Sheshbazzar

I believe that there was a real Pharisee named Shaul who traveled to the synagogues of the Diaspora teaching that it was not necessary for Gentile believers to undergo circumcision to be accepted by YHWH, and to receive the resurrection of life and the promise of a secure place in that peaceable Olam ha ba / Kingdom to Come.

As a Hebrew and a Jew however, he would have been aware of the signification of the name or the WORD 'Joshua' as 'The Help of YAH' employed as permanent 'shibboleth' dividing between the truly devout and all pretenders. And would have indubitably consistently promoted this singular WORD / 'Name' as being the absolutely exclusive in-group 'watch word'. 'None other Name under heaven given among men' being the functional equivalent of none other 'shibboleth'. Any variant would be the equivalent of one offering a 'sibboleth'_ if you can grasp the idiomatic parallel.
(see also 2 Macc 13:15 for a pre-christian example of usage of this 'watchword' as the military password.- Serious consequences can follow an incorrect password.)
No there was no opposition in these sources, because what the real Paul taught was not at all that controversial to most Jews, and anyone familiar with the texts of the TaNaKa would be aware that the -ger toshavim- that is the 'gentile' believers', were NOT required by The Law to ever undergo any fleshly circumcision, because the promises in both The Law and in the Prophets were already specifically inclusive of 'the Gentiles', that is to say those of the 'Nations', they being of the 'uncircumcision'.
Yet certain self-righteous and ignorant Jews (a vocal minority) were attempting to require circumcision of all Gentile believers, which would effectively make them no longer Gentiles, but so doing, would transform them into being Jews- thus neglecting the words of YHWH and circumventing the clear teaching of the promises to 'Gentiles' given in The Law and in the Prophets.
The Sanhedrin, and Jewish authorities in general to this day, have consistently discouraged Gentile conversions to Judaism.
Unlike Christians, most Jews have never held that YHWHs ['God's' <sic> ] grace or the promises of His help and His deliverance were exclusive to themselves, but always available to all of mankind on an equal basis, even to; "Whomsoever shall call upon The NAME .... shall be delivered".
So 'Paul' would certainly preach, teach, and uphold this WORD/Name and 'watchword' of Promise to all men, of all nations, at all times, and in all places.

The part of the 'PAULINE doctrine' that you find so EXTREMELY controversial did not originate with Paul, and did not exist at that early date.

Leave out the ' Jewish man' and 'resurrected JEW' part and replace 'ROMAN EMPIRE' with 'world', and it will not appear so fictitious. This WORD/Name which the Paul taught becomes an expression of absolute liberty, freeing all that believe and trust in it from any domination by any powers operating in or under 'any other name'.
It was my 'immersion' into this peculiar 'name' that so many years ago freed me from all of the superstitions and doctrines of Christianity_ and any of other religions_ in any other name.
Lest you misunderstand, to me there never was any material flesh and blood 'JC of Nazareth' by any name. (wasn't, and doesn't need to be.)
But the NAME יה 'YAH' is a histoical fact, and very ancient.
One does not even need believe in the existence of any actual invisable entity to reap the present and tangible benefits of 'believing in the Name' of the Elohim of Israel.
As the extensively tampered with texts -now- exist. yes.
However, at that time the only threat presented to these powers by Paul's doctrine was that of a UNITY of men of peace 'under THE NAME', whose first allegiance was to that invisible and immaterial power which they believed was the source of all things, and of all justice.
The only threat presented by this UNITY OF MEN IN THE ONE NAME/WORD, was to these powers ability to ever be able to totally dominate and subjugate their fellow man_ in or under any other name. True, -that- incensed these power and control hungry forces.
I don't believe the accounts given in the Gospels. Do you???
Nevertheless the stories, fictional and corrupt as they are, have served well enough as the delivery vehicle for something far greater.
So, would you desire to posit that it all came into being entirely out of nothing at all, and that no one in the first century held any beliefs or any doctrines concerning the subjects of circumcision, or the divine Name, or anything at all? If so, all I can say is lots of luck with trying to defend that unrealistic proposition!
Well, I generally credit the real Paul with only around 10%, (but I would qualify that by we don't know what the real Paul wrote that the church chose to edit out, even as they most certainly added in)
I sincerely believe that a real Paul provided the basic and initial Jewish writings on the subject of Gentile circumcision, which the powers which became the 'Christian' church subsequently 'borrowed' and edited extensively to the service of their own ends.









.

aa5874

Well, I just need the source of antiquity that support your belief about "Paul"/"Shaul".

I longer accept belief without sources.

There are just too many UNSUPPORTED "beliefs" OR presumptions out there.

I can show you where "Paul" claimed he SAW a resurrected Jesus but it was a LIE since the dead rise NOT. See 1 Cor 15.

Sheshbazzar

I know of no presently available source that would be acceptable to you.
Admittedly, and regrettably any source from antiquity that I might reference will be found to be compromised, biased, and full of superstitions, false history, and many outright lies.
Sorry, but that's the way it is, and is all that either of us have to work with.
If you cannot seek, find, and determine to your own satisfaction, The Name of Israel's Elohim (God) within any ancient sources, Then truly there is no reason for you to believe in the existence of any such Name.
....IF, however, you can, then it is only your own personal integrity, and love of truth that is at stake.
There are as many as there are.
Truly many wander through their lives groping about in a world of darkness, grasping at the phantoms of their imaginations.
Scant few do sight that which is of lasting value and stand by it.
In my view skepticism is commendable, yet negativism is as an acid that makes one bitter and so from the inside eats away and consumes the spirit of a man.
Yes? Do we not then agree on this matter? Do you think Paul -did not- see any such thing? So also do I.

Am I wrong to conclude by your protests, that you believe these tales to be false? Your own sources from antiquity claim these things are true, how then do you know that your sources lie? Is it not that you employ reason, logic, and information which is not derived from or dependent upon the integrity of these sources from antiquity?
This in the very face of these ancient sources, so refuting and rejecting their claims?
Yet you demand of me for 'sources of antiquity' for anything I would happen offer or to believe?
I will not take offense, but in this your ways are not equal in that you would require of me corroboration from antiquity in the self-same matters as you yourself quite obviously and vehemently reject any such testimony.

We can reason together, or waste our time in arguing pointlessly.
I by far prefer the former as being the more productive.

archibald

Thanks Toto. I'm so glad you're here. I never would have worked that out without you.

Tell you what, let's exchange patronizing advice. :]

I am trying to nudge you into realizing that you may have been in the clubhouse for so long, bulding houses of cards along with the other members and showing them off to each other, that you have forgotten that there's a world outside the clubhouse where your little card constructions would blow away.

How on earth, Toto, can you ever think that you can get to a stage where you 'know, by reading Paul'???

Toto, maybe it would be better if you cut down on the 'you haven't been here long enough', 'you're just rambling on and on' crap. Because two can play at that sort of 'personalizing the debate' game. Ok?



I'm not going to make lists of those responses which I thought were good and those I thought weren't. But if you want, you can consider 'I know, from reading Paul' to be one of the latter. And yes, there have been a few times I have pursued matters and got no reply. But I am not making a big thing out of that, wouldn't have gone into it if you didn't repeatedly question my 'credentials', and am willing to get back on topic if you are.

Toto

I think this topic is exhausted.

I really want you to read Walker or that thread on his book before we continue so we have some common vocabulary. Otherwise, this is a waste of effort.

Iskander

Don’t even think of what Marcion may have said because Marcion Was a Heretic Invented in the Third Century.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-in-third.html


There are plenty of scholars in religion strutting as cardinals to choose from if one likes that sort of thing.

Yes, yes, I am going away.

archibald

I went to the thread on Walker's book that you started, only to realise that I had read it the first time you cited it.

It's certainly interesting, and I think I would enjoy reading Walker's book and Munroe's too (they are both on preview at Google).

But I have to say, and this may be why I hadn't recalled reading it before, there was nothing whatsoever in that thread to indicate anything even getting close to the outer borders of certainty. Maybe you can tell me what I've missed, and do an explanatory recap of 'I know from reading Paul'.

I get the feeling that Walker's argument that 'there may be interpolations' is easily appropriated by some into meaning things which he would not. Case in point: you referring me in the first instance to DCH's threads.

If it's any consolation, I have ordered Carrier's book, 'Not the Impossible Faith'.

You may now start to hope. If I start into that book (and Ehrmann's 'Lost Christianities', which should actually arrive first) I probably won't have time to post online so much, thus making your mod job that little bit easier. :]

But please, do us both a favour. Don't do the 'you don't seem to know much' crap. I don't see anyone else doing it (maybe spin, from whom I would consider it even less of something to worry about than from you) and aa5874 (who I have almost stopped reading) and I don't expect to get it from the forum mod in one little internet discussion pond, especially one in which the principles of evidence-based rational scepticism appears to be somewhat of an optional side issue.

You see, I have this general problem with assessing 'expertize' in this discipline (or these disciplines plural, since I mean both scholarship and ancient History). Whilst I do respect it (please don't think otherwize), I can't help noticing, by participating in other forums (do you frequent Ratskep much, by the way?) and by reading around, that there are 'experts' who do know all the very same 'facts' and come to conclusions (or opinions) which are the polar opposite of those you prefer to mention.

gurugeorge

You keep saying this and it keeps showing you're aiming at a strawman and missing the point.

Even with what TO US is a "mythical" Joshua The Messiah who never actually existed in the flesh, people may still have BELIEVED THEN that he existed - a god incarnated for a while in fleshy form.

The MJ (or more broadly the "ahistorical") hypothesis DOES NOT REQUIRE that anybody at that time believed that Joshua The Messiah didn't exist.

It is a response to the absence of internal evidence for a human being in the earliest texts, and the absence of any contemporary external evidence for a human being; and (in its many versions) is an attempt to explain, given these absences, and given the the positive content of the extant evidence, both internal and external, how Christianity could have arisen without a human being.

Keep in mind the history of this idea of a "historical Jesus". For 2,000 years Joshua The Messiah was believed by many people - certainly by most believing Christiants - to be a god-man who walked the earth in human form at a certain point in time - some kind of incaranation of the divine. NOT A HUMAN BEING.

This is obviously a myth, right?

Then along came the rise of rationalism, and you have people (quite reasonably) considering the question, "Well, of course god-men don't exist, but look, this god-man's doings has lots of detail about the human aspect of his doings in these texts, PERHAPS THERE WAS A HUMAN BEING AT THE ROOT OF THE GOD-MAN MYTH."

But then we go back to my earlier posts with you. This is a much more stringent requirement, because to show that there was a human being there, you have (as I said) to do more than just strip away the supernatural element and you're left with a human being, you need to do a more serious historical study and try to look more closely at the extant evidence to see if there's anything betraying a causal chain between any of the people involved and a human being, plus you need to look outside that evidence too.

IOW:-

PURPORTED EVIDENCE OF A GOD WHO HAPPENS TO HAVE A HUMAN ASPECT

has to be distinguished from

EVIDENCE OF A HUMAN BEING.

One and the same bit of text could easily be either, could look the same. (The Superman example) (And bear in mind here by "purported" I'm leaving aside the question of whether it's fraud, error, confabulation, mystical encomium, or whatever - the point is, the NT Canon is supposed to be evidenced of the god-man.)

GakuseiDon

But that's not the case at all. In the Gospel of Mark for example, there is no virgin birth. Jesus is portrayed as a man, with parents and siblings.

Then there are the Ebionites, and early Christians who thought that Jesus was "man of man", as Justin Martyr puts it:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

"Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin... For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men... "

So it isn't just a product of modern times rationalism. "Jesus as human being" can be found very early in the literature.

Sheshbazzar

....But not in one single piece of literature written by anyone who had ever met this 'man'.
Strangely, 'he' the flesh and blood 'man', is a complete stranger to every single writer that wrote anything about 'him'.
So they each had to make up all of their stories and dialog, or repeat tales they had heard from usually unidentified others as being factual.

Strange 'man', for one being so well known, prominent and popular; Very much like a 1st century Clark Kent.