Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2012, 01:56 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(26-11-2012 12:22 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  This thread has become confusing. Are you guys debating semantics about what constitutes 'details' about a living person?

Specifically this:

You said: "Free....the fact remains
Paul rambled on about his "Christ" and said virtually nothing about a
once living person. If he thought his "Christ" was a recently departed
once living person he would have documented details about that
person...but he doesn't!"
Versus this:

1. The Last Supper. (1Cor 11:34 - 36)

2. Jesus was betrayed. (1Cor 11:33)

3. Jesus was in the presence of Pontius Pilate. (1Tim 6:13)

4. Jesus was crucified. (Numerous places)

5. Jesus was resurrected. (Numerous places)

6. Baptism by water. (Various places)

7. Miracles being performed as per Gospel instructions from Jesus. (1 Cor 12:10, 12:28, 12:29, Gal 3:5)

8. Gospel being preached as per Jesus' commandment. (Numerous places)

9. He names several of the original apostles. (Various places)



These are indeed details of the life of Jesus that can found in the Gospel record. This is completely indisputable.
Hi...yeah....it's hard to follow. It's a real interesting topic though. I'll summarize the guts of it for you. (I hope I do justice to what Free is saying...if I'm not he can clarify).

I think Paul's Christ wasn't Jesus. That's a big statement, and it has profound implications for the legitimacy of Christianity, because Paul was the founder of Christian theology. I think Paul's "Christ," the son of god, has been written into the gospels, probably in the second century.

Free disagrees. He thinks the 4 gospels were in existence in Justin's day(c.150-160) and I think, but I'm not sure, somehow he believes that means that my above assertion is incorrect. Free thinks Paul wrote about Jesus, and has provided a list of references from Paul's letters that he claims prove Paul was writing about Jesus. I strongly disagree. Please see my reply to this no 247. I think Paul's Christ was a crucified son of god...and that's it. I know Paul had contact with the brother and disciples of Yeshua (Jesus), namely James, Peter and John, but that doesn't mean Paul thought Yeshua was " Christ" It is very clear Paul fought tooth and nail with James and Peter, not something you do with the son of god's brother and friend LOL.

Please join in the discussion. Feel free to comment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Smile RE: Who was Saint Paul?
OK, I'm back on track, thanks for clarifying. Having re-read post #247, your angle makes perfect sense... Paul was writing about a conceptual Jesus rather then the actual human being known as Jesus?

I'd love to participate, but this is well beyond my knowledge base so I'll stick to lurking. Enjoying the info! Wink

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
27-11-2012, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 02:35 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Your tone is starting to sound inflammatory. Let's keep it civil, Ok? Thanks for the the attempted history lesson, but you've taught me nothing I didn't know, ( I have actually spent about 2 months researching and then writing 2 chapters on the bible's compilation), and you're wrong on a few points.

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.

Quote:The names are important. You yourself have claimed Papias was talking about Matthew and Mark in 125 CE, and you claimed this was evidence for the authorship of the gospels. Eusebius and others, who you seem to hold in high regard, attempted to explain how these 4 wrote the gospels. They were lying.

You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.

Quote:Irenaeus is the first person ever to mention the four authors, in 180-190 CE, and Justin died in 165 CE, so Justin didn't know of these four, so your claim that Justin was a "contemporary" of Irenaeus is only half true.

It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.

Quote:There was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity" in the second century. The fact that you could make such a statement causes me to wince. If you're referring to what became catholicism, it did start to get the upper hand, in Rome, in the later second century, but was still in opposition to Marcion, various gnostic groups and numerous others.

It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.


Quote:I'll post more shortly. In the meantime, check out your own "facts" ...where you claim Paul is talking about Jesus. I looked up all of your quotations...and commented on them, and you haven't replied. Your supposed links between Paul's writing and an historical Yeshua are weak, weak, weak. I've even pasted them out for you (and others) to see. They do way more for my argument than yours.

I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:

Quote:1 Corinthians 12;10

"10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" He could 've been referring to anyone!LOL

1 Corinthians 12;28,29

"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." DITTO LOL

"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles" HUH? YOUR POINT?

Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.



Quote:Galatians 3;5

"5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? So SOMEONE (Paul's spirit/man), not Jeebus, worked miracles.

But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.

Quote:I agree he named James, Peter and John. That doesn't mean he thought Yeshua was his Christ.

Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:

Quote:Gal 2:8 For He who empowered Peter to be an apostle to the circumcision is the same who was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:

Quote:1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:

Quote:Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.

Quote:Sorry Free, your "evidence" isn't evidence. Things are not as simple as you make out. I stand by my assertion that Paul's Christ was not Yeshua.

I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(27-11-2012 10:26 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  OK, I'm back on track, thanks for clarifying. Having re-read post #247, your angle makes perfect sense... Paul was writing about a conceptual Jesus rather then the actual human being known as Jesus?

I'd love to participate, but this is well beyond my knowledge base so I'll stick to lurking. Enjoying the info! Wink



Paul talked a lot about his "Christ". He referred on a few occasions to the "mystery of Christ." He only occasionally mentions the name "Jesus," and I strongly suspect, but can't absolutely prove, that when "he" does use the "Jesus" word, it's an interpolation. We know that second century Christians fiddled with Paul's writings and the gospels. It's a well established fact. One classic example is the interpolated resurrection story that was added to the end of Mark's gospel. It's pretty well established Paul's letters are "cut and paste" jobs, so people wouldn't have thought twice about adding the odd "Jesus" into his writings.

Some of Free's quotations are from the "pastoral epistles." Unknown authors forged them: they are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, which made a case for a church structure and promoted obedience to priests. They also implied a more human Jesus than the earlier Paulines. They can't be used as evidence that Paul thought Christ was Jesus.

Who then, was Paul's Christ? Good question. I've spent way too many hours trying to work that out. Here is what I've written. Apologies to anyone who's read this before...


Paul Knew Nothing of the Jesus in the Gospels

Most Christians assume Paul was restating the wisdom of Jesus, but he never claimed he received inspiration from Jesus or from Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his message came from God and was about his Christ. It was not from Jesus.Paul's Christ was someone completely different from the miracle-working preacher in the Gospels, the Jesus we think we know. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did! Paul, like all first century “Christians,” wasn’t even sure of the true nature of his Christ figure:“Must I go on boasting, though there is nothing to be gained by it? But I will move onto the visions and revelations I have had from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up—whether still in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—right into the third heaven. I do know however; that this same person—whether in the body or out of the body. I do not know; God knows—was caught up into paradise and heard things which must not and cannot be put into the human language” (2 Cor. 12:1–4, NJB). Paul was claiming he’d received visions and revelations from the Lord (Yahweh.) He was unsure whether his Christ was a man or a spirit. Some rabbis (and Mithraic priests) distinguished seven levels in heaven, and Paul thought Christ had ascended to level three.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). He was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. He thought 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). He didn't give a fig tree about the life or teaching of a once living human Jesus. The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. He rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ's death, not his life.The authors and editors of the Gospels may have superimposed Paul’s “Christ” into the biographies of Jesus in the gospels, and edited “Jesus” into them where Paul had written only “Christ.”


Who then, was Paul’s Christ? Douglas Lockhart (http://douglaslockhart.com/) and a number of other scholars think it could have been the “Teacher of Righteousness” written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many theories as to who this character was, one of which is that he was the ghost of an Essenian leader who lived perhaps a hundred years before Yeshua who had been executed by persons unknown. The community this teacher inspired may have been a sect that believed the teacher of righteousness would soon return from the dead. Lockhart also believes this sect may well have been the same sect Paul set out to persecute, yet ended up trying to join, and he may have spent some time in Arabia learning their teachings. This would explain Paul’s complete ignorance of the Jesus we think we know.


Paul’s mysterious Christ is a difficult idea for modern readers to grasp, and in my opinion it’s not worth the effort. It helps to remember that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that his writings have been tampered with; that original meaning is often lost in translations; that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and Paul had never read them; and that Paul was just odd.In the gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods. Mithras was an example well known to Paul. Those gods often didn’t have a mortal life that was remembered, just like his Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like his Christ. Paul’s Christ was his own Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua may not ever have been on his radar.Most Christians I have talked to about this are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus undermines the account about Jesus being an inspiring, insightful individual that had so impressed his disciples. Jesus is considered today to have been someone with amazing charisma who preached wise anecdotes; an image created by churchmen using the gospels. Paul knew none of this. Outside of scripture he only ever acknowledged one teacher of wisdom—himself. An authoritative Yeshua, even though recently deceased, would have focused the limelight on someone more significant than himself, and he wouldn’t have coped with that.
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
27-11-2012, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 07:51 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(27-11-2012 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Your tone is starting to sound inflammatory. Let's keep it civil, Ok? Thanks for the the attempted history lesson, but you've taught me nothing I didn't know, ( I have actually spent about 2 months researching and then writing 2 chapters on the bible's compilation), and you're wrong on a few points.

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.

Quote:The names are important. You yourself have claimed Papias was talking about Matthew and Mark in 125 CE, and you claimed this was evidence for the authorship of the gospels. Eusebius and others, who you seem to hold in high regard, attempted to explain how these 4 wrote the gospels. They were lying.

You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.

Quote:Irenaeus is the first person ever to mention the four authors, in 180-190 CE, and Justin died in 165 CE, so Justin didn't know of these four, so your claim that Justin was a "contemporary" of Irenaeus is only half true.

It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.

Quote:There was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity" in the second century. The fact that you could make such a statement causes me to wince. If you're referring to what became catholicism, it did start to get the upper hand, in Rome, in the later second century, but was still in opposition to Marcion, various gnostic groups and numerous others.

It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.


Quote:I'll post more shortly. In the meantime, check out your own "facts" ...where you claim Paul is talking about Jesus. I looked up all of your quotations...and commented on them, and you haven't replied. Your supposed links between Paul's writing and an historical Yeshua are weak, weak, weak. I've even pasted them out for you (and others) to see. They do way more for my argument than yours.

I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:

Quote:1 Corinthians 12;10

"10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" He could 've been referring to anyone!LOL

1 Corinthians 12;28,29

"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." DITTO LOL

"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles" HUH? YOUR POINT?

Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.



Quote:Galatians 3;5

"5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? So SOMEONE (Paul's spirit/man), not Jeebus, worked miracles.

But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.

Quote:I agree he named James, Peter and John. That doesn't mean he thought Yeshua was his Christ.

Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:

Quote:Gal 2:8 For He who empowered Peter to be an apostle to the circumcision is the same who was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:

Quote:1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:

Quote:Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.

Quote:Sorry Free, your "evidence" isn't evidence. Things are not as simple as you make out. I stand by my assertion that Paul's Christ was not Yeshua.

I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink

Thanks for the apology. We're all on the same quest for knowlege. If ever I sound patronising, please tell me. And yes, one of the reasons I am here is to sharpen my debating skills and to learn how to cope with criticism.

The reasons I think the church fathers were lying about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are many. Firstly, we hear nothing of them ( the 4 authors) till approx 180CE (Irenaeus). The stuff allegedly from Papias is second hand (none of his writings survived) and very weak. Here is what I've written (apologies for the repeat)...

Irenaeus of Lyons attempted to list the first known Catholic canon in 180-190 CE, although he never compiled a definitive list of books. He knew that many people were attracted to Gnosticism and feared that his account of Christianity couldn’t compete. Formalizing doctrinal authority so that everyone had the same beliefs was his solution to what he saw as a problem. His list included the four canonical Gospels. This was the first record of anybody mentioning the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, over 150 years after the events they purported to record. (
http://firstnewtestament.com/gospels_early_irenaeus_of_lyons.htm) Irenaeus gave no good explanation as to who wrote them, or how the authors were connected to Yeshua. He did write "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." ("Against Heresies" 3.1.1). I find this explanation woefully inadequate because of the lack of detail. It sounds like a cheap commentary concocted so that the topic of the gospels’ authorship can be glossed over.He suggests the last three gospels were written independently of Mark’s, which is obviously not the case.
He then claimed that as there were only four directions from which the wind blew, there could only be four Gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 07:49 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

A: Mithras. Then we also have Krishna, Buddha, Attis, Dionysis, Osiris
Jesus had to be distinguished from these other gods, so the church fathers made a big deal out of how he came “in the flesh.” They then derided other gods as mythical.It’s obvious that the existence of all these characters, sharing so many characteristics, constitutes an ancient universal mythos that’s been hidden from, or not acknowledged by, Christians.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 09:37 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(27-11-2012 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Your tone is starting to sound inflammatory. Let's keep it civil, Ok? Thanks for the the attempted history lesson, but you've taught me nothing I didn't know, ( I have actually spent about 2 months researching and then writing 2 chapters on the bible's compilation), and you're wrong on a few points.

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.

Quote:The names are important. You yourself have claimed Papias was talking about Matthew and Mark in 125 CE, and you claimed this was evidence for the authorship of the gospels. Eusebius and others, who you seem to hold in high regard, attempted to explain how these 4 wrote the gospels. They were lying.

You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.

Quote:Irenaeus is the first person ever to mention the four authors, in 180-190 CE, and Justin died in 165 CE, so Justin didn't know of these four, so your claim that Justin was a "contemporary" of Irenaeus is only half true.

It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.

Quote:There was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity" in the second century. The fact that you could make such a statement causes me to wince. If you're referring to what became catholicism, it did start to get the upper hand, in Rome, in the later second century, but was still in opposition to Marcion, various gnostic groups and numerous others.

It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.


Quote:I'll post more shortly. In the meantime, check out your own "facts" ...where you claim Paul is talking about Jesus. I looked up all of your quotations...and commented on them, and you haven't replied. Your supposed links between Paul's writing and an historical Yeshua are weak, weak, weak. I've even pasted them out for you (and others) to see. They do way more for my argument than yours.

I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:

Quote:1 Corinthians 12;10

"10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" He could 've been referring to anyone!LOL

1 Corinthians 12;28,29

"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." DITTO LOL

"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles" HUH? YOUR POINT?

Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.



Quote:Galatians 3;5

"5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? So SOMEONE (Paul's spirit/man), not Jeebus, worked miracles.

But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.

Quote:I agree he named James, Peter and John. That doesn't mean he thought Yeshua was his Christ.

Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:

Quote:Gal 2:8 For He who empowered Peter to be an apostle to the circumcision is the same who was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:

Quote:1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:

Quote:Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.

Quote:Sorry Free, your "evidence" isn't evidence. Things are not as simple as you make out. I stand by my assertion that Paul's Christ was not Yeshua.

I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink



"Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark?" JAMES

"Was that not Jesus?" NO, IT WAS JAMES

Here is the quote from the King James bible...
"8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James,Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars,gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."


Paul is claiming that James, who was the undisputed leader of the Nazarenes, sent Peter off to evangelize Jews, and him off to the gentiles. (Paul was lying, but that's another story). Jeebus doesn't rate a mention. You just incorrectly assumed he was talking about Jeebus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 08:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
My impression is that the Paul in early Acts is not the same dude as in later Acts. The early one is abruptly dropped in a different location from where he is picked up later. I also think it's likely Paul the "core letter" writer/initiator of the "Christianity for the Gentiles", (as opposed to the Nazarene sect of the Way he left, ...or was kicked out of... back in Jerusalem), knew *of* Yeshua, but didn't really care. He was going to preach that *inspired stuff* his *experience* propelled him to, no matter what Yeshua said or did. Yeshua was far away, geographically, and temporally. Paul had to compete with the Greek Mystery cults for adherents, and he did what he thought he had to do. The Paul in Acts says he learned his stuff from the Apostles. The Letter-Writer-Paul says he got it from his "conversion experience".

The main motivation of all the writers of early Christian literature was to gain adherents to their cult, and to persuade followers, and potential challengers that what were the opinions of the writers was true. None of the writings in no way "recounted" an historical "search for objective" truth, as we would think of that today.

Before the suppression of many, of what are now considered as "non-canonical" gospels, (by Eseubius), there were many circulating gospels. In general, the Apostles were illiterate, and the occupation of being a "scribe", was a specific occupation, and one which was specifically trained for. They all had their own "point of view". None were written to be "historical" accounts, or "personal memoirs", as we would see that today. The gospel writers were were not historians, in any way. They all had agendas. They wrote their texts for specific purposes, and addressed them to specific audiences. While they are seemingly similar, they are
also remarkably different. The differences are not only interesting, but also telling, as the development of some of the ideas in the Christian cult can be seen, and "located" as to dating priority.

We know that in the earliest gospel, (Mark), Yeshua was not considered a "pre-existant" *divine* being. His identity as "Messiah" was hidden from his followers, and revealed later. Mark was written with a Roman, (non-Jewish) audience in mind, for use in Roman liturgies, and it takes pains to explain many details and things which Jews would know, but Romans would not. The (relative) "divinity" of Yeshua, was presented, (as the very early church thought of it), as an "exalted"
status, (ie "raised up" as in "resurrected"), which was granted AFTER his death, (in the Jewish martyr tradition .. which I have explained in the http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
thread. secondary to his having accepted the duty of being the "suffering servant", and as such, was presented to the Romans, as a "servant". The suffering servant in Mark was a giant leap forward in Christian theology, as it says "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). In Mark, Yeshua is presented as the ideal servant. Mark does not bother with a genealogy, as a genealogy of a servant is not important. Thus in Mark, the "exaltation", (and revelation of Yushua as "raised up" to be the Exalted One) is seen as granted to the followers AFTER his death.
The "exalted" status was never ever considered as equivalent to that of Yahweh. That was inconceivable. Also the traditional Jewish concept of a political messiah had now shifted, to a "cosmic" one, as the temple had been destroyed, and there was a need to think in other terms, and another major paradigm. We know from what the "shade" of Samuel was said to be, when seen by the witch of Endor, (a "divine" being), it in no way equated to a "Yahweh" (or god) equivalent. It simply meant "other than" natural.

The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, for use in the liturgies of the (still) Jewish sub-sect, which came to be called "Christians", in the Jewish world. Matthew was written to Jews who had come to understand "prophesy" as a "foretelling", (which it was not originally), but Matthew thought that Yeshua was a fulfillment of Jewish scripture, and took pains to present Yeshua as such. It would have made no sense to a Greek hearing it, as they had no idea about Jewish "messiahs". and "prophesy". There are at least 40 specific local additional details purposely added by Matthew to make things appear to "fulfill" the Jewish prophecies to a Jew. He/they purposely added things to make the story make sense to a Jew. Matthew is rife with contradictions. The impossible
lineage is done through Mary's husband, even while maintaining that Joseph was not the father. Here also, in Matthew, the "literal" *son* as an actual "filial" relationship of Yeshua to Yahweh was impossible. No one was equal to Yahweh. That was 1000 % impossible in Hebrew culture. When prophetic, (or martyr) figures were "exalted", (ie *raised up*) they were seen as equivalent to Elijah and Moses. Never an actual "divinity", as they were in Roman mythology. That would have a been a threat to monotheism. The Doctrine of the Trinity was unknown at this time. This was seen in Matthew 17, when the writer puts them up on the mountain, and sets up the "Transfiguration", where Yeshua is seen as equivalent to Elijah, NOT YAHWEH.

The Gospel of Luke was written apparently to a man named Theophilus and intended as a "complete story", and represents a more developed theology than the first two gospels, and a later understanding of "redemption". It is not possible that Luke was written before the letters of Paul, as it contains the "salvation" paradigm, which had not developed in the cult, until Paul introduced it. The salvation paradigm, (the purpose of the coming of the messiah to cleanse, (purify) an individual soul from sin, is a Zoroastrian idea which did not exist in Hebrew culture. (Paul took it from Mithraism, which got it from Zoroaster). The Hebrews had a concept of "ritual purity" (for preparation purposes of sacrifices), NOT OBTAINED by ritual sacrifices. Sacrifices for the Hebrews were done to repair a ruptured cosmic relationship with Yahweh, NOT to purify an "individual" soul. The Hebrews did not believe in immortal souls. (Neither did Paul. Paul thought only the saved obtained eternal life).

The Gospel of John was intended for a Greek audience, in which Gnosticism was well developed. He presents a different concept of "Word" (of God) from the Hebrews. The Hebrews thought the "word of Yahweh" was the active component of the power of their god. In John the "Word" is presented as actually *being* a part of the actual deity. In John, the Word always maintained a divine status, temporarily "took on a human form", (while maintaining a divine status), and then went back to just being a divine being. In John, Yeshua has placed in his mouth the words, "The Father and I are one". Something Mark would have not been able to conceive of. It represents a later and completely non-Hebrew idea. With the advent of Gnosticism, which thought the flesh was corrupt", and evil, and not deserving of the *divine* there arose a number of gospels which preached that Jesus just "appeared" to be human, but actually did not *suffer* the corruption of the flesh, and there were huge fights about this. This is reflected in a number of places, including in John 1:7 which says : "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the Antichrist." The heresies were actively suppressed, (just as in the Old Testament), for purposes of political unity and PR.

There was no "orthodoxy", in the early church. The communities were geographically diverse, and with no easy communication, they developed independently, with many variants, and "heresies".

So what does this have to do with Paul ? Since the gospels are radically different portrayals, if Paul had any of them in mind, he would have had (to pick) a certain point of view. Paul, the letter writer, most clearly matches the earliest forms of gospel, ( "good news" ) of Mark. But it has elements of Luke also. "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," (Philippians 2:6). Is is not possible a Hebrew would have had such a blasphemous
idea, and proves Paul-the-letter-writer, was not actually thinking of Yeshua ben Joseph, the human son of Galilee. He obviously had in mind an "Exalted One", or an "Anointed One", who was the being he had experienced as "exalted" in his conversion experience. Whatever he had in mind, it was not the pre-exalted Yeshua. Paul thought his "Christ" was an "other than natural" being, (FORMERLY Yeshua), who gave up "divine status", took on human form, (that of Yeshua), and took the divine status back, after being exalted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNuwDg8B...plpp_video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianit...nd_century
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.vi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en...npnLdwdjUU

So in the end, whether Paul of Tarsus references what may or may not have been the Yeshua from the Galilee, incidentally or not, Marks Fulton's essential point, that his, (Paul's) gospel, ("good news"), is not essentially the message which was preached by Yeshua. Yeshua, who was an apocalyptic, and did not preach that he himself was the content of his good news. He said "Come follow me", not "Come worship me". By the time Paul was writing his letters, he has come to understand the good news as having Yeshua being at least in part the content of the good news.

Paul wrote his earliest letters in the 50's. The earliest gospel knows of the temple's destruction. Therefore we know it was not written before that happened, in the 70's. Canon formation was a messy process, and continued for many centuries. Just because one early writer says that at any given moment that some texts were considered as "canonical" at one date, does not mean it remained that way, or was considered a valid by anyone else, or in any other locality. Luke could not have been written, (as it was addressed to non-Jews), and before Saul, the cult was not seeking followers among the "Gentiles". Paul appointed himself as
"Apostle to the Gentiles", as he was a megalomaniac, and he wanted a special position, and he could not get along with the the other leaders of the cult. He got himself run out of town for constantly causing trouble in Jerusalem, possibly purposely, between the Romans and the Jews.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-11-2012, 08:21 PM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2012 09:24 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(27-11-2012 12:27 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Your tone is starting to sound inflammatory. Let's keep it civil, Ok? Thanks for the the attempted history lesson, but you've taught me nothing I didn't know, ( I have actually spent about 2 months researching and then writing 2 chapters on the bible's compilation), and you're wrong on a few points.

Sorry about my tone. The reason I do this is because you are writing a book, so view what I say as an example of the kind of criticism you will receive from people who I know will give you a much harder time than I am. It's nothing personal, but view my critique as experimental so that you learn what to expect.

When discussing this kind of stuff and using your method of argument, you will immediately be on the defensive by some exceptionally gifted people in the field, I assure you. My aim here is to tear your arguments apart and to show you what is wrong with them.

The most important thing you absolutely need to learn to do here to support your arguments with much more than "just what you think." You need to demonstrate textual evidence, solid reasoning, and a cohesive argument to be taken seriously.

Quote:The names are important. You yourself have claimed Papias was talking about Matthew and Mark in 125 CE, and you claimed this was evidence for the authorship of the gospels. Eusebius and others, who you seem to hold in high regard, attempted to explain how these 4 wrote the gospels. They were lying.

You assert they were all lying.

Show me the evidence to support that assertion, please.

You see Mark, I will constantly put your assertions to the test by asking for eveidence to support them. This is what you can expect from highly skilled people in the field. You may as well start doing it now, for it is better to be prepared than to be left wanting in a field that takes no prisoners.

Quote:Irenaeus is the first person ever to mention the four authors, in 180-190 CE, and Justin died in 165 CE, so Justin didn't know of these four, so your claim that Justin was a "contemporary" of Irenaeus is only half true.

It's 100% true. A contemporary is someone who lived during a specific time, and in this case, Iraneus lived- and was an adult- at the time of Justin Martyr's death.

Quote:There was no such thing as "mainstream Christianity" in the second century. The fact that you could make such a statement causes me to wince. If you're referring to what became catholicism, it did start to get the upper hand, in Rome, in the later second century, but was still in opposition to Marcion, various gnostic groups and numerous others.

It meant the type of Christianity that evolved into what we have today.


Quote:I'll post more shortly. In the meantime, check out your own "facts" ...where you claim Paul is talking about Jesus. I looked up all of your quotations...and commented on them, and you haven't replied. Your supposed links between Paul's writing and an historical Yeshua are weak, weak, weak. I've even pasted them out for you (and others) to see. They do way more for my argument than yours.

I looked. I saw. I laughed at my typo.

1 Cor 11.23 - 25 for the betrayal and Last Supper.

Now for the rest:

Quote:1 Corinthians 12;10

"10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" He could 've been referring to anyone!LOL

1 Corinthians 12;28,29

"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." DITTO LOL

"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles" HUH? YOUR POINT?

Sure he could, but what is the best argument, Mark? Considering that Paul names Jesus as the Christ, names his apostles as noted in the gospels, quotes the last supper and the betrayal as per the gospels, tells us that Jesus faced Pilate, was crucified, resurrected as per the Gospels, then the one question you will need to answer if it were to come from a gifted historian would be:

Q: Can you please name one other person other than the Jesus of the Gospels whom the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and all other ancient Christian writers wrote about, that fits all of the above criteria?

Now you are going to find yourself stuck, Mark. It's not going to be me you will be arguing against, you see. It will be history.



Quote:Galatians 3;5

"5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? So SOMEONE (Paul's spirit/man), not Jeebus, worked miracles.

But this detail is found as originating with Jesus in the Gospel records, Mark.

Quote:I agree he named James, Peter and John. That doesn't mean he thought Yeshua was his Christ.

Paul acknowledges that the Jesus he believed in is identical to the one James, Peter, and John knew. Here's some more textual evidence:

Quote:Gal 2:8 For He who empowered Peter to be an apostle to the circumcision is the same who was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

Who called Peter to be an apostle, Mark? Was that not Jesus, and who Paul says is the same one who called Paul to the Gentiles?

And what about the following:

Quote:1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?

And now for the kicker, which you try to dismiss as an interpolation when you provide no evidence:

Quote:Gal_1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Attempting to dismiss the quote of Paul above as an interpolation is not obtainable, Mark. There is simply not one shred of evidence to support that view.

Quote:Sorry Free, your "evidence" isn't evidence. Things are not as simple as you make out. I stand by my assertion that Paul's Christ was not Yeshua.

I have provided textual evidence, reasoning, and a cohesive argument. You have provided no textual evidence, no reasoning, and your argument falls apart because you have provided no textual evidence, and no sound reasoning.

You need to improve your arguments before you dance the dance, Mark. Otherwise, there will be blood out on the dance floor, and it's going to be yours. When discussing history, it's all about the best argument to explain the evidence, and is never about what anyone merely "thinks," nor is anything ever conclusive.

The best argument wins every time, and it becomes the cream that rises to the top.

Wink



Re
"Does Paul not appear to be talking about the same Jesus as which is described in the Gospels? The same Jesus whom the Gospels described as being seen by Cephas/Peter after his supposed resurrection?


You're dead right. It may APPEAR he's talking about Jeebus, but he's not. He's talking about his resurrected Christ...someone else. Paul's Christ was crucified and resurrected, just like Mithras and all the others. That don't mean Christ=Jesus.

Here is the fiull quote from the King James bible

"15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

No mention of Jeebus, just Paul's Christ, as revealed in his (ie Paul's) gospel (not Jeebus'). Paul thought that his gospel, and only his gospel, was the path to salvation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 09:32 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(27-11-2012 08:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  My impression is that the Paul in early Acts is not the same dude as in later Acts. The early one is abruptly dropped in a different location from where he is picked up later. I also think it's likely Paul the "core letter" writer/initiator of the "Christianity for the Gentiles", (as opposed to the Nazarene sect of the Way he left, ...or was kicked out of... back in Jerusalem), knew *of* Yeshua, but didn't really care. He was going to preach that *inspired stuff* his *experience* propelled him to, no matter what Yeshua said or did. Yeshua was far away, geographically, and temporally. Paul had to compete with the Greek Mystery cults for adherents, and he did what he thought he had to do. The Paul in Acts says he learned his stuff from the Apostles. The Letter-Writer-Paul says he got it from his "conversion experience".

The main motivation of all the writers of early Christian literature was to gain adherents to their cult, and to persuade followers, and potential challengers that what were the opinions of the writers was true. None of the writings in no way "recounted" an historical "search for objective" truth, as we would think of that today.

Before the suppression of many, of what are now considered as "non-canonical" gospels, (by Eseubius), there were many circulating gospels. In general, the Apostles were illiterate, and the occupation of being a "scribe", was a specific occupation, and one which was specifically trained for. They all had their own "point of view". None were written to be "historical" accounts, or "personal memoirs", as we would see that today. The gospel writers were were not historians, in any way. They all had agendas. They wrote their texts for specific purposes, and addressed them to specific audiences. While they are seemingly similar, they are
also remarkably different. The differences are not only interesting, but also telling, as the development of some of the ideas in the Christian cult can be seen, and "located" as to dating priority.

We know that in the earliest gospel, (Mark), Yeshua was not considered a "pre-existant" *divine* being. His identity as "Messiah" was hidden from his followers, and revealed later. Mark was written with a Roman, (non-Jewish) audience in mind, for use in Roman liturgies, and it takes pains to explain many details and things which Jews would know, but Romans would not. The (relative) "divinity" of Yeshua, was presented, (as the very early church thought of it), as an "exalted"
status, (ie "raised up" as in "resurrected"), which was granted AFTER his death, (in the Jewish martyr tradition .. which I have explained in the http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection
thread. secondary to his having accepted the duty of being the "suffering servant", and as such, was presented to the Romans, as a "servant". The suffering servant in Mark was a giant leap forward in Christian theology, as it says "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). In Mark, Yeshua is presented as the ideal servant. Mark does not bother with a genealogy, as a genealogy of a servant is not important. Thus in Mark, the "exaltation", (and revelation of Yushua as "raised up" to be the Exalted One) is seen as granted to the followers AFTER his death.
The "exalted" status was never ever considered as equivalent to that of Yahweh. That was inconceivable. Also the traditional Jewish concept of a political messiah had now shifted, to a "cosmic" one, as the temple had been destroyed, and there was a need to think in other terms, and another major paradigm. We know from what the "shade" of Samuel was said to be, when seen by the witch of Endor, (a "divine" being), it in no way equated to a "Yahweh" (or god) equivalent. It simply meant "other than" natural.

The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, for use in the liturgies of the (still) Jewish sub-sect, which came to be called "Christians", in the Jewish world. Matthew was written to Jews who had come to understand "prophesy" as a "foretelling", (which it was not originally), but Matthew thought that Yeshua was a fulfillment of Jewish scripture, and took pains to present Yeshua as such. It would have made no sense to a Greek hearing it, as they had no idea about Jewish "messiahs". and "prophesy". There are at least 40 specific local additional details purposely added by Matthew to make things appear to "fulfill" the Jewish prophecies to a Jew. He/they purposely added things to make the story make sense to a Jew. Matthew is rife with contradictions. The impossible
lineage is done through Mary's husband, even while maintaining that Joseph was not the father. Here also, in Matthew, the "literal" *son* as an actual "filial" relationship of Yeshua to Yahweh was impossible. No one was equal to Yahweh. That was 1000 % impossible in Hebrew culture. When prophetic, (or martyr) figures were "exalted", (ie *raised up*) they were seen as equivalent to Elijah and Moses. Never an actual "divinity", as they were in Roman mythology. That would have a been a threat to monotheism. The Doctrine of the Trinity was unknown at this time. This was seen in Matthew 17, when the writer puts them up on the mountain, and sets up the "Transfiguration", where Yeshua is seen as equivalent to Elijah, NOT YAHWEH.

The Gospel of Luke was written apparently to a man named Theophilus and intended as a "complete story", and represents a more developed theology than the first two gospels, and a later understanding of "redemption". It is not possible that Luke was written before the letters of Paul, as it contains the "salvation" paradigm, which had not developed in the cult, until Paul introduced it. The salvation paradigm, (the purpose of the coming of the messiah to cleanse, (purify) an individual soul from sin, is a Zoroastrian idea which did not exist in Hebrew culture. (Paul took it from Mithraism, which got it from Zoroaster). The Hebrews had a concept of "ritual purity" (for preparation purposes of sacrifices), NOT OBTAINED by ritual sacrifices. Sacrifices for the Hebrews were done to repair a ruptured cosmic relationship with Yahweh, NOT to purify an "individual" soul. The Hebrews did not believe in immortal souls. (Neither did Paul. Paul thought only the saved obtained eternal life).

The Gospel of John was intended for a Greek audience, in which Gnosticism was well developed. He presents a different concept of "Word" (of God) from the Hebrews. The Hebrews thought the "word of Yahweh" was the active component of the power of their god. In John the "Word" is presented as actually *being* a part of the actual deity. In John, the Word always maintained a divine status, temporarily "took on a human form", (while maintaining a divine status), and then went back to just being a divine being. In John, Yeshua has placed in his mouth the words, "The Father and I are one". Something Mark would have not been able to conceive of. It represents a later and completely non-Hebrew idea. With the advent of Gnosticism, which thought the flesh was corrupt", and evil, and not deserving of the *divine* there arose a number of gospels which preached that Jesus just "appeared" to be human, but actually did not *suffer* the corruption of the flesh, and there were huge fights about this. This is reflected in a number of places, including in John 1:7 which says : "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the Antichrist." The heresies were actively suppressed, (just as in the Old Testament), for purposes of political unity and PR.

There was no "orthodoxy", in the early church. The communities were geographically diverse, and with no easy communication, they developed independently, with many variants, and "heresies".

So what does this have to do with Paul ? Since the gospels are radically different portrayals, if Paul had any of them in mind, he would have had (to pick) a certain point of view. Paul, the letter writer, most clearly matches the earliest forms of gospel, ( "good news" ) of Mark. But it has elements of Luke also. "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," (Philippians 2:6). Is is not possible a Hebrew would have had such a blasphemous
idea, and proves Paul-the-letter-writer, was not actually thinking of Yeshua ben Joseph, the human son of Galilee. He obviously had in mind an "Exalted One", or an "Anointed One", who was the being he had experienced as "exalted" in his conversion experience. Whatever he had in mind, it was not the pre-exalted Yeshua. Paul thought his "Christ" was an "other than natural" being, (FORMERLY Yeshua), who gave up "divine status", took on human form, (that of Yeshua), and took the divine status back, after being exalted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNuwDg8B...plpp_video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianit...nd_century
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.vi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en...npnLdwdjUU

So in the end, whether Paul of Tarsus references what may or may not have been the Yeshua from the Galilee, incidentally or not, Marks Fulton's essential point, that his, (Paul's) gospel, ("good news"), is not essentially the message which was preached by Yeshua. Yeshua, who was an apocalyptic, and did not preach that he himself was the content of his good news. He said "Come follow me", not "Come worship me". By the time Paul was writing his letters, he has come to understand the good news as having Yeshua being at least in part the content of the good news.

Paul wrote his earliest letters in the 50's. The earliest gospel knows of the temple's destruction. Therefore we know it was not written before that happened, in the 70's. Canon formation was a messy process, and continued for many centuries. Just because one early writer says that at any given moment that some texts were considered as "canonical" at one date, does not mean it remained that way, or was considered a valid by anyone else, or in any other locality. Luke could not have been written, (as it was addressed to non-Jews), and before Saul, the cult was not seeking followers among the "Gentiles". Paul appointed himself as
"Apostle to the Gentiles", as he was a megalomaniac, and he wanted a special position, and he could not get along with the the other leaders of the cult. He got himself run out of town for constantly causing trouble in Jerusalem, possibly purposely, between the Romans and the Jews.

I agree that Paul knew of a Yeshua....he must have. I think Paul thought of Yeshua only as a long dead political insurrectionist who got what was coming to him (from the Romans). I suspect Paul never knew Yeshua was going to become his Christ when the gospels were written.

This would fit with the fact that James' letter (in the bible), written perhaps by Yeshua's brother, perhaps circa 60 CE, never mentions Yeshua or Jesus either. The mythical gospels hadn't been written yet.
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: