Radcliffe Emerson

I personally think the theory that Paul made up Jesus and started his own faith has considerable merit.
Paul's writings are the earliest (around 55 ad I think for Phillipians[?]).
The Gospels don't appear (and this is just guessing on the scholars' part) until 70 to 80 ad.
Paul's writings don't mention many details about Jesus' life, teachings, crucificion, etc that the Gospels insert when they evolve, and it is conceivable the Gospels were embellished accounts of Paul's earlier writings.

Godless Dave

My personal opinion is that Paul made up the religion but used oral stories about Jesus that were already circulating as his background material.

Gary Welsh

My guess has always been that there actually was a preacher named Jesus, who irritated the local authorities and flirted around the issue of his own status as a holy man. Jesus and his group were looked at -- in their day -- much like the way Joseph Smith and the Mormons were looked at by their contemporaries. It was an offshoot of an existing religion.

The miraculous elements (I'm guessing) could come from a number of sources. Jesus wasn't the only 'wonder-worker' of his time. Could there have been a bit of the stage-magician in Jesus? I don't see why not. And just as some people buy into the faith healing of televangelists and revivalists today, it seems entirely possible that people did the same thing with Jesus. As his reputation grew, the stories of 'healings' and so forth became embellished by a rapidly growing oral tradition.

For my model of a historical Jesus, I look at Elvis, David Copperfield and John Edward. There are many people who didn't (and don't) want to believe Elvis died, and to this day they make pilgrimages to Graceland and regard Elvis-mementos as sacred relics. If David Copperfield claimed to really have supernatural powers, would people believe him? I think many -- not all, but many -- would. People want to believe that sort of thing. John Edward is in that category as well. It is instructive to watch that show with a variety of people, just to see how differently people can react. I roll my eyes, and to me it's obviously a bunch of nonsense, but other people genuinely buy into it. It's a lesson in human psychology, how people can view the exact same event but experience it completely differently.

jj

My own take is that S/Paul, after his affair with ergot-tainted rye on the way to Damascus, wasn't too connected with reality, and wrote down his fever dreams, including all of the misogynistic stuff, etc, that reflected his own internal mental states.

Then Constatine turned it into "the trVth" and now we have a misogynistic, totalitarian religion. And all because some dude ate some bad rye bread on the road to Damascus.

Radcliffe Emerson

Maybe Paul had some of that cannabis-laden holy oil on his trip.

beth

Where can I get some?

captainpabst

It's estimated that Paul converted to xianity sometime in the mid-30's, a few years after the crucifixion. That's roughly 30+ years before the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark, was recorded. That's also 50 years before the gospel of Luke (written by a gentile) was recorded. The author of Luke was also the author of the book of Acts, where Paul's (referred to as Saul) Damascus road conversion story is told. Surely by the time that story was written, it had already become myth.

Evidently the story, that of a new covenent with God, that these Jewish 'reformers', known as Christians, were telling brought Paul to a realization. Paul, a man who lived his life by Jewish law, found peace and freedom in the 'good news'.

There is speculation that Paul was a homosexual male, and that he felt he could be redeemed through the teachings of Jesus, whereas under Jewish law, his "thorn in the flesh" would condemn him.

Paul evidently found freedom from the law of the ages, freedom from the societal norms of the time, a freedom that motivated him to preach. I think, for modern xian's, the veil remains when reading the Bible at all. Literalization has quite possibly 'veiled' the message. Now xianity is all about non-freedom - it's about being a slave to what's written.
As far as the synoptic gospels go, they were written to cater to their intended audiences. Mark, in the later 60's, to the Jews. Matthew, in the later 70's, for the purpose of including the gentiles. Luke, in the late 80's, to speak to Rome. John, in the 90's, written, with the most allegory and symbolism of all, for the ages.

I think it's not so much that the people who wrote the Bible were wacked. I think it's just that most people don't understand the culture, symbols, and motives that created the book in the first place. I don't claim to myself. I'm not a believer. It's interesting though.

Edit: Had quotes in here from 2 Corinthians but decided they weren't appropriate. I was looking at chapters 3 and 12.

AspenMama

Great information! But this isn't the forum for biblical discussions, nor shameless flirting.

Lets keep to the topic of support while this is parked here in Secular Life. Thanks.

AspenMama
SL & S Moderator

captainpabst

Shameless flirting?

Sorry - people were just talking about Paul and so I thought I'd chime in. Support-wise...well, sorry I guess there was nothing all that supportive about that post. Oh well - back to lurk mode.

AspenMama

No-- you weren't shamelessly flirting-- I should have said superflous posting by other members-- I wasn't referring to you-- sorry.