aa5874

Where are your sources of antiquity that state Paul was a proto-Gnostic?

Please provide the book, chapter and verse!!!

You provide nothing for your assertions.

The Pauline writers claimed that they were witnesses of God that Jesus was RAISED from the dead. See 1 Cor.15.15

Where did the authors of the Gospels claimed that they were eyewitnesses of the events about Jesus?

The author of gLuke claimed he wrote about what people BELIEVED. See gLuke 1.1

If you suppose that Paul preached and documented a heavenly Jesus who was NEVER on earth and that he preached and taught Churches "all over" the Roman Empire then why was it not convincing to the authors of the Gospels and Acts?

1. The author of the short gMark claim Jesus was crucified under Pilate after being found guilty of death for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

2.The author of the long gMark claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate after being found guilty of death for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

3. The author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate after being found guilty of death for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

4. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate after he was questioned by the Sanhedrin.

5. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was sent bound unto Caiaphas the High Priest and then crucified under Pilate.

6. The author of Acts claimed the Jews killed Jesus.

The answer is extremely clear. They knew nothing of the Belief by the Jesus cult about your ONLY heavenly Jesus who was Never on earth.

The Pauline writers did NOT claim Jesus was ONLY heavenly and NEVER on earth. The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead and they were WITNESSES of his resurrection.

There is nothing more mystical about the Pauline claim that he was seen of the resurrected Jesus when post-resurrection visits are also found in the Gospels and Acts.

In fact, post-resurrection visits by Jesus are found in the Later Gospels and Acts--NOT early gMark.

It is your Only Heavenly Never On Earth Jesus that is a complete mystery. Such a Jesus is unknown in or out the Canon and before and after the 4th century.

There is a MASSIVE Hole in your ONLY Heavenly Never On Earth Jesus--You have NO actual corroborative sources from antiquity for such a Jesus character or Belief.

There are hundreds of sources of antiquity for hundreds of years that claim Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, was on earth and was crucified under Pilate after a trial by the Sanhedrin.

Why have you INVENTED an only heavenly never on earth Jesus? Why?

Jaybees

There are also hundreds of recent and current sources (including TV shows, movies, comic books, newspaper items, commercials, children's toys, and much else) describing and even picturing Superman leaping tall buildings.

That's good enough for me.

aa5874

You believe in an 'historical Superman?

Jesus of Nazareth out-performed Superman--Jesus was God the Creator.

The Jesus cult seemed to think that Gods, Devils and Holy Ghosts were figures of history.

Grog

Here's Larry Hurtado's reconstruction of the origins of Christianity, from, How on Earth did Jesus Become a God? (or via: amazon.co.uk) :

So this position relies on multiple "revelatory experiences." I can't actually think of another example of a religion being founded on widespread "revelatory experiences" and "visions." It seems far more likely that Jesus-belief evolved.

outhouse

Which does not refute what I stated earlier at all. or in any way.



I really don't have a problem with Larry's view.


If I follow you, I agree.

Jesus belief did evolve, and it did so with many different version's of Jesus divinity. In gospels alone, we see many different claims of divinity showing different communities believed different things regarding divinity.

This was a stumbling block that didn't get fully addressed and defined until Constantine's time.

Grog

Evolved out of a belief in a heavenly redeemer/revealer figure, not from the crucifixion of an illiterate, itinerant preacher/would-be messiah.

outhouse

Why did they call this heavenly redeemer/revealer figure, a man from Nazareth who was the son of a hand worker that amounts to a displaced peasant in a hovel, who died on a cross after really ticking off the Temple authorities and Romans who policed this event and wanted peace to keep the money flowing?

What was the need to place this man on earth to what amounts to almost a slave, under the current oppression from Antipas, if he was just a heavenly figure?

Why would the Hellenistic Gentiles find value in Jewish peasant unless for his actions against corruption?

Toto

Paul knows nothing about Nazareth. Mark contains only one reference to Nazareth, which might be a later interpolation, and Mark locates Jesus' hometown at Capernum. Nazareth could have evolved from Nazarene or Nazirite, but it does appear to be a later evolution from the original story.

a tekton, which might refer to a skilled scholar according to Geza Vermes, or a master builder - Odysseus was described as a tekton.

lots of possibilities for this - Jewish revolutionaries were crucified at various key times, pagan gods were symbolically hung on crosses.

None of this is in the gospels. It is your attempt to make sense of a story that doesn't really make literal sense.

The redeemer has to come down to earth to connect with humanity.

He wasn't a peasant, in their eyes. The "peasant" status is just a modern neo-Marxist reinterpretation of the stories, in another attempt to make sense of them. Hellenistic Gentiles weren't interested in fighting corruption, they wanted a heavenly redeemer.

outhouse

Gmarks Nazareth might not be a interpolation, and not confused for Nazarene.



Claiming Gmark 1.9 is a interpolation is a naked assertion by Carrier if I'm not mistaken. Not backed by anyone else is it?




Vermes date on that is? and what archeology has been done in Galilee since then to show the true socioeconomic status of traditional Jewish oppressed villages?

How many skilled scholars or craftsmen came from a hovel like Nazareth that could have been a work camp for the rebuilding of Sepphoris? even Capernaum has been shown to be more poor then traditionally thought.

But back to Nazareth, we are talking about a very poor village with not a lot of wood for a carpenter. Houses were windowless, made of crude fieldstones and these people had little to nothing of any value.

The best possible guess, if Jesus was from Nazareth, would be "handworker" as Tekton is stated by Johnathon Reed, which by my opinion means he could also have possibly been doing stone work in Sepphoris

Even Capernaum and its fishing class is said to be very poor. Stephan Patterson Professor of new Testament, Eden Theological Seminary. States, The fisherman disciples were "one rung above a beggar"


You do know there was no middle class don't you within these poor oppressed traditional Jews?




So what, it is part of the detailed story. most scholars claim it is fact Jesus died on a cross being typical Roman punishment for a trouble maker at Passover.


First it makes complete and perfect sense.

False, plenty of biblical records of the temple authorities not being happy with this character.

And finding ones way on a Roman cross means Romans were not happy with him either.

And both temple authorities and Romans factually wanted peace during Passover. Its why the Romans sent in a Garrison to police the event.


Now that doesn't make sense.

He was born a human mother, and had a human father figure, lived in a human village, and walked and preached around humans. This is much more then "connecting with humanity" it is being human.

If anything this is perverting Pauline theology while ignoring the gospel accounts.


False again.

These were factually oppressed Jews. Tekton was a embarrassing title we see later authors trying to hide.

Recent work of Johnathon Reed states Tekton is a low status.

[I have posted these links and sources way too many times as you ignored last time]

And you have no justification claiming Johnathon Reed places a "neo-Marxist reinterpretation" when he is only using cultural anthropology.

Your statements are unsubstantiated out of desperation.

This I agree. Its does not mean they did not leave us clues in the evidence. They made the Jews out to be the bad guys and were not writing theology that would make them out to look like rebellious Jews.

Pauline theology is all about a heavenly redeemer, and aspects of this can be found in the gospels.

Toto

You are mistaken, again.

Carrier did not invent it, and it is a well reasoned conclusion from the text. You can read about it here. The basis is that the single mention of "Nazareth" in Mark is missing in the parallel verses Matthew presumably copied from Mark, indicating that the word was not in the version of Mark available to Matthew.


What does archaeology have to do with it? If you assume that Jesus was from Nazareth, you can conclude that he was a poor workman. But that is just an assumption.

But there is no real reason to assume that Jesus was from Nazareth.

You threw that quote out before, without a cite. Why should I take the word of a specialist in New Testament who works for a Theological Seminary in any case? Such people have been know to make things up for the greater glory of god.

The relevance of this is?

You continue in your erroneous ways. Find me one scholar who claims that crucifixion was a typical Roman punishment for "trouble makers at Passover" or any sort of trouble making. Crucifixion was the typical punishment for political rebellion.

Why are you accepting "biblical records" and what biblical records support this? There are lots of things that don't make sense. If Jesus had really disrupted the Temple, he would have been executed on the spot, rather than captured later and tried and then crucified. But it is more likely he would have just been beaten or executed. If he didn't disrupt the Temple, why was he arrested? We know that the Sanhedrin didn't meet at night (that was just a plot devise to compress the action into one day) and we know that nothing Jesus did would have interested the Roman authorities. The gospels have the crowd in favor of him one moment, and calling for his execution the next. :huh:

Once again you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

You know that Jonathan Reed is an evangelical Christian? Why do you continue to rely on evangelical Christians?

You have posted a few links without any indication that you have read them. No specific page numbers or quotes. I have more to do than check up on you.

Crossan is the neo-Marxist. Reed is assuming that the Biblical account is somehow accurate and providing some colorful details meant to support the story. Nobody has clearly identified Nazareth, or shown that Jesus had any connection to it other than a mythologized gospel story written a few generations after the events allegedly happened.

What desperation? You are boring me with your continual repetition of Christian talking points.