aa5874

The authors of the Epistles alluded to the Gospels far more than any other Canonised Epistle.

In fact, the Pauline Corpus backed up the Later Gospels.

1. The author of Galatians 4 claimed Jesus was made of a woman.

The author backed up the later birth narratives in LATE Gospels of gMatthew 1 and gLuke 1 where Jesus was born of a woman.

There is no birth narrative in the earliest gMark.

2. The author of 1 Corinthians 15 claimed Jesus was made a quickening Spirit.

The author alluded to the birth narrative in LATE Gospels of gLuke, gMatthew and gJohn where Jesus was born of the Spirit and Fathered by the Holy Ghost.

There is no claim that Jesus was made a quickening spirit in the earliest gMark.

3. The author of Romans 1 claimed Jesus was of the seed of David.

The author backed up the LATE stories of gJohn 7, gMatthew 1 and gLuke 3.

There is no claim that Jesus was of the seed of David in earliest gMark.

4. In Philippians 2, the author claimed Jesus was equal to God and also in God's image.

The author backed up the LATE Gospel of John.

There is no claim that Jesus was equal to God in the earliest gMark.

5. In 1 Corinthians 11, the author claimed that the ritual of the Last Supper was to be carried out in the Remembrance of Jesus at the request of Jesus himself.

The author backed the Late Gospel of gLuke.

There is no claim that there should be a Ritual of the Last Supper in the earliest gMark.

6 . In Galatians 2, the author claimed Peter was commissioned by Jesus to preach the Gospel.

The author backed up the POST-Resurrection commission in the LATE Gospels of gMatthew 28 and gLuke 24.

There is no claim that the resurrected Jesus commissioned Peter to preach the Gospel to anyone in the earliest gMark.

7. In 1 Corinthians 15, the Pauline author claimed there were POST Resurrection visits by Jesus to the disciples.

The author backed up the LATE Gospels of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

There are NO Post Resurrection visits in the earliest gMark.

8. In 1 Corinthians 15, it is claimed Jesus died for our sins and resurrected on the Third Day.

The author backed up the LATE Gospels of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn.

There is no claim that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and that he would resurrect on the THIRD day in the earliest gMark.

9. In 1 Corinthians 14, the Pauline writer claimed he spoke in Tongues.

The author backed the LATE Gospels of gLuke.

There is no claim by the resurrected Jesus that people would speak in tongues in the earliest gMark.

10. In Galatians 2, it is claimed that God LOVED all mankind by sacrificing his Son.

The author backed up the LATE Gospel of gJohn.

There is no claim that God loved people and sacrificied his Son in the earliest gMark.

The Pauline writers were aware of and BACKED up the LATER stories of Jesus from Conception to the Post Resurrection visits.

Sheshbazzar

I have already explained my personal views and reasonings on this.

A short recap. All the 'Pauline epistle' writers wanted from the 'Jerusalem' apostolic Gospel, was to be able to claim to be the apostolic descendent's of these Gospel 'apostles', in support of the late Church's claimed 'Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.

The 'Pauline' authors -did not want- the form of Doctrine that is reflected in the 'Jerusalem' Gospels, and that the original 'Jerusalem apostles' (real or fictional) obviously followed. ...adherance to the Torah, observance of the Seventh Day Sabbath, and other 'Jewish' practices.

So the epistle writers have their 'Paul' have a 'vision' and a 'Gospel that is according to Paul', .....which just incidentally and not too surprisingly coincides nicely with the dogmas and doctrines of the 'orthodox' of a late 2nd century Christian church.

Conquering the Empire with the pen. A political and religious ploy to attain ascendancy of control, power, and wealth by the 'catholic' clergy.
Not just Rome, but all 'catholic' Christian religious leaders were the beneficiaries of this.
...not omitting that the majority were entirely sincere and convicted in their beliefs, having bought into these anonymous manipulators written stories lock stock and barrel.
As 'Christian's' still do. They are (mostly) sinciere, but nonetheless deluded by and the victims of a fictional story.


.

Adam

I took your OP to be a smug proof for MJ by quibbling about what a "sacrifice" means. So I showed that Atonement can have other meanings. Now it seems you're waging an anti-Fundamentalist battle against the Bible, especially Paul, even though Paul is usually cited for MJ.

Surely "sacrifice" can mean something else than what you require it to be, so your logical conundrum fails. Nor do any of those biblical meanings necessarily exclude the Classical or Moral view of the Atonement.

jgreen44

Around the turn of the first century, the “fire of faith” flared anew, throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the east. A number of mystery religions exploded in numbers. Christianity was only one of them. Another was Mithraism, which had already gotten a foothold in the Roman world when Pompey, erstwhile collaborator of Julius Caesar, joined Mithras, around 63 BCE. Other similar movements sprang to life, some of them brand-new, others founded on older movements.

Orphean-inspired people were, apparently, among the first to latch on to the young Christian movement. They saw Jesus Christ as an embodiment of the “divine knowledge,” or λογος (Logos), to whom the “divine wisdom” or σοφια (Sophia) had given birth. They considered the ancient Hebrew God, YHWH, the Demiurge, or the author of the woes of the material. To them, Jesus represented deliverance from the enslavement of the Demiurge, as well as the architect of spiritual advancement. Furthermore they believed that Jesus had taught the apostles things which were never put in writing, and which should not be put in writing, which they, themselves, were privy to; these were their “secret doctrines,” open only to the initiated, and only after the “outer mysteries” or publicly-acknowledged teachings, had been mastered.

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/gnostic.html

That's debatable.

True. But the Church covered it's tracks so well that a lot of what passes for Church history is open to speculation.

And, as I pointed out, there are scholars who see Acts as post-dating Galatians.

I certainly agree that there is no Cosmic Christ in Acts

And I do not dispute that.

I have heard that, yes.

Yes. I like Dettering's theory that Paul was a 2nd century invention as well.

It all just goes to show that Christian history as it is presented to us has little resemblance to what really happened.


That's true.

jgreen44

Whereas Jesus only wants this life because he does not desire to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

jgreen44

If it's any consolation, I would never join any club that would have me as a member.

jgreen44

THe following cite provides an argument for Romans 1:3 being an interpolation.
http://vridar.info/xorigins/Romans/1_2-6.htm

MrMacSon

Not necessarily.

Yes, there were many fore-runners to the Christianity that eventually developed - Zoroastrianism, Doceticism, Montanism, Arianism, Marcionism,

jdboy

Myths were powerful stories told to show man's relationship to God so when you say merely a myth you miss the point.
The Jesus story explains the destruction of the temple a new covenant etc. It's not history.

Chili

Myth is true, or eternally true and that is for some pple difficult to understand.

It means that if timeless is real, we are not real as huans until we become eternal ourself . . . and then no longer are human, obviously not, and that is what this shit is all about. So who really cares as I do not see much wrong with anybody here.

The problem really is that we all have intimations of immortality becasuse in our right brain we are eternal while in our left we are not.