Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2015, 08:22 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(09-07-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

I wrote "both the Penteteuch and the other OT books" AGAIN showing the distinct lines of thought.

Consider:

* The prophets reprove people for not following the Mosaic Law, demonstrating they wrote earlier than JDEP insists the Mosaic Law/Penteteuch was written

* Archaeology verifies hundreds of Penteteuch and OTHER OT names, people, locations, design details, etc. and thus demonstrates it is God's Word, simply by accepting the earlier, conservative dates for the Penteteuch and OTHER OT books, and then recognizing that prophecies were fulfilled (example, between the Babylonian diaspora and the time of the Septuagint)

* I said Mark said Jesus was a Roman as MARK again cited (without textual or corroborative evidence) the NT as Roman fabrication theory while using the name Jesus (in error without using the words "epistle", "Paul", etc.) - wholly Mark's issue/fault

You all have word salad, simply prove the later dating of the Penteteuch OR prove the later dating of the prophets OR prove the Roman theories of NT formation and I would have to renounce Christianity. Until then... Smile

"...and I would have to renounce Christianity."

Why don't you just cool your jets? You don't have to renounce anything. Just become interested in history and philosophy and be more open-minded. There will be plenty of time for you to give up Christianity in the future. Baby steps for now.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(09-07-2015 10:22 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  * The prophets reprove people for not following the Mosaic Law, demonstrating they wrote earlier than JDEP insists the Mosaic Law/Penteteuch was written

?????

It "demonstrates" no such thing. The only thing it demonstrates is that the Mosaic Law existed at the time the prophetic books were written. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before that (there is also no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before it was written down). Orthodox Jews still follow the Mosaic Law today. Does that mean it was formulated yesterday? Do you even logic?

"I do logic". The prophets reprove people for not following written/inscribed laws, mention the former tabernacle, mention Moses as a person, etc. and not just oral laws or traditions. Again, if you and TTA members would read the Bible before dissecting it you'd remain as logical personally, but more correct.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(09-07-2015 12:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  * The prophets reprove people for not following the Mosaic Law, demonstrating they wrote earlier than JDEP insists the Mosaic Law/Penteteuch was written

* Archaeology verifies hundreds of Penteteuch and OTHER OT names, people, locations, design details, etc. and thus demonstrates it is God's Word, simply by accepting the earlier, conservative dates for the Penteteuch and OTHER OT books, and then recognizing that prophecies were fulfilled (example, between the Babylonian diaspora and the time of the Septuagint)

Totally FALSE. ALL of it.
There was no Moses, and the "law that humans (later) created" was LABELED "Mosaic Law". The fact that ancient Near Eastern customs which were sanctioned by the priests and codified, and LATER labeled "Mosaic Law" is proof of NOTHING except they slapped a label on it to give it validity. It's like Americans calling something LATER "Jeffersonian" in the sense that the labelers THINK it is in conformity with what they THINK (an immaginary) Moses or Jefferson, might have approved of.

Archeology "verifies" no such thing. The fact that there is a site called "Abraham's tomb" in no way proves THE Biblical Abraham existed or that he is burried there. The fact that some similar names were found (such as Jerrico ... and BTW archeology PROVES the Biblical events at Jerrico did not and could not have happened the way the Bible says they did) is proof of NOTHING except that these were common names floating around and were applied to some places and LATER written into the Bible.

You have no, (as in ZERO) edication in Biblical Studies, Q.
You have NO clue what you're babbling about.
No scholar agrees with your bullshit.

My question to Q is : "If the Bible is PROVEN to be "God's word" and IF that is done by fulfilled prophecy, then what is the threshold for acceptance of this concept ? 25 %, 10 %, 5 % ? We know for a fact that many Biblical prophecies did not come true. So what is the empirical cut-off point at which the notion verifies the claim, exactly ? 55.62 % coming true ? What exactly is the threshold beyond which the notion is dismissed as false. If you HAVE no such standard, you are an intellectual fraud.

Also Q, you say that there are Bible codes. I want to know what the threshold for belief in that crap is also ? We know for a FACT, that the same sorts of "codes" are found in any work of literature, incluing Shakespeare. If that is the case, what is the standard for "codes present" that meets the standard for belief in a bullshit deity. 10 ? 15 ? 75 ? 50 ? What is the standard for coding that makes a book "divinely inspired" or not. You MUST have one or the entire enterprise is irrational. How do I decide a book is "the word" ? How many and how much BETTER must the codes be, than the codes everywhere else, that are so ubiquitous in all of literature, to constitute your "proof" ? Also please tell us, since Hebrew was written right to left with no breaks, and Greek was written with no breaks, in what language and what version EXACTLY are you taking your codes coming from, and also WHAT EXACTLY would falsify a particualar book from your canon. I want to know the EXACT standard number or percentage used to differentiate. If you have non, you're simply full of shit.

There are thousands, not dozens, of archaeology points that validate the Bible text, which is a collection of extensive texts with many thousands of place names, people names, and other details, as I've already written.

I do have a biblical education. You might have forgotten, although to be frank, when you rage on and on like this I wonder if you are drinking or high when you make attacks on my education. I have a humanities degree, a Religion Bachelor's degree from a secular university, with an emphasis on biblical studies, the ANE and NT Christianity. I chose for my language study ancient Greek. I've studied Hebrew some as well. I've discussed Bible doctrines with all kinds of experts from professors at my university (for 25 years now, still) to Norman Geisler, Michael Behe, Hal Lindsey, etc. -- conservatives and liberals with different perspectives, credentials, etc. A lot of scholars, with more degrees each than you or I will ever hold, agree with me. You are wrong. It would be more correct to say "many scholars don't agree with your fundie nonsense," to which my reply would be "many scholars don't agree with your mainline nonsense". I hope that helps.

To answer your (rudely asserted) question, the standard of accuracy I'd expect from a Bible from God would be 100%. 100% of church age prophecies have come true. The next batches of prophecies coming include the restoration of temple worship in Israel, peace between Israel and the Arabs, Antichrist, Armageddon and the Return of Jesus.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(09-07-2015 08:14 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

I wrote "both the Penteteuch and the other OT books" AGAIN showing the distinct lines of thought.

Consider:

* The prophets reprove people for not following the Mosaic Law, demonstrating they wrote earlier than JDEP insists the Mosaic Law/Penteteuch was written

* Archaeology verifies hundreds of Penteteuch and OTHER OT names, people, locations, design details, etc. and thus demonstrates it is God's Word, simply by accepting the earlier, conservative dates for the Penteteuch and OTHER OT books, and then recognizing that prophecies were fulfilled (example, between the Babylonian diaspora and the time of the Septuagint)

* I said Mark said Jesus was a Roman as MARK again cited (without textual or corroborative evidence) the NT as Roman fabrication theory

You all have word salad, simply prove the later dating of the Penteteuch OR prove the later dating of the prophets OR prove the Roman theories of NT formation and I would have to renounce Christianity. Until then... Smile

"Mark said Jesus was a Roman"

No I didn't. I am Mark. I know what I say. Are you going to try to prove to me that you know what I say, and I don't?

"...while using the name Jesus (in error without using the words "epistle", "Paul", etc.) - wholly Mark's issue/fault"

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Do you?

You keep repeating the same things over and over. You somehow imagine we don't understand what you're trying to say. Yet you've failed to address the multiple issues we have bought up with your statements. We are trying to move the conversation on, but you are just repeating yourself. You didn't watch the 10 minute video I linked you to, yet you managed to claim, again, that I have no evidence for "my" theories.

Very simply put, when you use terms like "the Roman Jesus" you were fair game. Better next time to write "the Roman conspiracy surrounding Jesus". I can't be blamed if you write so carelessly.

Do you have proof that Paul was a Roman (beyond the fact that he claimed to be a Benjamite descendant of Jacob, was a Pharisee, gave thousands of verses of Mishnah and Halachic discussions of Tanakh, while remarking once that his esteemed family provided him with full Roman citizenship) or not?

