the radar. In fact it is the most pivotal factor - Jewish writings are the most honest and binding. All else is secondary.

I imagine this is true. Of course we know how Islam/Christianity/Catholicism treats women. I guess it could be said they are equitable about it.

Below find another example of second class citizenry.


What would be that softer landing? Atheism/secularism?

There are no guarantees in life. With all his money, some would say Howard Huges hardly had a soft landing. Then of course there was ‘the poor little rich girl’, a Vanderbilt if I remember correctly’. Abraham Lincoln, Martin L. King, hardly had soft landings.

One man showed up at the hospital to have one foot amputated because of a serious diabetes complication and the hospital mistakenly cut off the other foot. Now he has no feet.

The cruelty of Buddhism would tell you that it is his karma.

Innocent people go to jail, not because they are guilty but because of prosecutorial misconduct/wrongdoing, some would say evil. He gets to keep his/her job.

Where is there to turn? Where is that softer landing? Ones own heart? Wasn’t it Moses that wrote the Torah, turned us to stone, drown us, then lead the survivors into the desert?

Hmm, maybe that was Bush? Or AIG? Maybe that video Century of Self on youtube is on to something; why raise up good people when you can raise up animals?

Where is there to turn? Are there good, kind decent people in this world, no matter their affiliation, political, religious, gender, nation, or sexual orientation? And if there is am I one of them is perhaps the only question worth asking in the end?

bacht

hello Susan2

yes

don't know, but we always learn something in the search

Susan2

Hello bacht,


I agree, there are good kind decent people, no matter their affliation.

I hope you find your's, though I tend to think that it is as much a remembrance as it is a search, maybe more so.


A correction; the below quote is reintroduced because I didn't get the tags correct the first time. The bold is mine, not the quote.

thank you.....

Susan2

Hello again Bacht

Where do you get this information that Jews were first, if you don't mind my asking? Is there any solid, factual, indisputable evidence that this is true?

I am not disputing this, I actually don't know the answer. Nor do I have a dog in the race, so to speak, i.e, I do not personally consider any of them valid.

IamJoseph

No, that is not a correct assumption. Its like saying if Nazi Germany prevailed over Jews and Gypsies, it proves this was the correct outcome. Rome was not right, nor did it prevail over Judaism: in fact Rome totally lost the war [the right to freedom of belief], as opposed winning the battle [my armies are more powerful]. European christianity erred by pre-med design - the reason the greatest defense of a belief in all recorded history, is not even mentioned in a book supposedly honoring self sacrifice! In retrospect, it is blatant the God of Moses did NOT reject Jews, while we cannot say the same of Rome or Christianity - the latter has been sprung with its own version - aka Islam. Both cannot be right!

The only blatant evidence at hand is that there must be a universe maker for a universe [science], and that none can prove the universe maker [vindicated]. This enigmatic duality factor is vindicated, and this is what the Hebrew bible says, making it the only vindicated faculty of that question.

Incorrect. Actually, based on the dual factors mentioned above - a sceptic cannot in any wise reject the Hebrew bible on this particular issue. At least, not with any reasonings behind that rejection: logic says there is a cause for every effect; the Hebrew bible agrees but aso says we cannot prove the ultimate cause. Tick as vindicated. Your assessment of the Hebrew bible only uses one portion of the duality, and ignores this pivotal clause:

'NO MAN SHALL KNOW ME AND LIVE'.

Vindicated today - or not?

:wave: