Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2016, 01:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 02:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  There is nothing disingenuous about it.

The Greek word is γραπτός and written ais "prographo"

"pro" is a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of,
"grapho" is a primary verb; to "grave", especially to write;

Therefore, it is parsed as "in front of written."

Then finalized as "to write previously."

Therefore ...

Gal_3:1  Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was previously written among you crucified?

Maybe, but that whole passage is talking about the Galatians being seduced away from what Paul had previously taught them. So the most sensible interpretation of that phrase is that, if it refers to a written teaching, it is a written teaching of Paul himself, not some other document. He's basically saying "Why are you foolishly letting someone else talk you out of what I taught you?"

Correct. That is how everyone I've read interprets it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 03:13 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 02:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't need to follow your idiotic outline, and I don't *have* to do anything, you moron. The things you list have NOTHING to do with it, but thanks for proving you have NO CLUE what I'm even talking about. All the details you list could have easily been invented. You have not a shred of evidence any of them were actually true. I provided the paper where I PROVED that the "exaltation" (just as Ehrman says ... but my paper was written BEFORE his book), ("being raised up") is the same as the exaltation of Jewish heroes. You are SO totally ignorant of Jewish culture, and the times that you can't even begin to see it. I see you never really read Ehrman's last book. YOU on the other hand, have never ever even written ONE paper on anything. All you can do is parrot Fundamentalist bullshit. God are you stupid.

Is that the best you can muster?

Did you see me arguing against any such exaltation? No, you did not. ALL scholars can find numerous similarities between the resurrection story of Jesus with many myths and legends.

But ... and that is a very big BUT ... just because there were supposed (improbable) exhalations of previous persons by no means indicates that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus were based on ANY of them.

You claim that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus are based upon the Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at the time.

I challenged you to provide evidence to support that assertion, and the best you can do is bring up some example of the exhalations of previous legends?

I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat.

And it should be noted that you had absolutely no explanation as to how the Gospel authors somehow managed to provide exactly the same details in their records as Paul states in his letters.

So you need to explain to me, with evidence, how those Gospel authors ended up with the exact same details concerning Jesus as Paul has, and yet not one gospel ever mentions Paul insomuch as we could determine that they got their information from him.

So let's see it, Mr. Ball.

Facepalm

"I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat."

GU loves reading his babble as "evidence." Yet not with a critical eye. The answer to his demand can be found in "Paul's" writings...

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his (Paul's) Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Jesus by what he doesn’t say than what he does. His writings, penned before the Gospels, indirectly prove that the Gospels are mainly mythical.

I think that Paul’s Christ figure was something else, a son of God who has since been retrofitted into the Gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. I suspect his few passages that suggest Christ was once a living person are interpolations. If I’m right, that shoots another arrow straight through the heart of Christianity’s legitimacy.

Paul taught that Christ was going to come back to earth soon:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess. 4; 16–18, KJV.) A few years later, in about 53 CE, Christ still hadn’t come, but Paul kept his followers primed:

“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB.)

Ten years later he was still preaching that the end of the world was approaching, and then he disappeared from the historical record.

Paul was the ringleader of a doomsday cult (http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/1...w-nt-26/). His communities lived in daily expectation of the return of Christ and the end of their earthly existence. Paul's Christ never reappeared, yet the idea is responsible for the ridiculous belief of some Christians that their Jeebus is still coming back "sometime soon."

Two thousand years later, Paul’s Christ still hasn’t reappeared and the earth is still circling around the sun, just as it has done for the last four and a half billion years, so his predictions have been proven false. I suspect he didn’t really believe the world was about to end, but that it was an idea he promoted to give his messages more impact.

A cult is a small group that has religious beliefs or practices regarded as strange or sinister. I think that was how traditional Jews regarded Paul’s communities.

Like all cult leaders, he did his best to bolster his personal power and prestige. I think his ego was partly responsible for his self-styled theology. Despite his wordy protestations that he was only working for everyone else’s welfare, his letters lay bare his burning need to browbeat the reader into believing that he was the ultimate authority. He often called his teachings

“my gospel,” (Rom 2;16 and 16;25-27) a very apt description. His gospel elevated him to the status of the master teacher, as no one else in his immediate circle was an authority on it. He arrogantly insisted this gospel of his was the only path to salvation:

“Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” (1 Cor. 15:1–3, NJB.)

Sophisticated men are interested in others’ opinions, but the puerile Paul couldn’t cope with competing convictions. Magnanimous men aren’t overly dogmatic; they give people space to find their own paths, but he’d have none of that. Authentic teachers don’t need to threaten their students; he did. I’m surprised today’s Christians aren’t appalled and turned off by his narcissism.

He insisted his readers imitate him:

“Take me for your model, as I take Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1, NJB.)

He thought he was the next best thing to God; that he was the personal deputy of his deity.

A few years later he wrote,
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, KJV.)

By then God’s right hand man had become God himself. His shoddily disguised delusions of grandeur were pathetic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 03:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 03:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 03:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Still waiting for you to get a clue and read the NT, which at one time were all completely separate documents"

Ha ha! Your only "evidence" is the NT! And even that is not very good.

I have read it, many times. I'm not convinced.

None of the original contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, they were Jews.

I don't get you. You keep saying that none of the contemporaries of Jesus were Christians, yet assert his contemporaries were Jews.

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

You are also misunderstanding the word "contemporary" as if it can only refer to either an eyewitness or someone who heard of Jesus. The truth is that anybody living at the time if Jesus would be a contemporary, even if they lived 10,000 klms away and never heard of him.

Tacitus shows us that in CE 63 Nero persecuted Christians. They were called "Christians" within 3 decades of the purported time of Jesus. Therefore, anyone whom Nero persecuted who was 30 years or older would have been a contemporary of Jesus.

Also, anyone born in the general vicinity of Jerusalem anytime in the earliest part of the 1st century could have become Christianized later on, and they would also be contemporaries of Jesus.

Now, just because the word "Christian" did not exist at the time of Jesus by no means states that the Christian faith was not based upon this same Jesus. Although the word was not coined until some time after his crucifixion, it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the origin of Christians beliefs is based upon this same Jesus.

Now the origin of Christian doctrine is a different story. Church doctrine has very little to do with Jesus, as it is more inclined to rules and regulations governing a church.

Drinking Beverage

But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?


There's little point telling you that this is not my position, because it didn't register the last 5 times I've told you. I'll just clarify for new readers that I do think there probably was an historical Yeshua. I've written a whole chapter in my book based on that assumption, yet I admit, I may be wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-08-2016, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 04:20 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 01:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:51 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  What I see Paul referring to frequently is the "Gospel" (singular), meaning "good news" or teaching. I don't think he's referring to a written Gospel in the same sense as those that appear in the Bible. In any case, this is getting a bit nitpicky. I will concede that Paul and the 4 canonical gospels probably all based their Jesus on one and the same historical person.

It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either. But let me show you a couple things ...

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

Other stuff ...

2Co_11:4  For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit, which you did not receive, or another gospel, which you never accepted, you might well endure these .

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either.


Right. So we are supposed to believe the gospels may have been already been written because Paul doesn't say they weren't written yet? Now I've heard it all. Why da fuck would Paul claim that something wasn't written yet if ...um....it hadn't been written yet?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 04:21 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 05:50 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 02:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 02:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't need to follow your idiotic outline, and I don't *have* to do anything, you moron. The things you list have NOTHING to do with it, but thanks for proving you have NO CLUE what I'm even talking about. All the details you list could have easily been invented. You have not a shred of evidence any of them were actually true. I provided the paper where I PROVED that the "exaltation" (just as Ehrman says ... but my paper was written BEFORE his book), ("being raised up") is the same as the exaltation of Jewish heroes. You are SO totally ignorant of Jewish culture, and the times that you can't even begin to see it. I see you never really read Ehrman's last book. YOU on the other hand, have never ever even written ONE paper on anything. All you can do is parrot Fundamentalist bullshit. God are you stupid.

Is that the best you can muster?



Did you see me arguing against any such exaltation? No, you did not. ALL scholars can find numerous similarities between the resurrection story of Jesus with many myths and legends.

But ... and that is a very big BUT ... just because there were supposed (improbable) exhalations of previous persons by no means indicates that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus were based on ANY of them.

You claim that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus are based upon the Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at the time.

I challenged you to provide evidence to support that assertion, and the best you can do is bring up some example of the exhalations of previous legends?

I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat.

And it should be noted that you had absolutely no explanation as to how the Gospel authors somehow managed to provide exactly the same details in their records as Paul states in his letters.

So you need to explain to me, with evidence, how those Gospel authors ended up with the exact same details concerning Jesus as Paul has, and yet not one gospel ever mentions Paul insomuch as we could determine that they got their information from him.

So let's see it, Mr. Ball.

Facepalm

So you need to explain to me, with evidence, how those Gospel authors ended up with the exact same details concerning Jesus as Paul has, and yet not one gospel ever mentions Paul insomuch as we could determine that they got their information from him.

Your "exact same details" are, in fact, bugger all. They are

1. Jesus had had a brother, James, the "lord's brother"
2. there was a last supper
3. some dude was crucified
4. some dude rose from the dead

1 and 2 amount to two brief mentions in Paul's letters. They are easily explained as amateurish interpolations.

There is, apart from the miniscule "evidence" above, a massive, stunning silence from Paul about Jeebus. When you consider the length and wordiness of all his letters, any commentator who has his feet on the ground will just know that Paul's Christ and Jeebus are two different characters. You need to sit quietly and digest that fact.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 04:41 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(11-08-2016 12:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Paul got his Jesus from Jewish Apocalyptic literature.

Right, now please produce this "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature which uses a variation of Jesus (Yeshua) and show me where:

1. He was crucified, as Paul says.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as Paul says.
3. He had 12 apostles, as Paul says.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as Paul says.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.
6. He had a brother named James, as Paul says.

Let's see this Jewish Apocalyptic literature with those elements included within it, Mr. Ball.

And then you will need to demonstrate with evidence how the Gospel writers the NT all speak of a Jesus as;

1. He was crucified, as the Gospels say.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as the Gospels say.
3. He had 12 apostles, as the Gospels say.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as the Gospels say.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as the Gospels say.
6. He has a brother named James, as the Gospels say.

Do you think these 4 Gospel writers were actually all Paul? Did they also use the same "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature as Paul did? Or are these comparisons all just some incredibly improbable coincidence?

What do you think, Mr. Ball?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.

Paul also claimed Christ was the son of God.

So jeebus had 2 dads?

Which one do you think did the.... um...you know...got Mary in the family way?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-08-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 04:41 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Right, now please produce this "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature which uses a variation of Jesus (Yeshua) and show me where:

1. He was crucified, as Paul says.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as Paul says.
3. He had 12 apostles, as Paul says.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as Paul says.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.
6. He had a brother named James, as Paul says.

Let's see this Jewish Apocalyptic literature with those elements included within it, Mr. Ball.

And then you will need to demonstrate with evidence how the Gospel writers the NT all speak of a Jesus as;

1. He was crucified, as the Gospels say.
2. He quotes the Last Supper, as the Gospels say.
3. He had 12 apostles, as the Gospels say.
4. He confessed before Pilate, as the Gospels say.
5. He was born of the seed of David, as the Gospels say.
6. He has a brother named James, as the Gospels say.

Do you think these 4 Gospel writers were actually all Paul? Did they also use the same "Jewish Apocalyptic" literature as Paul did? Or are these comparisons all just some incredibly improbable coincidence?

What do you think, Mr. Ball?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.

Paul also claimed Christ was the son of God.

So jeebus had 2 dads?

Which one do you think did the.... um...you know...got Mary in the family way?

It was a three way and they DP'd her. Gasp

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 02:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 02:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Is that the best you can muster?

Did you see me arguing against any such exaltation? No, you did not. ALL scholars can find numerous similarities between the resurrection story of Jesus with many myths and legends.

But ... and that is a very big BUT ... just because there were supposed (improbable) exhalations of previous persons by no means indicates that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus were based on ANY of them.

You claim that Paul's beliefs concerning Jesus are based upon the Jewish Apocalyptic literature available at the time.

I challenged you to provide evidence to support that assertion, and the best you can do is bring up some example of the exhalations of previous legends?

I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat.

And it should be noted that you had absolutely no explanation as to how the Gospel authors somehow managed to provide exactly the same details in their records as Paul states in his letters.

So you need to explain to me, with evidence, how those Gospel authors ended up with the exact same details concerning Jesus as Paul has, and yet not one gospel ever mentions Paul insomuch as we could determine that they got their information from him.

So let's see it, Mr. Ball.

Facepalm

"I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat."

GU loves reading his babble as "evidence." Yet not with a critical eye. The answer to his demand can be found in "Paul's" writings...

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his (Paul's) Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Jesus by what he doesn’t say than what he does. His writings, penned before the Gospels, indirectly prove that the Gospels are mainly mythical.

I think that Paul’s Christ figure was something else, a son of God who has since been retrofitted into the Gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. I suspect his few passages that suggest Christ was once a living person are interpolations. If I’m right, that shoots another arrow straight through the heart of Christianity’s legitimacy.

Paul taught that Christ was going to come back to earth soon:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess. 4; 16–18, KJV.) A few years later, in about 53 CE, Christ still hadn’t come, but Paul kept his followers primed:

“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB.)

Ten years later he was still preaching that the end of the world was approaching, and then he disappeared from the historical record.

Paul was the ringleader of a doomsday cult (http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/1...w-nt-26/). His communities lived in daily expectation of the return of Christ and the end of their earthly existence. Paul's Christ never reappeared, yet the idea is responsible for the ridiculous belief of some Christians that their Jeebus is still coming back "sometime soon."

Two thousand years later, Paul’s Christ still hasn’t reappeared and the earth is still circling around the sun, just as it has done for the last four and a half billion years, so his predictions have been proven false. I suspect he didn’t really believe the world was about to end, but that it was an idea he promoted to give his messages more impact.

A cult is a small group that has religious beliefs or practices regarded as strange or sinister. I think that was how traditional Jews regarded Paul’s communities.

Like all cult leaders, he did his best to bolster his personal power and prestige. I think his ego was partly responsible for his self-styled theology. Despite his wordy protestations that he was only working for everyone else’s welfare, his letters lay bare his burning need to browbeat the reader into believing that he was the ultimate authority. He often called his teachings

“my gospel,” (Rom 2;16 and 16;25-27) a very apt description. His gospel elevated him to the status of the master teacher, as no one else in his immediate circle was an authority on it. He arrogantly insisted this gospel of his was the only path to salvation:

“Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” (1 Cor. 15:1–3, NJB.)

Sophisticated men are interested in others’ opinions, but the puerile Paul couldn’t cope with competing convictions. Magnanimous men aren’t overly dogmatic; they give people space to find their own paths, but he’d have none of that. Authentic teachers don’t need to threaten their students; he did. I’m surprised today’s Christians aren’t appalled and turned off by his narcissism.

He insisted his readers imitate him:

“Take me for your model, as I take Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1, NJB.)

He thought he was the next best thing to God; that he was the personal deputy of his deity.

A few years later he wrote,
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, KJV.)

By then God’s right hand man had become God himself. His shoddily disguised delusions of grandeur were pathetic.

So you somehow believe that your crackpot conspiracy theory answers the question of, "I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none."

If anything you said or wrote was ever considered noteworthy to be reviewed by scholars, I suspect they would not even bother writing up a response. They would see what I see; a madman babbling in the abyss of bullshit.

You don't even know that you haven't provided any evidence. What you have provided is an opinion so improbable due to a lack of support that it is simply more unbelievable than Jesus walking on water.

Those who are into fantasy fiction might be drawn to your concepts, but those of us who are looking for actually history will not view what you claim as being anything other than a work of fiction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 10:34 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:
Quote:But your position is that Jesus never existed, so how could he have Jewish contemporaries if he never existed?

There's little point telling you that this is not my position, because it didn't register the last 5 times I've told you. I'll just clarify for new readers that I do think there probably was an historical Yeshua. I've written a whole chapter in my book based on that assumption, yet I admit, I may be wrong.

Then how can you respond to my position on Jesus- whom you claim never existed- as if my position was directed towards your version of "Yeshua?"

You are seriously equivocating, demonstrating obvious confusion.

Quote:
Quote:It may true that the language does not specifically say that the Gospels floating around were written, but also it doesn't say they weren't either.

Right. So we are supposed to believe the gospels may have been already written because Paul doesn't say they weren't written yet? Now I've heard it all. Why da fuck would Paul claim that something wasn't written yet if ...um....it hadn't been written yet?

If you would stop quoting out of context in atypical mythicist fashion you would have demonstrated the intellectual honesty and integrity to also quote the rest of my position which says:

Quote:This is good evidence that demonstrates that information regarding Jesus was in fact written down during Paul's time. Whether this was a gospel or not is unclear.

ORIGINAL QUOTE HERE.

But of course that is far too much to expect from a denialist such as yourself.

Quote:amateurish interpolations.

Who, what, where, when, and why.

You cannot produce the standard of evidence required to qualify your assertion of interpolation. In fact, you cannot even answer one of the 5 Ws.

Therefore, you have no case, and are subsequently dismissed.

Quote:5. He was born of the seed of David, as Paul says.

Paul also claimed Christ was the son of God.

So jeebus had 2 dads?