And again, I note that you offer videos and mainline "scholarly" opinions, yet I can't recall you or BB ever quoting to me an original thought. If you're going to waste my time and that of the sincere skeptics around here with wacky ideas, at least make them your own, and not the nonsense you pulled off an educational website...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 10:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  100% of church age prophecies have come true.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

You are better than many comedians. Where do you get this stuff? And what exactly distinguishes a "church age" prophecy from your garden variety prophecy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
10-07-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 10:22 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ?????

It "demonstrates" no such thing. The only thing it demonstrates is that the Mosaic Law existed at the time the prophetic books were written. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before that (there is also no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before it was written down). Orthodox Jews still follow the Mosaic Law today. Does that mean it was formulated yesterday? Do you even logic?

"I do logic". The prophets reprove people for not following written/inscribed laws, mention the former tabernacle, mention Moses as a person, etc. and not just oral laws or traditions. Again, if you and TTA members would read the Bible before dissecting it you'd remain as logical personally, but more correct.

Um, so what??? Why are you still trying to knock down the straw man? None of this "demonstrates" that the entire Pentateuch must have been written hundreds of years earlier, which is what you are claiming. Nothing in your post conflicts with the documentary hypothesis (as it really is, not as you pretend to misunderstand it).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
10-07-2015, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 01:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 10:22 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ?????

It "demonstrates" no such thing. The only thing it demonstrates is that the Mosaic Law existed at the time the prophetic books were written. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before that (there is also no reason why it couldn't have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years before it was written down). Orthodox Jews still follow the Mosaic Law today. Does that mean it was formulated yesterday? Do you even logic?

"I do logic". The prophets reprove people for not following written/inscribed laws, mention the former tabernacle, mention Moses as a person, etc. and not just oral laws or traditions. Again, if you and TTA members would read the Bible before dissecting it you'd remain as logical personally, but more correct.

"The next batches of prophecies coming include the restoration of temple worship in Israel, peace between Israel and the Arabs, Antichrist, Armageddon and the Return of Jesus. " LOL. You are hilarious.There is no temple to worship in. Your Jebus is LONG dead. He said the endtime would come in the lifetimes of some standing with him. Just like you, I guess he was a liar too.

Apparently you only do "believer biased logic". No one names anyone "as a person". Just the name. Just like myths mentioning Zeus.
All claims with not a shred of evidence. No more "verified" than the Greeks mentioning their mythological gods, in Greek places. I know the Bible far better than you. You have no EVIDENCE for your claims. I already have FAR more education in the subject than you have, or will ever have.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2015, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 12:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 10:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are thousands, not dozens, of archaeology points that validate the Bible text, which is a collection of extensive texts with many thousands of place names, people names, and other details, as I've already written.

So you got nothing. You can't and didn't answer the questions put to you. Seems to be going around this week. You have a "fundie" not mainline education. You demonstrate no competence in analysis of the texts at hand. You make ignorant claims, and are unable to back them up. Michael Behe ....hahahahahahahahaha.
I see why you talk such nonsense. LOL. It doesn't "help" You don't even know how Archaeology is done. Jewish Israeli archaeology has debunked almost all of the OT, dtes and places. You are just too ignorant and delusional to have even read about any of it. Mentioning place names, proves nothing. And you can't even deal with one example. Archaeology has proven nothing except the OT is mostly fiction.

(10-07-2015 10:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The standard of accuracy I'd expect from a Bible from God would be 100%. 100% of church age prophecies have come true. The next batches of prophecies coming include the restoration of temple worship in Israel, peace between Israel and the Arabs, Antichrist, Armageddon and the Return of Jesus.

Then you are a delusional fool, who wouldn't know the truth if it hit you on the head.

You have the ability to refute NOTHING from any of the following :
















Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 11:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And again, I note that you [Mark Fulton] offer videos and mainline "scholarly" opinions, yet I can't recall you or BB ever quoting to me an original thought. If you're going to waste my time and that of the sincere skeptics around here with wacky ideas, at least make them your own, and not the nonsense you pulled off an educational website...

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

You're too funny. When they do offer their own opinions, you protest "Those are just your opinions" and ask for references. When they give you references, you protest that: "You're just quoting people. I want your own opinions." Seems you won't be satisfied with anything. Can you say "two-faced"?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
10-07-2015, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 05:05 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(10-07-2015 11:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 08:14 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Mark said Jesus was a Roman"

No I didn't. I am Mark. I know what I say. Are you going to try to prove to me that you know what I say, and I don't?

"...while using the name Jesus (in error without using the words "epistle", "Paul", etc.) - wholly Mark's issue/fault"

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Do you?

You keep repeating the same things over and over. You somehow imagine we don't understand what you're trying to say. Yet you've failed to address the multiple issues we have bought up with your statements. We are trying to move the conversation on, but you are just repeating yourself. You didn't watch the 10 minute video I linked you to, yet you managed to claim, again, that I have no evidence for "my" theories.

Very simply put, when you use terms like "the Roman Jesus" you were fair game. Better next time to write "the Roman conspiracy surrounding Jesus". I can't be blamed if you write so carelessly.

Do you have proof that Paul was a Roman (beyond the fact that he claimed to be a Benjamite descendant of Jacob, was a Pharisee, gave thousands of verses of Mishnah and Halachic discussions of Tanakh, while remarking once that his esteemed family provided him with full Roman citizenship) or not?

And again, I note that you offer videos and mainline "scholarly" opinions, yet I can't recall you or BB ever quoting to me an original thought. If you're going to waste my time and that of the sincere skeptics around here with wacky ideas, at least make them your own, and not the nonsense you pulled off an educational website...

"Very simply put, when you use terms like "the Roman Jesus" you were fair game."

Quote me to prove your point. I have scores of comments on this forum stating that I think Jesus (if he ever even existed) was a fundamentalist Jewish zealot opposed to Roman rule. This " Mark thinks Jesus was a Roman" idea is a figment of your imagination.

"Do you have proof that Paul was a Roman (beyond the fact that he claimed to be a Benjamite descendant of Jacob, was a Pharisee, gave thousands of verses of Mishnah and Halachic discussions of Tanakh, while remarking once that his esteemed family provided him with full Roman citizenship) or not?"

You imply that being Jewish precluded people from becoming Roman citizens. I'm not sure where you got that idea because it is simply not true.

Ok...here we go again... looks like I need to educate you with some basic facts about Paul...note I will even give you some quality links so you can round out your knowledge. When you reply, I expect you to demonstrate some evidence that you have read what I wrote...

Not a lot is known about Paul’s early life. According to the author of Acts, Paul was a Jew from Tarsus, a city in modern-day Turkey:

“But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people” (Acts 21:39, KJV.)

Tarsus was a large cosmopolitan city on the shore of the Mediterranean, and a thriving commercial center. In Paul’s day it was already ancient; a two-thousand-year-old seaport. A pagan religious cult, Mithraism, which originated in Persia, was very popular there, and many other faith based groups flourished there as well.

Jews living in Tarsus were a minority, yet, as was usual throughout the Diaspora, (the places where Jews lived outside of Israel) Jews living there in Paul’s time were tolerated and respected.

The book of Acts has Paul claiming his education was at Gamaliel’s school in Jerusalem. (Gamaliel was a well-known Jewish rabbi.)

“...brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day” (Acts 22:3, KJV.)

Yet Paul writes nothing in his own letters about being Gamaliel’s student, or growing up in Jerusalem. It is only the author of Acts, who never claimed he knew Paul, who makes these claims.

Although Paul presents himself as an expert in Judaism, he is not accepted as such by Jewish scholars today - and they, of all people, are most qualified to make such an assessment.

Paul had only a moderate understanding of, and no real respect for Pharisaic Judaism. He was not as endeared towards Judaism as a typical Pharisee should be. The account in Acts makes it clear that Paul was less than successful in preaching to Jews who were zealous in their beliefs. In fact Paul preferred to preach to “Hellenized”

( http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/...eligionofm
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...-of-tarsus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Ap...nd_Judaism )

Jews, or to Gentiles attracted to Judaism, because he thought he understood them, particularly the social problems “the Law” created for them.

Tarsus was not a center of Pharisaic teaching, and evidence for the existence of Pharisees living outside Palestine in Paul’s time is weak. It is possible that the author of Acts invented Paul’s Pharisaic past to augment a tenuous Judaic link between Yeshua’s Judaism and Paul’s Christianity.

Paul was reputedly a tent maker by trade, but this was hardly his calling in life. Paul was a passionate philosopher and theologian, and it is obvious from his letters that what inspired him most was evangelizing others to convince them of his beliefs.

Paul spoke and wrote in Greek, and he had a reasonable understanding of Greek culture and philosophy. He could probably speak Aramaic too, given that he argued with James, Peter and other Jews in Jerusalem.

Paul changed his original name, Saul, to Paul, in honor of a Roman governor. Some scholars have suggested that Paul may not have been a Jew, because his theology is so obviously influenced by Gentile ideas. Yet Paul was Jewish in the sense that he had been born into a Jewish family and had been raised as such. Paul certainly passed himself off as a Jew. He claimed,

“I was circumcised when I was eight days old. As for the law I was a Pharisee; as for working for religion, I was a persecutor of the Church, as far as the Law can make you perfect, I was faultless” (Phil. 3:5–6, NJB.)

(http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and...4/who-was- paul)

Paul declared he was educated in what he called the

[i]“... traditions of my ancestors,”[/i] (Gal 1:14, NJB)

and he clearly had a moderate understanding of Jewish beliefs. Whether Paul had a genuine respect for those beliefs is another matter.

Paul was a Roman citizen, a status he may have inherited from his parents, (Acts 22:28) although how they came to be Roman citizens is unknown. Paul’s family would have enjoyed tax breaks because they were Roman. The prestige of having the same rights and status as a native Roman was attractive. In mercantile states and cities such as Tarsus, the fact that the government embraced the upper classes of the native population was one of the most successful weapons in the Roman arsenal, as it helped them control the common people. Paul would have been comfortable communicating with Romans, and with higher-ranking Jewish officials.

Paul’s education was obviously eclectic, as Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian and other cultures influenced him. He was an urbane, well- travelled intellectual Jew from a well-off pro-Roman family that had successfully assimilated in a multicultural city.

Paul probably spent much time in his youth discussing philosophical and theological issues with educated Greek friends. As a young man he would have enjoyed the lifestyle, freedom, and stimulation of living in a peaceful, successful part of the Roman Empire. Paul was from a very different world to Yeshua, a zealot from the backwater of Galilee, who was very likely illiterate, xenophobic and poor. (Q, please read that sentence again.) The differences between cosmopolitan, coastal, cultured Tarsus and heated, hostile Galilee would have been startling. Paul was at home with Romans and greatly admired their culture. Yeshua had grown up in a narrow-minded Jewish environment awash with deep resentment against Gentiles. Some of Yeshua’s friends and relatives had been killed under Roman rule (such as John the Baptist, and the thousands of Galileans killed by Roman soldiers in 4 BCE and 6 CE.) Paul and Yeshua were both Jews, but they could hardly have been more different. ( Q, perhaps you could read this whole paragraph again.)

What drove Paul so ardently in his efforts? Did the Roman government employ Paul to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism? Was the Roman government trying to stop a war?

Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, who had already been and gone, maybe because Rome did not want hopeful Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic Messiah who would challenge Roman rule.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse.

All Jews felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews in the Diaspora did not assimilate well with Gentiles in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of the Jews’ Palestinian connections and the religion that inspired their obvious differences.

Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government could not pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. The government needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. The government was probably frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. Maybe the government thought that if it could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda, it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

In an effort to achieve this, it is conceivable that Rome had a network of covert agents engaged in suppression of Jewish extremists, and that Paul was one of them. If so, there might have been many “Pauls” working as government employees. Paul wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it is obvious from his letter that this group already had some beliefs about a Christ, beliefs that they may have learned about from one of Paul’s co-workers.

The Roman government must have been worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles. Paul’s role may have been to stop the spread of the subversive religion. If so, Paul tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their Messianic message. It could be that he passed information about the Nazarenes on to Roman authorities.

Paul’s “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his rather dubious, yet ardently promoted, modus operandi.

This could explain why Paul wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the Jewish ethnocentric antisocial practices. Paul’s (and the government’s) aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. They failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

What actual evidence is there that Paul was a funded insurgent? It is known that Paul was a Roman citizen, yet, if the account in the book of Acts is to be believed, Paul did not publicly reveal himself as such until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers, which indicates that Paul was trying to norm with the community, and simultaneously hide his true identity. Being a funded agent would help explain how Paul managed to support himself financially, and undertake his ministry without doing any tent making.

It might also be why Paul hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery.

Paul’s writings make it clear that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. Paul often insisted that the Torah was obsolete. He was, by anyone’s standards, over zealous in promoting his own theology, and too diligent in denigrating any Jewish beliefs that might be thought of as promoting Jewish exclusivity.

This idea makes clear why Paul not only promoted his new interpretation of Judaism, but also why Paul aligned himself with the non- religious administration of the Romans; the following is an extract from Paul’s letter to a Roman Jewish community:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 NIV.)

One could argue that Paul sounds more like a pro administration lobbyist than an evangelist.

This theory would explain the way Paul finished off his letter to the Philippians:

All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.)

Paul had contact with the Emperor Nero’s (Roman Emperor from 54-68 CE) family, and even permitted himself to speak on their behalf!

Paul being a Roman associate fits with the fact the book of Acts states:

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.)

The earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

Paul being a government agent would explain why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by Jews, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. There is little doubt that fundamentalist Jews would have viewed Paul as a charlatan.

Paul’s so-called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem does not necessarily mean that he was not in league with Rome. Paul was, in fact, being protected. Things had got a little out of control and Paul became a source of civil unrest, a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, Paul incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome did not want.

The “arrest” was, in fact, for Paul’s own safety. If Paul had not been arrested, Jews, Jesus’ own people, might have killed him.

Reading between the lines, Paul was never treated by the Romans like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. Paul had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place for his own protection.

If Paul was a spy, he was a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan, and he knew that he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end. This would mean that Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist Messiah.

We do not hear from Paul after he is placed under so called “house arrest” in Rome in the early 60s. Palestine was nearly out of control. The anti-Jewish propaganda project had not worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be brought in. Paul had become redundant. The government no longer needed him. There is a Christian “tradition” that Paul was executed in Rome, but there is no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence that it did.

Rome was not into controlling people’s minds or interfering with their belief systems unless they started impacting on Rome’s ability to garner supply of goods, services and money. Jewish messianic beliefs, such as those entertained by the Nazarenes, did just that.

If Paul’s project had been successful, the first (66-70 CE) and the second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. Yet it was doomed to failure. People who have been bought up in a strong
( http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...d-to-paul- of-tarsus-it-isnt-what-you-think.html )

religious faith rarely change their allegiances. A modern analogy might be Christian missionaries trying to promote Christianity in a strongly Islamic country such as Afghanistan.

Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon, who co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” came to a similar conclusion about Paul. They postulated that Paul was:

“...supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other –worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

Some more interesting reading for you...

http://www.amazon.com/Between-Rome-Jerusalem-Roman- Judaean-Relations/dp/0275971406
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree/romned.html http://www.uhcg.org/HoI/James-Bro-of-Jesus.html
http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/jesus-pacifist- shepherd-or-zealot-warrior/
http://bhairavah.blogspot.com.au/2009/11...jesus.html
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/libr...s-jews-by- josephus/id345414791
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLypbbijk2I
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: