Adam

Satan is not mentioned, but see Mark 10:45 and Mt 20:28. "to give his life as a ransom for many" could also be interpreted by Peter Abelard's liberal Moral theory that Christ's life was the Atonement. Either the Classic Theory (Christus Victor as revived by Gustav Aulen) or Abelard's 12th Century concept get around the objection raised by your OP.

Sheshbazzar

Yep. the old 'escape clause' in action. If anything written anywhere in the book doesn't agree with your preconceptions, just dismiss it as being an interpolation.
You can make the texts say anything you want. ....But they will continue to say what they say.

All very different usages and situations than the plain statement;
It was on earth, and his earthly disciples were present, and on earth to do as he instructed.

There is no rational reason to place this event and situation anywhere other than on earth, and on the once a year 'night' observance of Layil Shimmurim (Ex 12:42)

The Gospels do not place this event as having taken place in heaven.

The Christian Church does not teach this event as having taken place in heaven.

And 'Paul' does not teach this event as ever having taken place in heaven.
.....other than by ruse of men who pervert and deny the contents of his writings for their own ends.


.

spin

The name may also be derived from the Latin sicarius with the metathesis, which fronts the /i/. The structure of the disciple list puts Judas in the same category as Simon the Cananaean (the epithet from קנא, "zealous") and Lk 6:15 calls him "the zealot". The zealot and the sicarius, both militants.

Or of course he could really be איש קריות (i$-qrywt) "man from Kerioth".

jgreen44

Or the passage is an interpolation.

jgreen44

Both of these theories also get around what the Bible says.

Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood

1 Corinthians 5:7
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 9:28
so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

Hebrews 10:10
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:12
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Hebrews 10:14
For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 10:18
And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

jgreen44

You left out the prior verse:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Paul did not hear this story from the men who allegedly had dinner with Jesus on that fateful night. Paul heard about the details of the Last Supper from a talking light on the highway.

Why do you suppose that is?

Sheshbazzar

Yes, so (some writer(s)) claims.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my skeptical atheist position.

'Paul' did not hear this story at all.


First, as an atheist, I do not accept that any voice from heaven ever actually spoke to any 'Paul'.
Further, I do not accept that any 'apostles' of 'Christ' ('JESUS' or not) ever met or spoke with the fictional 'Paul' either.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

Second, I do not accept the premise that there ever was any 'Jesus'. Not as a man, and not as a 'spirit'.
'Jesus Christ' to me is no more a person in real time than is Winnie the Pooh.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

Third, I do not believe in the existence of the 'Paul' that is presented in the Epistles. I regard 'him' to be a talking-head fabrication of the late 2nd century CE church.

The NT stories are entirely fictional, the religious fiction propaganda of a cult.

aa5874

Why are you asking questions at this stage? Questions are not evidence of anything. You claim that the Pauline accounts are "of a Jesus who never seems to have spent any time on earth".

You are obligated to provide the evidence from antiquity.

So far nothing.



Again, you must present the evidence from antiquity for what you write.

In Acts, Paul did not preach a Cosmic Christ.

In Acts, Paul preached the same Christ crucified that was killed or caused to be killed by the Jews.

You are basically inventing your own stories of Paul WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Again, you have not presented any evidence from antiquity for your Cosmic Christ of Paul.

There is no corroboration at all for a Pauline Cosmic Christ and Apologetics that mentioned Paul claimed Jesus the Son of God was on earth and was delivered up by the Jews to be killed.

Your are merely speculating. Maybe this and maybe that is not evidence of anything.

Again, the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline letters and did not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote Pastorals or letters to Seven Churches of the Jesus cult before 58-62 CE or before the time of Festus, procurator of Judea.

You are obligated to present evidence for what you have claimed. You must show the sources of antiquity that corroborate that the Pauline Christ was Cosmic.

It is already known there are NONE.

I am delighted that you now show that in Acts Jesus was on earth doing miracles among the Jews and was put to death by the help of wicked men.

There is NO Cosmic Christ in Acts and the Pauline letters.

I am saying that it is documented in "Against Celsus" that it is claimed it was not taught in the Churches that Jesus was a carpenter.

Please, why do you insist on guessing? You must know that in "Against Celsus" that it was claimed the father of Jesus was Panthera a Roman soldier.

You must know that the Pauline writings were unknown to Celsus.

In fact, Origen claimed Celsus wrote nothing of Paul.

Your Pauline Cosmic Christ is without corroboration--a product of imagination.

You cannot present any actual evidence from the Canon that Paul died and cannot present any evidence from antiquity Paul was alive when the Pauline Corpus was invented.

spin

Fart goes another assertion.

You are in no position to make such a claim as you were neither there nor did you have access to the writer of the information. While we can discount the divine intervention as non-believers of this religion, we cannot say what Paul did or did not hear. The writer claimed to have had other mystical experiences, which cannot be put in the "did not happen" category.

What Paul heard need not have come from an external source for him to have heard it. He may have been dreaming. He may have been on drugs. He may have had a psychotic event. And so on.

Fart. Oops, another assertion. Qualify the fucking statement in order to indicate that this is your belief, as is the case with all those other assertions you leave smelling up the forum.

aa5874

Your response is hopeless. You seem to have no idea how the past is reconstructed or how theories are developed.

If historians have to be "there" then we would not be able to know anything about the past.

It is so basic.

The contents of any texts can be analyzed and a theory developed based on the available data.

A theory can always be modified with NEW DATA.

Theories are constantly being modified as we speak.


The present abundance of data from antiquity allows the theory that the Pauline writings were late and it cannot be altered until other data is found.

The Pauline claims can be rejected just like the evidence of real witnesses in a real court trial can be rejected.

It is most reasonable to reject the Pauline revelations from a resurrected Jesus since it is quite acceptable to conclude that Jesus, even if he existed, could NOT have told Paul anything after he was dead.