Which one do you think did the.... um...you know...got Mary in the family way?

Completely irrelevant to the point, leaving my point not contested.

Dismissed also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2016, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 04:39 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(12-08-2016 08:17 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 02:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none, Mr. Ball. Nada. Squat."

GU loves reading his babble as "evidence." Yet not with a critical eye. The answer to his demand can be found in "Paul's" writings...

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his (Paul's) Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and

“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Jesus by what he doesn’t say than what he does. His writings, penned before the Gospels, indirectly prove that the Gospels are mainly mythical.

I think that Paul’s Christ figure was something else, a son of God who has since been retrofitted into the Gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. I suspect his few passages that suggest Christ was once a living person are interpolations. If I’m right, that shoots another arrow straight through the heart of Christianity’s legitimacy.

Paul taught that Christ was going to come back to earth soon:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess. 4; 16–18, KJV.) A few years later, in about 53 CE, Christ still hadn’t come, but Paul kept his followers primed:

“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB.)

Ten years later he was still preaching that the end of the world was approaching, and then he disappeared from the historical record.

Paul was the ringleader of a doomsday cult (http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2006/1...w-nt-26/). His communities lived in daily expectation of the return of Christ and the end of their earthly existence. Paul's Christ never reappeared, yet the idea is responsible for the ridiculous belief of some Christians that their Jeebus is still coming back "sometime soon."

Two thousand years later, Paul’s Christ still hasn’t reappeared and the earth is still circling around the sun, just as it has done for the last four and a half billion years, so his predictions have been proven false. I suspect he didn’t really believe the world was about to end, but that it was an idea he promoted to give his messages more impact.

A cult is a small group that has religious beliefs or practices regarded as strange or sinister. I think that was how traditional Jews regarded Paul’s communities.

Like all cult leaders, he did his best to bolster his personal power and prestige. I think his ego was partly responsible for his self-styled theology. Despite his wordy protestations that he was only working for everyone else’s welfare, his letters lay bare his burning need to browbeat the reader into believing that he was the ultimate authority. He often called his teachings

“my gospel,” (Rom 2;16 and 16;25-27) a very apt description. His gospel elevated him to the status of the master teacher, as no one else in his immediate circle was an authority on it. He arrogantly insisted this gospel of his was the only path to salvation:

“Brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, the gospel that you received and in which you are firmly established; because the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you - believing anything else will not lead to anything” (1 Cor. 15:1–3, NJB.)

Sophisticated men are interested in others’ opinions, but the puerile Paul couldn’t cope with competing convictions. Magnanimous men aren’t overly dogmatic; they give people space to find their own paths, but he’d have none of that. Authentic teachers don’t need to threaten their students; he did. I’m surprised today’s Christians aren’t appalled and turned off by his narcissism.

He insisted his readers imitate him:

“Take me for your model, as I take Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1, NJB.)

He thought he was the next best thing to God; that he was the personal deputy of his deity.

A few years later he wrote,
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, KJV.)

By then God’s right hand man had become God himself. His shoddily disguised delusions of grandeur were pathetic.

So you somehow believe that your crackpot conspiracy theory answers the question of, "I want your actual evidence that Paul created a myth called Jesus, and you have shown me none."

If anything you said or wrote was ever considered noteworthy to be reviewed by scholars, I suspect they would not even bother writing up a response. They would see what I see; a madman babbling in the abyss of bullshit.

You don't even know that you haven't provided any evidence. What you have provided is an opinion so improbable due to a lack of support that it is simply more unbelievable than Jesus walking on water.

Those who are into fantasy fiction might be drawn to your concepts, but those of us who are looking for actually history will not view what you claim as being anything other than a work of fiction.

"If anything you said or wrote was ever considered noteworthy to be reviewed by scholars, I suspect they would not even bother writing up a response. They would see what I see; a madman babbling in the abyss of bullshit. You don't even know that you haven't provided any evidence. What you have provided is an opinion so improbable due to a lack of support that it is simply more unbelievable than Jesus walking on water. Those who are into fantasy fiction might be drawn to your concepts, but those of us who are looking for actually history will not view what you claim as being anything other than a work of fiction."

As usual, you have addressed none of my points. You are simply spouting abusive expletives.

If you actually knew something about the topic, you would
A) Address my arguments.
B) Know enough to realise that numerous commentators, not just myself, have pointed out that Paul's Christ may not be Jeebus.
C) Be polite, and interested in this important topic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: