Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I’m new here so I’m not sure the protocol but I would be a little disappointed if you weren’t able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started because you don’t consider yourself a Christian currently.Whoa! We are here to examine Christianity on this forum, yes? Are you finding the alternative more interesting? Why so many questions about the alternative?
What from Q do you think is an influence from Greek philosophy that is relevant to the discussion? What influence from mystery cults did Paul have and where are you getting the information (text wise) about what these mystery cults believed? (Not a link to Doherty)No, I am not combining them. Greek philosophy influenced Q. Greek mystery cults probably influenced Paul.
That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion. I’m sure people still believed in taking myth/poems literally after Plato but it wasn’t going to be popular with people educated or familiar with the philosophy of the time. I would think today it is much more common to have an anthropomorphic understanding of god because of how less common it is to be studied in philosophy these days.What argument against pagan myth was made famous by Plato? Are you saying that nobody believed in Greek myth after Plato?
Plato said:Soc. And do you really believe that the gods, fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?
Plato said:Yes, Adeimantus, they are stories not to be repeated in our State; the young man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes he is far from doing anything outrageous; and that even if he chastises his father when does wrong, in whatever manner, he will only be following the example of the first and greatest among the gods.
I entirely agree with you, he said; in my opinion those stories are quite unfit to be repeated.
Plato said:At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true.
Justin said:And if you decline citing the poets, because you say it is allowable for them to frame myths, and to relate in a mythical way many things about the gods which are far from true,
The Greek mystery cults didn’t take the poetry literally to form their understanding of Gods? I guess I can get what understanding they had when you provide a text that explains what they believed. (Not Doherty’s site. If you think he has a text on there supporting it then pass a link on of the actual text.)It wasn't so much the Greek poetry as the Greek mystery cults. See http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13A.htm .
Yes, many beliefs, many groups, many combinations of beliefs in the Diaspora.
So you get your understanding of God and spiritual elements from taking poetry literally? How do you support literalism?Different people had different views of wisdom, but many seemed to personify wisdom as does the writer of Proverbs:
Who? When? Where? What text best illustrates this? Mark?The proto-orthodox combined these.
I’m still going to need to know which savior god you are trying to compare him to.
I meant both of the groups which you gave answers for. You can guess about what Peter and them believed. You are trying to lay out your case for what happened so we can see where the preponderance of evidence is at. Are they preaching kingdom stuff or inclusion of the gentiles by faith… or what?You are responding to a paragraph which mentioned several names. Who all are you including in the pronoun "they"?
Paul preached a salavation by faith in the blood of Jesus through a baptismal ritual. Paul never mentions a kingdom of heaven.
As I said, we don't know what the Peter, James and John that Paul referred to believed.
Unfortunately I’m not able to see past my understanding of the text, to see your understanding. What do you think being “baptized into his death “means and how does that help save anyone in anyway?Paul taught salvation through a baptismal ritual which showed faith in the death of Jesus. For instance, Romans 6 (emphasis added):
I thought we are assuming he died in heaven for sake of your theory? I’m trying to figure out if you think Paul was talking about a spiritual messiah in heaven or spiritual demigod that dies in heaven… or combining them into a spiritual messiah who is also a demigod that dies in heaven.Paul doesn't say where he thought Jesus died.
Can we speculate on when it started? Also could we clarify between if it’s a kingdom of god which manifests on earth or a kingdom of god as in a magical place in another realm where people live and die?Q taught the kingdom of God, yes. Others may have taught it earlier.
I can’t say I believe in Q. A possibility, sure. But if it is real then it would have included things like this from Luke:I don't think Q had anything to do with a messiah claimant. Do you think Q was written from that perspective? Why?
7:18-23 The disciples of John told him all these things. John calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, 'Are you he who is to come, or shall we look or another?" When the men had come to him, they said, John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, Are you he who is to come or shall we look for another?' In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. He answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them, and blessed is he who takes no offense at me."
11:23 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
The part with JtB preparing and waiting on the messiah is still there and him establishing himself as the sole authority is as well.12:8-9 I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
How does he think this is going to give hope?I don't know Mark's motives. I think most likely he was sincerely trying to write a novel to give hope, just like parents tell kids about Santa Claus.
Feel free to guess at what you don’t know. You are just trying to lay out a situation where what you suggest is possible.I don't know if Mark had a souce with such a claim.
Do you think that they are depicting a spiritual entity who dies in Isaiah or the messiah will? Or some combination?(continued)Isaiah 53. Early Christian writers commonly quoted it as proof of a dying savior.
what is the hope being offered with the story of Jesus in Mark?[/FONT]Santa's mailbox at the post office was full of requests for food and clothes this year. I heard several of them read on the evening news. It was amazing--and heartbreaking--to hear these letters of people pleading with Santa for new shoes, for instance, since they didn't have any.
People do not stop writing stories of hope, just because times are rough.
So you dont know where or how they died and you dont want to speculate in order to explain your theory?One tradition says Paul was released and went to Spain. Another tradition says he was martyred in Rome. Which one is right?
We don't know. Traditions about what happened to the apostles are so contrradictory and poorly supported, we simply don't know what happened to them.
[/FONT]Would you also like to know Mark's shoe size?
Are these serious questions, or an attempt to waste my time?
My answer: I don't know, probably somewhere between 100 and 1,000,000.
[FONT="] Yes the questions are serious. Im trying to build a picture of what you think happened. So far its mostly a bunch of I dont knows. What makes you think he was not applying or getting this story from a particular man in the past?[FONT="] And Mark did not necesarily mean his book to apply to a particular man of the past.[/FONT]
Elvis was a historical figure who people couldnt accept had died. Compounded with people dressing up like him.[/FONT]For the same reason that, once some people came to believe that Elvis was still alive, storys of Elvis sightings became popular.
If Jesus was thought to be alive, everybody who believed it would have wanted to talk about what happened next.
So? Do you think they both came up with virgin birth origins separate from one another, regardless of whatever differences you have in mind?Do you not agree that the storys of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke contradict?
So you think they were read some place like a library or a persons house and that the person liked the story so copied it down themselves? Or was their some kind of publishing effort to push the story out to the public?Apparently a number of people liked the books of Matthew and Luke. For they were copied many times, and survived 2000 years.
[/FONT]Something like the wisdom figure in Proverbs, yes.
So not about being signs of him being the messiah but signs of him being what again? A teacher of Gnosis? Is that what you mean by revealer?Have you not noticed that John 1-17 is very different from the synoptics? The signs gospel is thought to be the core of John 1-17.
The signs gospel is all about Jesus as a revealer. (It never really tells us what Jesus actually revealed.) Probably this was not speaking about a specific person from recent history.
[/FONT]The gospels try to exalt their Jesus as the messiah. We don't know how much the movement existed before the books were written. We don't know if the writers thought the Jesus they wrote of was historical, or if they thought they were writing a novel.
So a group just grabbed some Gnostic sayings and attributed it to Jesus? Do you think this happened before or after the Gospels creation and popularity it produced for the name Jesus? Or do you see it as one of the texts that was used to influence the movement before the gospels were written?The Gospel of Thomas presents a Jesus that is little more than a phrase--"Jesus said..."--at the start of each verse. This book's Jesus could have been no more real then the Wisdom figure who spoke in proverbs.
Why do they need a messiah for? Isnt salvation found in knowledge? The knowledge they find central may vary but the need for a messiah would need to be explained.[/FONT]Gnostism had many varieties. Some probably saw their revealing Jesus as the messiah.
Typo. Was trying to speak of Jesus and his apostles.The Orthodox sacrificed themselves?
No, the nature of the historical person. If his body was material or not.And whether Jesus was a historical person.
Awesome suggestion! [/FONT]Then perhaps you should read Paul.
Romans and Galations, for instance.
I was asking if you are a literalist which you have already shown, so the question is already answered. Just need to support your literalism now.Huh?
He died according to scripture. His gospel comes from a vision from Jesus after his persecution of the church lead to the death of Stephen. If Paul was going around saying some guy told me this and I believed him, that wouldnt have had the same impact as I was persecuting and had a vision that said he was wrong.Paul stresses that his gospel of Jesus comes from scripture. He never says anything about it coming from a man on earth.
Doherty summarizes at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp12One.htm [/quote]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] I didnt see anything (other than expectations not being met) that says Paul thought that Jesus never existed at a point in history. Do you think him making this point was edited out because it seems like he would try to be clear about that point?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Then the question goes back to why are they using Pauls texts? Why not someone else or just make-up their own?Paul doesn't support a church hierarchy. That's why the proto-orthodox wrote I Tim., 2 Tim., and Titus to make it look like he did.
Taken at face value he is including the gentiles into the promise made to the Jews in the OT. I dont know what you think is going on because I dont know how you are interpreting these texts. Because as of now I am still uninformed about these mystery cults that you think influenced Paul.[/FONT]When combined with the gospels and Acts, Paul's books could be interpreted as talking about an earthly Jesus. But when taken at face value, Paul seems to be saying something else.
[FONT="]Taken out of context and imagining whatever you want is going to give you the results you wish..
No, not my theory. Are you saying that no one was able to write proficiently enough back then in those groups to use and they werent capable of just making it up? Isnt there some kind of grand conspiracy and cover-up going on that shouldnt force them (whoever that is) to have to use Pauls letters?Which texts could they have used besides the ones they picked? Do you have something in mind?
So you cant understand the sacrifice in the Gospels without Pauls letters? How does blood atonement cause salvation? And we are speaking of the blood of a deity in heaven? Because they bleed and die up there just like people?Paul stresses salvation through the blood to a much greater degree than the gospels do. If you are going to stress the blood atonement, then you need Paul and the writer of Hebrews.
They can have the same influence but I would like you to explain how its possible to mix salvation of a messiah sacrificing his life on earth and a god dying in heaven.Not at all. Two groups can develop widely different views from the same starting point of Jewish scripure, messianic hope, and the Diaspora culture mix.
So was mine. Which makes sense since we werent born early enough for it to be based on his sacrifice.Justin's conversion experience seems to be based on that Logos, not on the crucifixion of a man in history.
[/FONT]If one already believes that personified wisdom exists as a heavenly being, then it is a simple step further to believe that personified wisdom entered a physical man in the past, or that this personified wisdom made an appearance on earth in the form of a man. That appears to be the origin of docetism.[FONT="]Yes if they took artistic representation of Wisdom literally then they could have personified it like you do. More likely and more rationally is that they understood people as personifying the spirit wisdom like a wise person would. Here is Justin with some explanation of how wise men are connected to Christ through reason.[/FONT][FONT="] How do you think docetism originated?[/FONT]
And docetism comes from a preconceived prejudice against matter and not allowing Jesus to be considered matter because of that bias. Paul has the same thing going on with the bodies being changed. I think it was very common thinking back then.[FONT="]Justin said:But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably.
Possible, because they see matter as being corrupt.Gnosticism covered a wide range of belief. Many gnostics believed in a docetic Jesus.
Thats a little vague. What kind of conspiracy are we talking about, at what scale? Are you a like that one poster who goes on forever about Constantine making Christianity up with Eusebius? Or is the conspiracy theory you are suggesting less grand?Huh? I just told you what they rewrote. They "rewrote history". That's an expression meaning they wrote history to conform with the way they wanted it to be written.
Eusebius in the fourth century is a good example.
[FONT="]It doesnt matter about rarity. It matters who started the idea in the group that the others are following. You dont even have a guess on if Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome?[/FONT][/FONT]The church father, Origin, writes around 250 AD that martyrdom had been rare. See [FONT="][FONT="]http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4front97.html[/FONT][/FONT] .
Roman Martyrdom reached its peak at the end of the third century when Orthodox Christians refused to participate in worship of other gods. This angered the Romans, who thought these rituals were necessary to promote the common good.
Why are you new? Why didn't you come here before? Will you come here again? Do you know all the rules? How new are you? When did you start coming? Will you come here again? Do you like it here? Where have you been? What is your religious history? What do you believe? Why? Are other beliefs wrong? How do you know they are wrong? How do you know you are right? What is the probability that you are wrong?Im new here
So Im not sure the protocol
but I would be a little disappointed if you werent able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started
That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion.
Yes, this where you need to explain the groups and the beliefs that are relevant to the formation of the church we see today.
He's on first.Who?
Second base?When?
Shortstop, I think.Where?
What text illustrates what?What text best illustrates this?
Mark?
Both of which groups? Why?I meant both of the groups which you gave answers for.
You can guess about what Peter and them believed.
Did Paul think Jesus and God were both God? Was he a polytheist? Why mention Jesus instead of God? If Jesus is God, why not just say God instead of saying Jesus? Are they the same? Are they different manifestations of the same? What does the trinity mean? Where did the word come from? Could there really be four members of the trinity? What about predestiantion? What do you think about tongues?Why is he trying to include gentiles by faith in Jesus instead of faith in God?
Why include them? Why include who?Why not include them by faith in their God?
What secondary figure? Was there a third figure? How many figures? How do you figure? Did you figure it out yet? What is a figure 8? Why do they call it a figure 8? Who was the first one to call it a figure 8? What are the rules of Crazy 8? Why do they call it Crazy 8?Why is this secondary figure necessary?
Is that a problem for you? Shouldn't everybody go beyond there own understanding? What is your understanding? Is your's right? What other understandings are there?Who's on first? What's his name?Unfortunately Im not able to see past my understanding of the text,
Can we speculate on when it started?
What is a possiblity? What are the odds? How did you calculate those odds? What formula describes the probabilities?A possibility, sure.
Thanks, I'll do that.Feel free to guess at what you dont know.
Yeah I get the point. You don't like to answer questions about your theory because you haven't thought it out yourself. Now imagine the lawyer trying to present a case that argues he doesn't have to actually have to layout what happened and starts responding to questions with who's on first jokes instead of trying to actually answer the questions. Why would anyone think the preponderance of evidence is with the side of the lawyer who can't even articulate what he think happened? Why even consider it when it's obvious you don't really have a coherent theory of what happened or why?
OK, do you get the point? Are you interested in overwhelming with hundreds of irrelevant questions, or are you interested in actually discussing something?
Please show me one place where anybody says A was the seed of B, and the writer was clearly refering to a human "A" who was actually the Son of God with no human father.Paul does say that a Jesus on earth was a descendant of David. At that time, in that place, saying "A was born of the seed of B" meant that A was descendant of B. It meant physical descent. It did not mean metaphorcial similarity between A and B. As already mentioned, the Jews placed tremendous emphasis on knowing each individual's ancestry because so much of the Jewish law and scripture related to that. The idea that Paul would idly toss around phrases like "of the seed of David" to mean nothing in particular but only something metaphorical is therefore wrong.
I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Unfortunately, I have limited time to spend here.Twice already I've asked whether you're able to name any instance in ancient Jewish history where any Jew used that phrase to mean anything other than literal ancestry. You haven't answered, from which I assume the answer is 'no'.
Paul says he was, "separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord". (Note that I removed the comma in that quote. After all, the original didn't have a comma there.)Further, Paul does not say that he got the gospel from the scriptures. He says, quoting from the NKJV:
called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the fleshSo that fits with the explanation that Paul believed the messiah was promised through the scriptures and that than arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. It does not fit with the theory that Paul believed this gospel to be only material found in the scriptures and not involve a physical descendant of David.
Oh, please. If you only had the writings of Paul, would you argue that Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers (even though Pual never mentions any of that)? Can you see how some would call this a stretch?We can bury your theory further by looking at the definition of the Greek word that becomes "gospel" in English translations. Everyone knows that the word in question means "good news", but not everyone has absorbed that the "news" in question is exactly what we mean by news today, like what we read in the papers. So the "gospel" is the good reports about events. It is not and cannot be simply a good interpretation of a scriptural passage. By using the word "gospel", Paul made clear that he was talking about recent events. Further, it's likely that Paul modeled the first verses of Romans 1 on a birth announcement for the son of a Roman Emperor. Hence he was basically saying, "the Romans make a big deal about the arrival of an emperor's son, but I've got news of an arrival that's even better".
Is it honest for Paul to take things out of context, and pretend they mean something they don't? How does naming it "Midrash" solve the moral issue?To understand how Old Testament scripture is used in the New Testament, you have to understand the concept of a Midrash, which was very common in Jewish culture at the time. Defining Midrash exactly is like nailing jelly to the wall, but generally a Midrash is some form of commentary, teaching, or explanation for something employing the Old Testament scriptures. Paul's usages of Old Testament quotes are within the tradition of Midrash. There was nothing unusual about taking a passage refering to one thing and using it to explicate some current event. The instances in Paul's epistles that you're thinking of are examples of that.
Why not? Some of Paul's followers thought ancestry was hogwash!But discussing ancestry is not something that Paul would play around with in that manner because, as already mentioned, the Jews attached such huge importance to it.
...or Paul could have been living in the Diaspora, and been combining Greek and Jewish thought, perhaps.Further, as already mentioned, the only way that Paul would justify such a radical shift in theology away from traditional Jewish beliefs would be if he believed the Messiah had arrived and ushered in the Messianic Age. The Messiah was a physical person and a descendant of David. The Messiah could not be anything else. Paul believed Jesus to be the Messiah. Ergo Paul believed Jesus to be a physical person and a descendant of David.
Oh, please where does Paul call James "the brother of Jesus" as you repeatedly declare in quotes? Paul calls him the "Lord's brother", and that can have many meanings. If Paul meant to clearly call him a physical brother (half-brother?, step-brother?) of Jesus, he could have used your terminology. But he doesn't do that.Because Paul didn't refer to James as "brother". He referred to James as "the brother of Jesus". Repeatedly. He never referred to anyone else as "the brother of Jesus". Nor did anyone else ever refer to anyone else as "the brother of Jesus".
No, we would not, at least not if we're familiar with the facts about Jewish beliefs in the first century. The Pharisees were the dominant Jewish group at the time, both in number and authority. Waging an outright verbal war against them would be very rare for any participant in mainstream Judaism. There were, of course, splinter groups such as the Sadducees and the Essenes, but obviously neither Paul and James nor any of the gospelers had any ties to them. The gospels show that Jesus Christ regularly participated in the tri-annual appearances in Jerusalem, Rabbinical readings and teachings, and other instances of the mainstream culture. Paul was raised a Pharisee and regularly preached in the synagogues of the cities he visited. That both of them would separately launch attacks on the Pharisees, to the point of using the same words in many cases, is unlikely in the extreme.
As I said, Greek cynic philosphy seems to have influenced early Christians. Greek cynics emphasized the common people and a simple life.Furthermore, it is simply not true that the themes listed were common in Jewish thought. The predominant understanding at the time was that the wealthy were the one's closest to God's favor. This understanding is demonstrated in Mark 10, where Jesus tells the disciples that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God", and they respond "Who then can be saved?" For Jesus to declare that the poor are more in God's favor than the rich is a complete inversion of the social structure in contemporary Judaism, and utterly off-the-wall for those familiar with Jewish thought at the time. Why would both Paul and the gospelers come up with the same very strange idea if they were unrelated to each other?
Yes, most Christians looked to a savior, and forgiveness from sin. So?Forgiveness is another theme where both Paul and the gospelers tell the same story, but it's a story radically different from what mainstream Judaism would provide at the time. In Mark, Jesus has the ability to forgive sins, and demonstrates it many times. The most famous is in Mark 2, in the story of the paralytic:
So Mark clearly knew that forgiveness of sins came through Jesus. Similarly Paul knew that forgiveness of sins came through Jesus and hammered that theme on countless occasions. Now what would any member of mainstream Judaism have thought about forgiveness? They would have thought that the only way to achieve forgiveness of sins was through the rituals of animal sacrifice, purification, isolation, and so forth as described at great length in the Books of Moses and at even greater length in the Talmud. To contemporary Jews, that was the only route to forgiveness. The idea that Paul and Mark would both come up with the idea of forgiveness through Jesus Christ separately is off the wall.
Once again, a common aspect of the Christian culture. This does not mean one book used the other as a source.Or let's look at divorce. What would contemporary Jews believe about divorce? They'd believe that it's fully permissable for a husband to divorce his wife, since that's codified in Deuteronomy and again the Talmud. Yet in Mark Jesus says this:
Likewise Paul says that "a wife must not divorce her husband" and "a husband must not divorce her wife". [1 Cor 7] Paul also makes it very clear and specific that this command was taught by Jesus Christ. So both Paul and Mark were familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ about divorce that overturned the earlier teachings from the Law of Moses. How could this be true if they didn't know each other and neither knew a historical Jesus?
Uh, wan't everybody for love? Who is against love? What is so unusual about all early Christians seeing love as the greatest commandment?Let's look at the centrality of love. Mark 12 has the following passage:
Paul was obviously familiar with this saying of Jesus, since he mentions part of it in Galatians 5. While the quote "love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus, nothing in contemporary Judaism would lead anyone to label that as "the greatest commandment". How could Mark and Paul have both gotten the same idea if they didn't get it from Jesus?
Again, common culture.On the avoidance of hypocricy, Paul's take on the subject in Romans 2 and other places contains undeniable echos of how Jesus treated the topic. While they were obviously not unique in disliking hypocricy, nonetheless there's no way that Paul and Mark could write such similar material on the topic if they didn't get it from Jesus.
Sure. Christianity is a product of the Diaspora. Strict Judaism stuck with Judaism only.There's a large amount of material in common between Paul and Mark's gospel alone that is not shared by contemporary Judaism and that flatly contradicts what contemporary Judaism strongly believed in.
No I did not ask for similarities. If two books come from a similar culture, we can expect similarities.You've asked for specific examples of such similarities and now you have a very small fraction of them.
Im new here so Im not sure the protocol but I would be a little disappointed if you werent able to discuss your understanding of how Christianity started because you dont consider yourself a Christian currently.
For instance:What from Q do you think is an influence from Greek philosophy that is relevant to the discussion?
Mystery cults were secret cults that did not write much. Even if they had written, it is doubtful their works would have survived to today. However, scholars have studied them and found indicators as to what they believed and practiced. I am no expert on Greek culture, but I have told you where you can ask your questions of one who knows far more about this. Why don't you ask there? If your questioning is serious, I would think you would want to talk to those that know more about it.What influence from mystery cults did Paul have and where are you getting the information (text wise) about what these mystery cults believed? (Not a link to Doherty)
What do you mean by constant? Are you saying that gods were never thought to do anything? If so, that certainly doesn't apply to the Jews, who thought that their God and other heavenly beings did many things.That gods were constant and ideas (forms) are real would be the big ones for this discussion.
OK, so there were some people who believed that gods did acts of salvation? Those would have been Paul's audience.Im sure people still believed in taking myth/poems literally after Plato but it wasnt going to be popular with people educated or familiar with the philosophy of the time. I would think today it is much more common to have an anthropomorphic understanding of god because of how less common it is to be studied in philosophy these days.
I don't know if God exists, but I certainly don't look to understand him by taking poetry literallySo you get your understanding of God and spiritual elements from taking poetry literally? How do you support literalism?
I already answered this. See post 204.You can guess about what Peter and them believed.
Neither of these seem to describe a kingdom on earth. The first describes a realm without food or drink, a realm of the Spirit, the second descibes a realm without flesh and blood, probably heaven.I dont understand what you think Paul is offering or trying to accomplish. Here is a couple of quotes about the kingdom from him though. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17 "I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." 1 Cor15:50
Why is Jesus necesary? Good question!Why is he trying to include gentiles by faith in Jesus instead of faith in God? Why not include them by faith in their God? Why is this secondary figure necessary?
Like I said, it was probably a ritual practice identifying one with the death of Christ. This ritual aspect of baptism is very different from the gospel accounts.Unfortunately Im not able to see past my understanding of the text, to see your understanding. What do you think being "baptized into his death "means and how does that help save anyone in anyway?
I said I don't know where Paul thought he died. I am saying Paul doesn't seem to be indicating a man who recently died on earth. Most likely it was thought to be somewhere in the heavens, or was completely figurative with no location selected.I thought we are assuming he died in heaven for sake of your theory?
Something like that.Im trying to figure out if you think Paul was talking about a spiritual messiah in heaven or spiritual demigod that dies in heaven or combining them into a spiritual messiah who is also a demigod that dies in heaven.
Mark's gospel? I have answered this several times.Why must I keep repeating myself?How does he think this is going to give hope?
Read post #204.I’m trying to build a picture of what you think happened. So far it’s mostly a bunch of I don’t knows.
People today read the gospels and think they prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If those documents convince sophisticated modern people, why couldn't they have convinced people back then with far less access to accumulated scholarly knowledge?Why do people expect him to be alive? Just because Mark was written and everyone somehow thought it was historical?
The virgin birth was probably part of the common heritage that saw the virgin birth as a prophesy from Isaiah.Do you think they both came up with virgin birth origins separate from one another, regardless of whatever differences you have in mind?
Literally? I think I have emphasized that people could have been referring to the Logos in figurative terms as a revealer of wisdom. It is others who insist this poetic Logos reference has to be a literal flesh and blood person, not me.This is why I said earlier that you had a ‘Clash of the Titans’ understanding of what is going on back then. It’s not meant to be an insul,t just a good example of what happens when you take art literally in regard to gods.
The signs gospels portrays Jesus as the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, etc. But it tells us very little about any moral precepts that he actually taught.So not about being signs of him being the messiah but signs of him being what again? A teacher of Gnosis? Is that what you mean by revealer?
Probably fiction. Or perhaps some sort of midrash mish-mash without really thinking about what really happened.What do you assume Luke and Matthew thought they were writing?
What literalism?Just need to support your literalism now.
How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples? How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant? How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared? How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation? All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?I didn’t see anything (other than expectations not being met) that says Paul thought that Jesus never existed at a point in history.
People were passing around these New Testament texts ever since they were written. The proto-orthodox leaders built on what the grassroots had already come to accept.Then the question goes back to why are they using Paul’s texts? Why not someone else or just make-up their own?
Could I suggest some links where you could read about them?Because as of now I am still uninformed about these mystery cults that you think influenced Paul.
No, I am not saying that.Are you saying that no one was able to write proficiently enough back then in those groups to use and they weren’t capable of just making it up? Isn’t there some kind of grand conspiracy and cover-up going on that shouldn’t force them (whoever that is) to have to use Paul’s letters?
The concept of a blood atonement is very weak in the gospels. Paul stesses the blood atonement. If they wanted to make a strong case for the blood atonement, they needed books like Paul's.So you can’t understand the sacrifice in the Gospels without Paul’s letters?
Good question!How does blood atonement cause salvation?
Yes, Hebrews 9 speaks of the sprinking of divine blood in Heaven. That comes from your book, not mine.And we are speaking of the blood of a deity in heaven?
Since it is your book that speaks of blood being sprinkled in heaven, where do you think that blood came form?Because they bleed and die up there just like people?
The mixing of the two strands of Christianity occured later. People collected the works of Paul about a blood atonement, and the gospels and an earthly dying savior, and combined them as though they were talking of the same being. They simply assuming Paul was speaking of the same Jesus and same location as the gospel writers. They also edited the gospels to make them match better. Perhaps they also edited Paul's writings.They can have the same influence but I would like you to explain how it’s possible to mix salvation of a messiah sacrificing his life on earth and a god dying in heaven.
It doesn't require a conspiracy. The church leading into the Middle Ages controlled nearly all of the ability to copy documents. They copied the documents they wanted.What kind of conspiracy are we talking about, at what scale? Are you a like that one poster who goes on forever about Constantine making Christianity up with Eusebius?
Since there are many contradictory traditions about martyrdom of the apostles, then most traditions about apostle martyrdom must be false.You don’t even have a guess on if Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome?
Sir, I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Have you not noticed that this thread is huge?Yeah I get the point. You don't like to answer questions about your theory because you haven't thought it out yourself.
Why is the lawyer on the witness stand?Now imagine the lawyer trying to present a case that argues he doesn't have to actually have to layout what happened and starts responding to questions with who's on first jokes instead of trying to actually answer the questions.
I summarized the mythical Jesus view in post 204. Where exactly did you write an alternative?Why would anyone think the preponderance of evidence is with the side of the lawyer who can't even articulate what he think happened?
How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples?
How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant?
How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared?
How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation?
It's pretty easy. The epistle writers wrote "occasional" letters whose purpose was to address living issues in the early church. The only way you can say that those letters miss a "historical Jesus" is by assuming that you would expect them to be writing for us rather than for them.All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?
I wrote an extensive post on how I think Christianity started. What is your alternative? Please post an alternative that does a better job of explaining the available data.
For instance:
I can see the embrace of poverty coming from the Cynics or just being common in most cultures. But some of the other ideas are overly common or not corresponding properly. What Im looking for though is more in the area of their understanding of the universe and god. I do agree that Jesus could have been influenced by Cynics but Im looking for the metaphysical influence that would be more relative to the conversation we are having.Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20/Matthew 5:3)
Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God. (Seneca EM XVIII 13)
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Matthew 10:9-10).
Wearing only ever one shirt is better than needing two; and wearing just a cloak with no shirt at all is better still. Going bare-foot, if you can, is better than wearing sandals. (Musonius XIX)
Salute no man by the way. (Luke 10:4)
Keep to yourself, quite unsociable, exchanging greetings with no one, neither friend nor stranger. (Lucian)
Seek, and ye shall find (Luke 11:9/Matthew 7:7)
Seek and you will find. (Epictetus)And so on. See (Common Paine: Was Jesus a Cynic? )
Mystery cults were secret cults that did not write much. Even if they had written, it is doubtful their works would have survived to today. However, scholars have studied them and found indicators as to what they believed and practiced. I am no expert on Greek culture, but I have told you where you can ask your questions of one who knows far more about this. Why don't you ask there? If your questioning is serious, I would think you would want to talk to those that know more about it.
What do you mean by constant? Are you saying that gods were never thought to do anything? If so, that certainly doesn't apply to the Jews, who thought that their God and other heavenly beings did many things.
Justin said:Old Man:
Justin said:
Philo said:It is necessary therefore, that every created thing should at times be changed. For this is a property of every created thing, just as it is an attribute of God to be unchangeable.
Philo said:For the images which are presented to the sight in executed things are subject to dissolution; but those which are presented in the One uncreate may last for ever, being durable, eternal, and unchangeable. Philo Allegorical Interpretation
Which they got from Plato.And I think many Greeks also thought their gods did many things.
As I discussed earlier on this thread, there are verses in the Bible describing beings doing things in heaven including a war in heaven and sprinkling of blood in heaven.
OK, so there were some people who believed that gods did acts of salvation? Those would have been Paul's audience.
I don't know if God exists, but I certainly don't look to understand him by taking poetry literally
I already answered this. See post 204.
Neither of these seem to describe a kingdom on earth. The first describes a realm without food or drink, a realm of the Spirit, the second descibes a realm without flesh and blood, probably heaven.
Why is Jesus necesary? Good question!
Since this is the Christian Forum, and Christians believe Jesus is necessary, perhaps they should answer your question.
Like I said, it was probably a ritual practice identifying one with the death of Christ. This ritual aspect of baptism is very different from the gospel accounts.
What do you think Romans 6 teaches about baptism?
I said I don't know where Paul thought he died. I am saying Paul doesn't seem to be indicating a man who recently died on earth. Most likely it was thought to be somewhere in the heavens, or was completely figurative with no location selected.
And no, we are not doing this for the sake of "my theory". We are looking at what is actually in the epistles, to see what they really taught.
I gave you three choices there. If you want to combine everything up into a big pot you may want to take a sec to explain it.Something like that.
Mark's gospel? I have answered this several times.Why must I keep repeating myself?
Just as people tell stories of Santa to give them hope, or other legends develop to lead people into a realm of fantasy and hope, Mark could have written for the same purpose.
[/FONT]Read post #204.
What have you given us as an alternative? Nothing! If you don't like post #204, why don't you give us an alternative that explains the beginning of Christianity better? Why hide behind irrelevant questions instead of actually taking a stand for something? Do you even have a position of your own on Jesus?
And yes there are things I don't know. If we don't know, it is better to say, "I don't know" then to make something up and pretend we know.
[/FONT]People today read the gospels and think they prove that Jesus rose from the dead. If those documents convince sophisticated modern people, why couldn't they have convinced people back then with far less access to accumulated scholarly knowledge?
[/FONT]The virgin birth was probably part of the common heritage that saw the virgin birth as a prophesy from Isaiah.
Both Matthew and Luke had a common tradition of "prophecy" of a virgin birth in Bethleham, and the book of Mark telling of Jesus of Nazareth. They wrote independent, contradictory storys to get Jesus to be born in Bethleham but grow up in Nazareth.
[/FONT]Literally? I think I have emphasized that people could have been referring to the Logos in figurative terms as a revealer of wisdom. It is others who insist this poetic Logos reference has to be a literal flesh and blood person, not me.
[/FONT]The signs gospels portrays Jesus as the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, etc. But it tells us very little about any moral precepts that he actually taught.
[/FONT]Probably fiction. Or perhaps some sort of midrash mish-mash without really thinking about what really happened.
[/FONT]What literalism?
[/FONT]How can it be said that God is appointing the apostles, without mentioning that the gospels specifically say it was Jesus who appointed the same people as disciples? How can Paul say that it is he, not Jesus, who has been given the task of establishing the new covenant? How can the epistles talk of Jesus' future appearance without mentioning that he had already appeared? How can Paul say that Christ is a newly revealed "secret/mystery" of God hitherto hidden for a long period of time, and that knowledge about him comes from scripture and revelation? All those things are consistant with Paul not knowing of a historical Jesus. How do you fit that in with a historical Jesus?
[/FONT]People were passing around these New Testament texts ever since they were written. The proto-orthodox leaders built on what the grassroots had already come to accept.
[/FONT]Could I suggest some links where you could read about them?
Then why are they using Pauls letters?No, I am not saying that.
The concept of a blood atonement is very weak in the gospels. Paul stesses the blood atonement. If they wanted to make a strong case for the blood atonement, they needed books like Paul's.[/quote[/FONT]
[FONT="]]Im not understanding why they needed his books or what ideas he had in there that were so important in understanding blood atonement. It is especially confusing why they used letters of someone writing about blood atonement of a god in heaven when they are talking about the atonement by blood of a messiah claimant on earth.
I dont need to ask other Christians how atonement is achieved with Christs sacrifice on the cross. That I understand myself. What I dont understand is blood atonement in heaven or whatever understanding you have going on.Good question!
Why don't you ask that of the other Christians here?
[/FONT]Yes, Hebrews 9 speaks of the sprinking of divine blood in Heaven. That comes from your book, not mine.
Since it is your book that speaks of blood being sprinkled in heaven, where do you think that blood came form?
[FONT="] I dont see that in Hebrews 9. I see them comparing the blood of animals to the shedding of his own blood. Quote and highlight what you are seeing please.
[/FONT]The mixing of the two strands of Christianity occured later. People collected the works of Paul about a blood atonement, and the gospels and an earthly dying savior, and combined them as though they were talking of the same being. They simply assuming Paul was speaking of the same Jesus and same location as the gospel writers. They also edited the gospels to make them match better. Perhaps they also edited Paul's writings.
[FONT="]Yeah but I dont understand how you combine the two ideologies. That there were two Jesus in two different ideologies I get but how you combine a deity in heaven dying and a messiah dying on earth together into a salvation theory is difficult to picture. That is mainly because I dont understand the deity dying in heaven ideology you are working with.
[/FONT]It doesn't require a conspiracy. The church leading into the Middle Ages controlled nearly all of the ability to copy documents. They copied the documents they wanted.
[FONT="]Who added Paul into the mix? Who asserted that Mark was historical and start the orthodox movement? When did the rewriting of history begin and end?
[/FONT]Since there are many contradictory traditions about martyrdom of the apostles, then most traditions about apostle martyrdom must be false.
We have two conflicting traditions about Paul. Tradition says that Peter was martyred in Rome, but as the Peter described by Paul seems to be local from Jerusalem, there is good reason to doubt it.
My answer? I don't know.
Why do you ask?
[FONT="]Im asking in order to figure out how the faith spread in your model of Christianity. Whats the good reason to doubt it again? Just because accounts of his death contradict each other? So that means nothing happened and Paul lived happily ever after preaching the message of Jesus dying in heaven? [/FONT]
[FONT="]And I take it you are a skeptic of the martyrdoms in general then. So the explanation for how the faith spread wasnt from anyone imitating Jesus or the story of Jesus? It was just the hope in the story of Mark that was so inspiring that the people responded with faith in it? Some point down the line some unknown church officials decide to create martyrdom tales for some of the early Christians? Any details on when they added in the martyrdom aspect to the apostles? Was the story of Stephen a later addition as well? If so about when?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Foxes book of martyrs is void of any actual accounts of martyrs that formed the church and Tertullians comment about the martyrs being the seeds of the church is just part of the orthodox cover-up?[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]Sir, I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Have you not noticed that this thread is huge?
My point is not that I don't like to answer honest questions. My point is that it is a waste of time to answer many repetitions of the same questions to the same person, who refuses to read links that give more information, but insists that I come here and repeat the same answers over and over for his benefit.[FONT="]Can you understand how it is not in my interest to repeat the same answers to a person who simply ignores the answers and asks the same questions again? Can you understand why that might be frustrating? [/FONT]
[FONT="]If the information I was looking for was on those links that then you wouldnt be having these follow-up questions. If you had thought your theory out before deciding it was something to actually consider, then I wouldnt be asking you questions you havent already asked of yourself. You would know the information I would need to build a picture of what happened to turn a mythical Jesus deity into a historical Jesus messiah.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Do you really think Im being disingenuous or lying about needing this information to build a model? Do you think I should be able to imagine what happened with what little information youve given me? I have no idea what happened historically in your mind or what ideology you are assuming of anyone back then.[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]Why is the lawyer on the witness stand?
[FONT="]Youre not. Youre doing that part where the lawyer talks to the jury and tries to convince them what happened before and after presenting the evidence. There is probably an official word for both of these kinds of remarks but damn stupidity gets me again.
[/FONT]I have told you that Doherty is the witness regarding Greek mystery cults. I have shown you where he makes his case, and have told you where he is available for cross-examination. And yet you absolutely refuse to ask the witness questions. Why? Are you scared? If you question what he wrote, you could ask him directly. And yet you refuse to do that, don't you?
[FONT="]And I have told you that he has been cross examined many many times and has been shown to lack the evidence to support his understanding of Paul. Have you been following him and Spin going at it on the other board? How do you think he is doing in supporting his case or his translation of that bit of scripture?
[/FONT]And my "Who's on first" comments were sarcasm. I usually try to avoid sarcasm, but your endless repeats of the same irrelevant questions seemed to call for a sarcastic immitation of your posts. You do have a sense of humor, don't you?
[FONT="]Yeah how it started, climaxed, was confused and covered-up, are irrelevant questions. Much more irrelevant; what they actual believed, not just figurative representation. <end sarcasm> I do have a sense of humor but when its for humors sake. When it is to belittle my questions or assume that I am somehow not being honest in why I am asking them, then Im not going to consider that being humorous.[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]I summarized the mythical Jesus view in post 204. Where exactly did you write an alternative?
If the side that refuses to present a case loses, have you lost? Is this case closed for lack of an alternative representing your side?
[FONT="]I didnt think I needed to write an alternative. I assumed you were already familiar with the historical account of how this all came about. I asked you at the beginning of this response what your difficulties in understanding how this started from a historical core were and if you let me know, I will try to help you as best I can.[/FONT]
You're not going to win any games by playing that card. Feeling lazy, I'll just copy the answer from here.Besides, how do you know Joseph was the son of David? Matthew and Luke give contradictory geneaolgies of Joseph. Obviously at least one is wrong. If folks were using wrong genealogies, how do you know genealogies were that important?
So that deals with the claim of conflicting genealogies.With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought”.
I'm not an expert on such things either, but I'll go ahead and give you an answer. There's no instance where anybody in the ancient Jewish world uses the phrase in question to indicate a metaphorical but otherwise meaningless connection. When the phrase is used, it means physical descent and none other.I have probably answered hundreds of questions on this thread. Unfortunately, I have limited time to spend here.
I don't know any instances in which any Jew used that phrase figuratively (other than Paul). But then I haven't read everything written by Jews, nor am I an expert on such things.
Your attempt to make a big deal about the missing comma in the original isn't going to get you anywhere. Ancient Greek manuscripts written at that time didn't contain commas, period. (Yuk yuk) So if we put the entire thing, including the phrase that you carefully chopped out, without commas we get this:Paul says he was, "separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord". (Note that I removed the comma in that quote. After all, the original didn't have a comma there.)
That sure looks like he is saying that he got his gospel from the [Old Testament] scriptures. Nowhere does he say he got this gospel from Jesus or from his disciples.
This last argument that you're making is a low-rent rhetorical device that isn't going to fool anybody. In fact, if all I had was the writings of Paul I certainly could argue that "Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers". However, I would not have to, since I also have the mountain of other evidence that has already been presented by other people do shoot down your position. However, let's ignore the fact that all your explanation are so thin and just imagine that the probability of you being right on each point is one half, or .5. The probability that you're right about the meaning of "seed of David" is .5. the probability that you're right about "gospel" not indicating recent events is .5. The probability of you being right about both things is .5 * .5 = .25. Now the probability that you're right about "the Lord's brother" not actually meaning the Lord's brother is .5, so now we're at .25 * .5 = .125. The probability that you're right about "princes of this world" actually being demons is .5. .125 * .5 = .0625. The probability that you're right about the reconstruction in Thessalonions is .5, so now .0625 * .5 = .03125. And so on, the more excuses you make, the more far-fetched your position becomes.Oh, please. If you only had the writings of Paul, would you argue that Paul claims a gospel, and gospel means good news, so therefore it was recent, so therefore it was on earth, so therefore God himself was recently incarnate, and so therefore the earthly Jesus was known by Paul's peers (even though Pual never mentions any of that)? Can you see how some would call this a stretch?
Lets back up a second. Your theory is that in the first century there were separate communities, one Christian community that we know of from the letters of Paul and a Q community. Pauls community supposedly believed in Jesus Christ as a heavenly being who never lived on earth while the Q community supposedly had a human founder. In your theory, Mark was a member of the Q community and Mark combined Jewish Messiah ferver, Q teaching, Jewish midrash use of scripture, Greek epic tale structure, and the dying Jesus legend to tell his own story of a hero who had lived on earth. So, if your theory is true, the only things that Paul and Mark knew in common about Jesus were that Jesus died and resurrected. Paul supposedly knew nothing about the things that Jesus Christ taught during his lifetime, because in your theory Mark was the first to attach those teachings do the story of Jesus Christ dying and being resurrected.doubtingmerle said:Once again, a common aspect of the Christian culture.
You are wrong. Not one serious academic in ten thousand takes your views seriously. When you encounter a creationist, you probably find their denial to be utterly bizarre. When everyone else reads the nonsense that you post in this thread, they find you to be equally bizarre.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?