TedM

I actually was referring to the jealousy (or perhaps fear) of the Jewish leaders. All the gospels are united in saying they had concerns about how popular he was with the people. Political/religious leaders would have reason to be 'jealous' or concerned on that basis alone.


And yet out of the few statements he makes about the man's character, comes the claim that he was 'meek'. I can't buy the idea that Paul didn't know or care about the character of the human Jesus. He KNEW the claims being made about Jesus by his followers. He spent 15 days with Peter/Cephas. I DO think that the human Jesus was a minor part of his theology, but I also am fairly convinced that he knew a LOT about the man, just for common sense reasons alone. However, THAT didn't impress him near as much as the resurrection implications.


I'm not at all convinced that is the case, as he probably wouldn't have been seen as a martyr, without followers. How can an unknown mean something ONLY after he dies, if it is rather soon? Seems highly unlikely. It also leaves you saying that resurrection stories popped up for 'unknown reasons'. I think something like that would have a reason. While it is possible strangers (to him) decided that a man crucified during Passover perhaps was a Sacrifical Lamb = Messiah, I think it is most likely that he was known and followed first. IMO he probably was a fairly 'big deal' but for a very short time, as that seems to explain the most.

outhouse

a later development.

Yes unknown man goes into the temple and stands up against its corruption.

And its Hellenism in gods house with blasphemous pagan coins, a blasphemous eagle over the entrance way already caused 40 something Jews to be burned alive when they tore it down before this event.


You also have later authors distancing themselves from Judaism with anti-Semitic writings.


Remember the Saducees were a hated group.



For the Romans this was supposed to be a non violent group, to survive it had to be written that way.


All he knew was from the oral tradition that was generated after Passover and his martyrdom.

The gospels did not exist, Paul knew nothing. He didn't live near Jesus, and didn't know anything of the original movement.


No he did not.

He only knew what grew after his death by people in attendance at Passover.


Paul already had his own ideas by the time he claims he met the original sect leaders, [if he really did] All we know is he made that claim and argued over traditional Jewish laws and left.

To the real apostles, Paul was a bloody murderer and would have been looked at with great suspicion.




How could he?

Common sense says Paul was a Christian murderer, who didn't live anywhere near the real movement and didn't even live in the same culture as he was a Hellenist in the diaspora teaching Gentiles.

Pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus was about.



Just a claim. Paul made many.


He didn't need a bunch of followers, he would have starved in Galilee living on the hospitality of the poor oppressed peasants he stood for.


The gospels really only deals with the last week of his life, arrest and death and resurrection. That's it. That is what the Hellenist who found him popular knew and wrote. It was all about the Passover event that made him famous. Had he been to popular he would have ended up like JtB who was more well known then Jesus and Antipas would have killed him.

You would also have to explain why we have writing describing a famous JtB by historians but not of Jesus. Simple, he wasn't famous until Passover.



I didn't say unknown reasons,, I said we don't know, that is, it is unknown. There are many reasons.

Missing body
Perceived spiritual resurrection perverted by followers to a physical one.
Someone claiming he was Jesus and the peasants believed him

Either way however it started it was perverted. Not only that there was more then one tradition floating around. We are only left with the most popular versions in the canon.

Later works show different beliefs early on from the lost gospels


I agree.

This movement started very small after his death, but it started and it was widespread through Hellenism and Proselytes in the Diaspora.

You had a few teachers who could survive by SIMPLY going around saying you had better hurry up and join this movement and believe in Jesus because the end is coming soon and you don't want to have satans hot burning sulphur dripped on you, believe in Jesus and he will save you. These teachers went around saying you didn't need to spend money to worship like the temple required, not only that we will heal you for free and don't charge, but we do like to teach around the dinner table, so they could eat to survive.

It beat hard labor for the smart that could act and pull this off, the best actor was know is Paul with his roadshow. Hell Paul had a business and took all the free meals he could get. Paul was so strong with his message and ended up getting his butt thrown in prison and beaten a lot.


And as far as the "end is coming" hell it was coming for the Jews. The temple fell and hundreds of thousand murdered.

Davka

You seem to be ignorant of the entire Bible.

scra-a-a-a-a-ape!!

There go those goalposts, moving down the field.

Please, show exactly where it is claimed in the NT that ALL the Jews (rather than a specific subset of religious leaders in Jerusalem) were of their Father the Devil who was a Murderer.

Please show exactly where Pharisees were DAMNED in the NT. Not by using the extremely inaccurate KJV, either.

As for being referred to as hypocrites, there are plenty of passages which call the Israelites hypocrites and worse.

Since you seem to be fond of posting lengthy Bible passages, here are a few for you to chew on:

Hear the word of the Lord, you descendants of Jacob,
all you clans of Israel.

This is what the Lord says:

“What fault did your ancestors find in me,
that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols
and became worthless themselves."
-Jeremiah 2:4,5

Hear the word of the Lord, you Israelites,
because the Lord has a charge to bring
against you who live in the land:
"There is no faithfulness, no love,
no acknowledgment of God in the land.
There is only cursing, lying and murder,
stealing and adultery;
they break all bounds,
and bloodshed follows bloodshed."
-Hosea 4:1,2

"And now, you priests, this warning is for you. If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name," says the Lord Almighty, "I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.

"Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it."
-Malachi 2:1-3

It took me only a few seconds to find those passages, because this sort of language is so common in the OT prophets. YHWH is pissed at the priests, the people, the Jews. He calls them all sorts of names, and says he's going to smear shit on their faces. Does that make the OT anti-Jewish?

What fresh pile of steaming bullshit is this??? I can certainly show where it is claimed that Messiah would be cut off for the sins of the Israelites, but since there are no references to "Jesus the Son of God" in the OT, what you ask is patently absurd.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

Davka

Not just the gnostics - it's a common thread in Evangelical Christianity, and has been for many years. C.S. Lewis rather famously re-enacted this "trick" in his Narnia series, in which Aslan (jesus/god) allows the White Witch (satan) to kill him, so that he can return from the dead in triumph, having paid for the sins of the four children (christians).

I've heard this take on the crucifixion from a number of pulpits over the years.

TedM

I think if he was murdering Christians for their beliefs about a resurrected man, he likely would have known something about the claims made for that man. I suppose that could be limited to one week in the man's life though. But, I still find it hard to believe that a resurrection belief would be applied to a nobody. Even if his original disciples didn't claim a resurrection, it would seem to me that whoever did claim it had some knowledge of him other than being a 'temple disturberer'.



I've read Paul extensively, and I don't see what others here see. I think he was genuine, and passionate about his beliefs. I think he may have had a near-death experience of some kind and it changed his life just as we see with those having such experiences today.


There is plenty more. Lots of teachings, parables, miracles, etc..The birth accounts are imo highly questionable but I'm not ready to discount a short, dramatic, and popular ministry, disciples, etc..


He DID end up dead.


One historian. He also has the TF, which I, and the majority of Josephan scholars (last I heard), think was probably only partially changed. JTB may have had a much longer ministry too.


Why would that be noteworthy? Don't you hold to the belief that they all were just thrown into a pit?


This requires followers. It seems you are ok with the idea of a small following, but not a large one? Why? Why couldn't Jesus have been a lot like as represented in the Gospels, even with some unusual 'healings' attributed to him? Is it not possible that as his ministry progressed he thought he was the One, and decided to go to Jerusalem to become the Suffering Servant?

outhouse

It was more then standing up for the common man.

It was that he sacrificed himself for the good of the people, in the most horrible way one could.

I don't know if it was Hellenist, or his few disciples that created the resurrection mythology. Im guessing later Hellenist as the mythology didn't grow in Judaism at all.

His death may have spread around a few thousand at the event, it may have spread to almost half a million people, depending on how large the disturbance actually was.

Also take into account, visions and dreams and daydreams were perceived as real to these primitive people. This was also a huge drunken party when most people once a year even ate any meat at all.




He was very passionate about his beliefs, and a skilled author.


He tells us he had a feeling within, a change of heart so to speak.

But he was also very passionate about building his case that he was a real apostle, and had to develop mythology to explain that away. The man was dead that was "sending forth" those to spread his message, and Paul was not one of those.

Judaism was wide and diverse, Paul's Judaism is in question. Not as much if he was a Jew or not but what kind was he, and did he have the education that he claimed. Problem with Paul is he claimed a lot of things. We cannot prove he wasn't a Hellenistic Proselyte who built up his Judaism to meet standards that would make him a real apostle. Paul knew only traditional Jews were real apostles. Where did Paul take his Judaism? straight to his own kind IMHO


Mythology grows. The real mans historicity "at best" is very very thin for how much literature we have.


Agreed.




Probably

What if a character named Joseph A said to one disciple he placed the body in a grave sympathetic to the movement, and left the scene. Apostle would go look and magically the body is gone and he was resurrected.

Again this could have taken 10 years or more for this tradition to grow, it could have started that weekend.


he had plenty with time.


Because the places he lived in were small poor hovels of poverty, 12 is BS from the OT.

3-4 could have survived and not looked like a threat, living off the hospitality of the poor. Were talking about poor peasants hoping to have enough grain to make their daily bread, eating lentils and olive oil and vinegar. These were very bad times for the villages jesus would have preached in.



Because it was all written by what amounts to people writing too and for Jesus enemies, far removed from the real mans actual life.

They factually wrote their compilations 40 ish years after his death in another part of the world, less Paul.

We have zero from the Jewish peasants who lived around his real movement in Galilee, nothing.


His real followers did not deify him, that would have been blasphemous to a real Jew.

Davka

I find it far more plausible that the Jesus stories are an amalgamation of any number of Messianic wannabes. They were pretty thick on the ground in the first century, and since the Jesus cult didn't really take off until well into the second century, there would have been plenty of time for various different stories to be attributed to one man.

The name Jesus (actually Y'shua, or Joshua) was quite common at the time. Look at the story of Pilate giving the mob a choice between two prisoners, Y'shua of Nazareth and Y'shua BarAbbas, for example. And since Y'shua means "YHWH will save," it's a perfect name to attach to any Messianic stories that were going around at the time.

Any first-century Messianic figure would not have been considered YHWH incarnate, or worshiped as god - that would indeed have been blasphemous. Those stories must have come later, from Hellenized Jews or (more likely) "god-fearing" Gentiles. Itinerant preachers wandering through Roman-occupied Palestine would have attracted a handful of followers, though. And the more zealous among them would have generated some very colorful stories, true or not.

outhouse

I dont buy it, but its just my opinion.

The basic beliefs of divinity were down pretty pat as Paul teaches, really dont we just see the back story being filled in later by the gospel authors?




His name is a double edged sword, I agree.

One hand common, other Yahweh saves.

Two prisoners I view as 100% fiction, taking blame away from the Romans who murdered him.


Agreed



Exactly



True


true again

aa5874

I have exposed your fallacies. There are no EXACT sentiments in the OT.

There is no claim in the OT that the Father of the Jews was the Devil and a Murderer.

I have exposed your fallacies. The Pharisees are not even mentioned in the OT.

You claimed the EXACT SAME SENTIMENTS were found in the OT.

There is no character called Jesus the Son of God in the OT who would be killed by Jews.

J-D

It's pretty much bound to be true that Joseph Smith used existing concepts at least to some extent, but it would not be correct to put it the other way round and say that the concepts used Joseph Smith; also, the origin of the LDS religion is distinguished not merely by the fact that some other people accepted some of the same concepts that Joseph Smith used, but by the fact that they accepted them from Joseph Smith.It looks to me as if some people posting to this thread are offering responses in which they don't bother to mention any human founder, but if you don't see that I can go back through the thread and quote some samples.