• 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.

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Throughout this thread, you have been using variants of this argument, namely that if Paul's epistles don't include a specific reference to some specific aspect of the gospel narrative, then it serves as evidence that Paul was not aware of that aspect of the gospel narrative. But many posters in many posts have already explained to you ad nauseum why this is not a valid argument. It is entirely possible that Paul might have been aware that the eleven earliest apostles had been disciples of Jesus while Jesus was on earth, and yet not mentioned that fact in his letters, because his letters were not intended as an exhaustive history of everything that occurred during the lifetime of Jesus. At the time that Paul was writing those letters, the eleven in question were apostles and not disciples. As the letters deal largely with issues confronting the church at the time of writing, and not with the story of the historical Jesus, we would expect Paul to talk about them as apostles rather than as disciples. Similarly if you pick up a paper today you would expect to read about "President Barack Obama" as opposed to "Barack Obama, a student at Columbia University" or "Barack Obama, an employee of Business International Corporation". While many people certainly attach importance to Obama's education and early jobs as credentials for his current position, 99.9% of what is written about Obama today focuses on his political career and very little of it mentions the earlier things.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
doubtingmerle said:
Oh, please. Where exactly does the Old Testament say that a flesh and blood Jesus would die for our sins on earth?
By phrasing the question like that it seems you already know that you're going to lose this debate. The issue dividing us here is this: we both agree that Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah. I claim that if Paul believed this, then Paul must have believed that Jesus Christ was a flesh-and-blood human being. You say that Paul could have believed Jesus Christ was the messiah while also believing Jesus to be a spiritual being in Heaven only. So the question before us is, what did the Jews believe about the messiah. Did the messianic prophecies in the old Testament talk about a spiritual being in Heaven as the messiah, or did they talk about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth.

The answer is that they talked about a flesh-and-blood human being on earth. In fact the word "messiah" in Hebrew means a person annointed with oil, refering to a ceremony that took place on earth; it had no relationship to any heavenly or spiritual being. More importantly, a list of the messianic prophecies gives dozens of specific, earthly events that are expected in the messiah's life. (The link below contains a partial list of messianic prophecies, but there are many more.) Now given your habit of copying claims off anti-Christian websites, I can predict how you'll respond to this list. You will say that it's not clear these passages were not viewed as messianic prophecies before Christ's time, but instead the Christians came up with the idea of interpreting them that way afterwards. Well this is true for some of the passages in question, but most of these passages were viewed as messianic by the Jews before the time of Christ. On top of that, it is a simple historical fact that the Jews expected the messiah to be a flesh-and-blood human being. Can you show me a single piece of evidence that any Jewish group believed otherwise, during the first century or at any other time? You may find a few offshoots of Judaism in modern times that think that way, but there were none in ancient times. To the Jews, the messiah could only be a flesh-and-blood human being. Thus, if Paul believed Jesus Christ to be the messiah (and he did), then he also believed Jesus Christ to be a flesh-and-blood human being.

Messianic Prophecies



Midrash, my friend, midrash.

Did I not tell you how Paul completely reinterprets the Old Testament? He quotes the Old Testament and then throws interpretations on it that were not there in the original.
Yes, you did tell me that. However, you were wrong and are wrong. You seem to think that by merely invoking the word "midrash", you can simply assign any figurative meaning that you want to any statement Paul made about the Old Testament scriptures. In this you're incorrect, because you don't understand what Midrash is. You've already acknowledged that you're not an expert on Jewish writing and thought in the relevant time period. Midrash, as I said already, is hard to pin down, and many scholarly careers have been spent entirely on applying midrash criticism to the New Testament. There's a vast volume of material out there if you want to make yourself informed. But the important point is this. The Jews were a historically-oriented people. They cared deeply about the past. And the reason why they cared about the past was because of their firm belief that God dealt consistently with Israel throughout history. Hence they believed that their past history contained a series of events, patterns, and types which told what Israel could expect in the present and future. You can see this pattern clearly throughout the Old Testament, non-canonical Jewish writings, and other sources. Again and again the writers say that because God did such-and-such (the Exodus, parting the Jordan, the life of David, &c...), therefore we Jews can expect such-and-such now and in the future.

Now what does this have to do with Paul? Well, when you complain about Paul "reinterpreting" Old Testament passages, Paul is really doing what many Jews of his time did, namely looking through past history for evidence of hos God would reveal Himself in present history. This did not mean that Paul had carte blanche to apply any Old Testament passages to a set of spiritual beings and events, though. That would be entirely outside the range of Midrash. Indeed, the fact that Paul wrote within the Midrash tradition servers as further proof that Paul believed himself to be talking about recent historical events. If you can find a single knowledgable person who believes otherwise, I'll be happy to look into them. But if you go your usual route of insisting thatg "many scholars" hold your viewpoint on the issue, please be ready to name actual names.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ElijahW

Newbie
Jan 8, 2011
932
22
✟16,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are confused about what I am asking. I’m asking what difficulty you have in understanding Christianity, as starting from a messiah claimant’s death. This isn’t about convincing a skeptic that the dead rose or was he God in the flesh. What you need to do is explain to me what difficulties you saw in a historical core becoming what we see today; that made you think a mythical origin was more likely.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The reason there is variance in the gospels is that they were written from slightly different perspectives of what was going on, at different times and influencing each other.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot] No I don’t have a dispute with Doherty. Doherty is pushing a theory he doesn’t have support for. There is no dispute going on. It’s a clear case of either you have the evidence or you don’t. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is no need me repeating what has already been said and is continuing to be said currently. I’m not going to get in the way of atheists putting Doherty in his place, just to repeat what everyone already knows. Everyone without a bias I mean.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Do you deny the existence of heaven? Do you deny life after death? Do you deny that angels do anything? Do you deny that there was war in heaven as Revelation taught? Do you deny that there was blood sprinkled in heaven as Hebrews taught?
Yes, I believe in heaven, life after death and angels. But I don’t understand them as happening in a magical realm filled with beings that have wings and harps. I understand the concepts rationally; not taken from art literally.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Same goes with Revelations. You either try to understand it rationally or come away with nonsense. You don’t imagine things like blood literally being sprinkled in heaven. But you can believe in literally spilling your own blood establishes you spiritually. As we can see examples with more recent martyrs like MLK and Lincoln, who continue to live on spiritually in this nation now. A nation which isn’t defined by lines on a map but the ideals and spirit of our founders. (To try to illustrate the point further) You have to think rationally if you wish to understand spiritual concepts correctly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The epistles of the New Testament tell of God's offer of salvation.
[FONT=&quot]For instance, Romans 3:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You really aren’t understanding that you can’t use Paul’s letters to support the ideology you are assuming with your interpretation. What individual wrote a treatise explaining what you think Paul believed so I can see what you believe is going on? NOT PAUL'S LETTERS!!!!!!!![/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you think Paul is all we have of anyone who thought the way you think he does, then just say so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Read post 204 again. I do talk about Peter. And if it makes you feel better, I wrote a new post just on Peter.
I’ve read it and need way more clarification. Which post did you elaborate on Peter’s beliefs most recently you said?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Gosh no. I didn't say that. I said that those 2 particular verses described a spiritual realm.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]No it doesn’t come from single example and thinking it applies to everything. It comes from you not distinguishing between the two different kinds of thinking in regards to the kingdom they were trying to establish, or get to.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So you recognize that kingdom of heaven and kingdom of god had understandings of establishing that on earth? And there were groups of Jews who thought that the kingdom of heaven was a magical place you go when you die to live with your loved ones? Are there labels you wish to use for the two groups for this conversation?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In regards to calling your understanding of heaven “magical”; Christianity is based on belief in the resurrection of the dead, not in an uneducated pagan’s understanding of the afterlife. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Q and Mark are about an earthly kingdom.
[FONT=&quot]But Paul doesn't seem to be concerned about a kingdom on earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And did you have an argument against Q being from a failed messiah claimant? How does Jesus help or signify the establishment of this kingdom to Mark and Q?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So Paul’s concern isn’t about Jesus and him helping with establishing a kingdom but about getting people to heaven where Jesus was actually crucified at because his blood opened up a door somehow to that realm? He doesn’t see any improvement to this world coming from Jesus being established as the messiah, or following his example? “Jesus” is just the secret password to get into the magical realm where the dead live?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Where do you think Peter fell? Was he with trying to fix the world or just get people into heaven with believing Jesus died in heaven?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Paul is trying to show salvation through Jesus. That is why he mentions Jesus.
Yeah but what does he have to do with the salvation of mankind from your understanding of what is going on?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Really? How can Romans 6 be about a future literal death for the kingdom? Here is the passage from Romans 6 again:
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]It is figurative there. That figurative description of their imitation of his death leads to an actual death. If you believed the accounts of their martyrdoms. How do you think they are trying to get to the point of the resurrection if not by establishing the kingdom of god?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] They are following the "Christ" they find in the scriptures per Paul's gospel.
[FONT=&quot] I get that you think this is the source but this doesn’t tell me the understanding they had of the messiah or salvation from the scripture.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Are you truly not aware that many Christians think Jesus was the divine Son of God equal with God the Father?
[FONT=&quot]Do you personally think Jesus was God incarnate? Do you think he was just a good man who sacrificed his life?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The Logos incarnate. God’s Word in the flesh. Yes![/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Your anthropomorphic understanding of God in the flesh or having sex with Mary and making a super baby… No![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Are you truly not aware that many Christians think for themselves and use reason to understand scripture?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
What do you think Hebrews 9 teaches, if not a blood sacrifice in heaven?
[FONT=&quot] The sacrifice of a man to help establish a spiritual temple for a community of people who recognized it and the priest as the authority, instead of king and kingdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
All in the pot. That's fine with me.
[FONT=&quot]I think if you are trying to present a case for a nonhistorical origin then having a basic understanding of the thinking that could lead to that would be necessary. I’ll leave it alone since you don’t seem to have any understanding of the thinking presented in Paul’s letters but would still like us to consider your interpretation of them.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]So nothing about salvation for anyone, just the messiah came in the past predicted the fall of the temple so they would believe the messiah was still to come? No actual purpose to establishing Jesus as the Christ?[/FONT][/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

ElijahW

Newbie
Jan 8, 2011
932
22
✟16,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
doubtingmerle said:
[FONT=&quot]People believed that Elvis was alive, even without their parents telling them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s a silly question. I’m saying people get their faith from their parents and those around them in regards to Jesus being resurrected. The initial people who started the faith (just like Elvis) were people who couldn’t accept he had died.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you are trying to argue against a historical core then maybe you should use one of the standard myther examples, instead of a guy who was historical they thought was still alive after his supposed death. Particularly a work of fiction that was confused for a historical figure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
According to Isaiah, the suffering servant is the nation of Israel. Many have used Midrash to turn Isaiah 53 into the story of a suffering Christ, but that was not the original intent of Isaiah.
Not to ask an overly stupid question but I can’t be sure. The nation of Israel isn’t to be understood as an anthropomorphic spirit living some place that can be beaten but figurative language describing the actual nation, correct?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So we don’t have an expectation of a failed messiah at the time of Jesus? We have people retrofitting scripture, that’s describing something else, as predicting the failed messiah, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Huh? I just told you that the signs gospel was not morality teaching. Your response? "You think it was about morality precepts? Why?". That is the exact opposite of what I said!!!!!!!! Hello?
[FONT=&quot]Why would you write the exact opposite of what I said and declare that I think this?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Because you said it didn’t mention many of his moral teachings so I assumed you thought it was a moral teacher. I asked if it was a messiah that the signs were identifying and you said no, correct? So what are we left with? Gnostic teacher?[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Luke portrays his gospel as though it is history. He clearly wanted people to think it was history, even though he himself probably knew otherwise. It appears his book was interpreted as history.
Ok, now that we know it was written as fiction; how did it get confused for history? When and how did this happen?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Because the Logos exists in actual people. Every person of reason moves with the Logos. Yes it is possible to anthromorphisize spiritual elements in order to make points about what the writer feels is their nature and that is something to consider but what is being described is a particular personification of that spirit (reason). Not something like Thunder the Perfect Mind which is speaking for the spirit and has no historical/actual context.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I was asking though; should you take that verse in Proverbs literally to show that God and spiritual elements should be understood anthromorphic and able to speak? The answer seems to be no. So do you have evidence to think that they thought there was a magical place where he could be crucified? The answer there now seems to be “no” as well. And now we are going to something figurative where he doesn’t die anywhere correct? It’s figurative for something else; you just don’t know what, correct?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Sir, I gave you the references in post #217, and you just blew right by them. When I repeat the issues that you ignored the first time, you ask for the references again.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is what you said.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I asked to see the scripture you are having problems with in response to the above and you think the answer is in the Doherty link you posted a paragraph from a few pages back .
[/FONT]<Cut to fit>
So you don’t have any problems of your own to discuss? Just want to throw up a list of talking points from a myther's website?

Have you figured out if you should be interpreting Paul as taking poetry literally or being philosophically minded? Is he speaking figuratively or about an actual spirit who was crucified in heaven? Either which one needs explaining on your part.
[FONT=&quot] Paul says Jesus was crucified, but nowhere says it was on earth.
[FONT=&quot] Do you still think it is possible for anthromorphic entities to be crucified in heaven or do you think it’s figurative for some unknown process going on?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
How can Matthew stress salvation by deeds, after Paul has stressed salvation by faith?
[FONT=&quot]How can Matthew say we need to keep the law, when Paul says we don't need to?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Everyone wasn’t in agreement and edited texts to fit their view point. Do you think Matthew came first?[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regardless if you think Jesus’ statement “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” is pro or anti-Pauline antinomianism, the text is after Paul introduced the idea. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Paul was popular with early Christians in Greece and Turkey. His movement may have faded after he died, but he came back strong when his books were combined with the gospels.
[FONT=&quot] And by Christians you don’t mean how it’s commonly understood correct? There was a large movement of people who thought like Paul in Greece and Turkey? Is there a label you like to use or that they were known as, other than Christian?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I answered this before. Why do you keep on asking the same things?
[FONT=&quot] You haven’t answered this to the best of my knowledge. Bible verses are of no use in making your point because you have such a unique and unexplained understanding of what is going on back then. I understand the blood atonement from the perspective of Orthodox Christianity and that is how the texts are going to read to me. What I don’t understand is your understanding of blood atonement you think Paul has going on. No idea what-so-ever. I’m not sure if you’ve put any thought into the thinking you are assuming of ancient thinkers like Paul.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I have explained this several times to you. How many more times do I need to explain this to you?
Until you state it clearly. I got so far, you think Paul was popular in Greece and Turkey with some unknown groups Who added Paul into the mix and how did they pull it off with followers already knowing his ideology in Greece and Turkey? I need something like: Before his date Paul was with this group, then after this date and these events Paul is now associated with orthodox Christianity… to start with.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I have explained this several times to you. How many more times do I need to explain this to you?
I don’t think you’ve explained it. I have no idea the groups involved or the time periods of turning Mark historical. It’s more of question of all the gospels now since you think that Luke and Mathew were written as fiction. John as well?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
There was no clear beginning and ending.The fourth century church, especially Eusebius, wrote church history in a way that is not consistent with documents that have been found. Most likely much of this history was fabricated.
So you have no idea how it was confused for history. Like you not understanding what is being described with a figurative crucifixion, or the beliefs of the people who started Christianity, I’m just going to move on and add this to the pile of things you can’t support about your theory/case.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So far your theory is completely empty of any plot for anyone to make any sense of. There is nothing to this theory to examine. Vaporware. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
One tradition says Paul was released from Rome and went to Spain. One says he was martyred while in Rome. Which one is correct? I don't know. Do you? Perhaps neither tradition is correct.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think martyrdom in the first two centuries was exagerated. See [FONT=&quot]The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002[/FONT][FONT=&quot] .[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Who said he died an oldman in Spain? If it’s from a non biased source then consider it. Does it matter if there was exaggeration of the martyrdoms when it comes to explaining how the movement stared around them?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Legends developed with time. It is not at all unusual that legends developed with time.
So it wasn’t part of a Roman Church conspiracy. It was just the legends that grow around people from oral tradition?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The story of Stephen comes from Acts, which was probably written well into the second century.
So at about what year do you put martyrdom as being part of the movement?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Then read post #204, please.
Answer post #215 in a way that actual explains what you think happened. But we have already come to the conclusion you don’t know what happened at any point and don’t know what anyone’s beliefs are right? You think that’s like trying to figure out their shoe size or something, correct?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][qutoe] Yes, Doherty has done well on that board.[/quote]Did you ever jump in and try to help him and show some support for his argument?[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

ElijahW

Newbie
Jan 8, 2011
932
22
✟16,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now that you have the possibility of a messiah claimant sacrificing himself, consider the impact it would have on his followers. Especially if he asked them to do the same. Now imagine the impact on non believers in seeing them imitate that sacrifice while talking about eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. Do you see how Christianity started from the historical perspective yet? Can you explain how it stared without that historical core to start the faith off? Can you explain how the faith starts from a story being confused for history and not a sacrifice?


What else could Paul be referring to? Can you give us another good option?
Interesting. So the writings of Paul have been tampered with, except for the parts of Paul that agree with you? How do you know it was not the other way around?
I think I’m doing DCHindley’s theory there. I couldn’t find the actual post. Poe’s law. Maybe.

If it was speaking of the Logos in general and not of it being “manifest” of “given as ransom”. Taken out of context it could be about the Logos in general and not the impact of its personification from an individual. What understanding of Logos are you working with there? It’s not an anthropomorphic entity, right? What is it then? Do you have problems understanding the Logos as being a spiritual entity that exists from the beginning and also personified in a historical individual?
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I originally said that I had never heard the thesis of a connection between Greek cynicism and Q. You've now pointed to some works about the topic. So I have now heard of the thesis, but I still don't agree with it.

Here's what you originally said:
doubtingmerle said:
Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics.
To that I responded:
So my objection to the thesis is plain, and you haven't answered it. Some of the Q material has a passing relationship to some of the things that the cynics believed, some has no relationship, and some is flatly opposed. Therefore I still need justification for your statement that Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics. It's the 'only' that I'm objecting to.

Overall I find the link to be quite weak. For one thing, cynicism was not only a philosophy of ethics, but also of physics, metaphysics, and logic. Cynic physics was strictly materialistic, holding that only physical objects exist. Cynics believed in god but their god was a principle or force acting within the material world and not a personal god, thus radically different from anything we find in any branch of ancient Jewish or Christian thought. Cynic logic was based on around a complicated tracing of the process by which perceptions were turned into actualities in the mind. No trace of any of this appears in the Q material or any other Christian writing as far as I can tell.

Now you said in post #252:
doubtingmerle said:
The cynic connection to Jesus has been well established.
I responded in post #253:
These still seem like legitimate questions to me. As I understand it, "established" means "proved"; if something is established then no reasonable person in the field disputes it. Has the connection between the cynics and Jesus actually reached that point? I don't think that it has. You can name a book plus a few other sources, fine. But recall what Cicero once said: "There is no position so stupid but some philosopher somewhere believes in it." That statement is even more true in our time, especially in the academy, especially in Bible study. The number of bible scholars is in the tens of thousands so it's no surprise that in a quest for something original to write about, some of them would choose far-fetched ideas. For me personally, I try to address this by focusing on mainstream scholars, while avoiding both fundamentalists who refuse to consider the existence of any inaccuracy and left-wingers who are strongly biased against accuracy. All the books and articles that I've recommend to you come from scholars in that category. Certainly it's not valid for you to say that the connection is "established" just because of a handful of sources. That's why I've asked you, and hereby ask you again, to break open your copy of Cynics and Christian Origins and tell me which particular points in the argument convinced you that this connection exists.

Moreover, the entire idea that a group of Jews would have absorbed and believed in a pagan philosophy in the early first century flies in the face of what we know. I have already mentioned this before. Here is part of what the Boyd and Eddy book says on the matter:
Concerning the particular question of whether Greek and other pagan influences affected the very earliest Christians, historian Larry Hurtado a book on early Christianity and he sums up as follows:
Hurtado also has a nice video discussion:
YouTube - LARRY HURTADO How did Jesus become a God

Your theory depends heavily on the belief that there were strong Greek pagan influences on the Jewish founders of early Christianity. You claim that Paul was influenced by Greek religion, that the "Q community" was influenced by the Greek cynics, that Mark merged this and other pagan influences with Jewish beliefs, and so forth. But you're wrong. There was no Greek influence on Jewish religion in the early first century. There was not a single Jewish community that inducted Greek ideas into its theology. Some may have brought bits of Greek culture into their culture, but that's entirely seperate from theological questions. I already brought this up earlier in the thread and you've never really responded to it.

So to summarize: no influence of the cynics on Q, no influence of Greek thought on Jewish religion anywhere else.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
The life story of Paul is that first he persecuted the Christians, then on the road to Damascus Jesus Christ appeared to him and converted him, then he spent several days in Damascus with the Christians there, then escaped and went into hiding for three years, then to Jerusalem to study with Peter and the other apostles, then on his missionary journies, then after 14 years elapsed he went back to Jerusalem at which point the conflict between Paul and Peter occurred. So the Gospel that Jesus died and was resurrected, Paul claims to have by revelation, but at the same time he readily acknowledges receiving further knowledge about the life and teachings of Jesus from tradition. His use of the words "received" and "delivered" follows a traditional formula for the transmission of information from one person to another to another. All of this is discussed at great length in this article which makes abundantly clear that Paul was saying that received information from the apostles and passed on traditions, creeds, and so forth that he'd gotten from the church. If you are willing to read that article and respond to what it says, then I'll take seriously your claims about the sources of Paul's information.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
How commonly? Exactly how many people do you know of who believe that 1 Cor 2:8 refers to "demonic princes" rather than the face-value understanding of "the rulers of this age"? Please give me names and also tell me what their credentials are.

doubtingmerle said:
I've heard the arguments for an early Acts. The later date makes more sense to me, and to many scholars.
Who exactly are these many scholars? Once again I want names.
 
Upvote 0

AlexBP

Newbie
Apr 20, 2010
2,063
104
42
Virginia
✟17,840.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Well, as always with your use of the word "many", that brings up the question of who the "many" are. How many of these "many" can you name?

On the issue of the actual reliability of MacDonald's book, it looks like you've punted. You admit that much of what MacDonald says is "tenuous" but then insist that there are "a wealth of similarities" and link to a review by Richard Carrier, which proudly trumpets a lot of the issues that you have already admitted to be tenuous. So what exactly is not tenuous? What exactly is the convincing evidence that Mark copied Homer or was even familiar with Homer?

Let's look at the first specific points that Carrier brings up.
But where exactly in the Gospel of Mark are all the disciples depicted as "greedy, cowardly, potentially treacherous, and above all foolish"? I can think of nothing that justifies Carrier's statement to that effect. And where exactly in the Odyssey does Homer say that the companions of Odysseus were "exactly like this"? Indeed, all of the companions of Odysseus in the Odyssey end up dead, rather different from what happens to the disciples in Mark. So this "similarity" is not a similarity at all. The treatments of the disciples in Mark and the companions of Odysseus have absolutely nothing in common. It is pure dishonesty on the part of MacDonald and Carrier to suggest that they do.

Next up: Actually Eurylochus was never accused by his leader of being under the influence of an evil demon. That's another flat-out falsehood. Likewise, where in the Odysses would I go to find Eurylochus "challenging the doomsday predictions of his master"? I don't recall any such thing ever happening. This looks like another fiction on the part of Carrier and MacDonald. As for the idea that Peter "spoke on behalf of all the followers", I see little evidence that he did so consistently in Mark's gospel. For the few times that he did, it's only logical that in any group there's one person who sometimes speaks for all. You might as well draw similarities from the fact that Peter and Eurylochus both spoke with their mouths.
Richar Carrier said:
Both works begin by summoning their own Muse: Homer, the Muse herself; Mark, the Prophet Isaiah.
Where exactly does Mark "summon" the Prophet Isaiah?
Richard Carrier said:
both involve an inordinate amount of events and travel at sea
As I've already pointed out, Mark's "inordinate amount of events and travel at sea" is actually a couple short paragraphs on a lake. You seem to have accepted that this particular comparison is absurd, so I won't hammer on that point any further.
Richard Carrier said:
In both stories, the son's patrimony is confirmed by a god in the form of a bird, and this confirmation prepares the hero to face an enemy in the very next scene: Telemachus, the suitors; Jesus, Satan.
To draw any similarity between the scene of Odysseus confronting the suitors and Jesus being tempted by Satan strains credibility way past the breaking point. In the first scene, there a bloodbath that lasts for several pages. In the second, the devil offers Jesus three temptations and Jesus rejects them. Carrier thinks these are similar because they involved facing an enemy, but doesn't almost any scene in any narrative involve an enemy? You might as well say that there's an inescapable connection between the temptations of Jesus and Sherlock Holmes wrestling with Moriarity atop the waterfall. Those two scenes have a lot more similarity then the two that Carrier is talking about here.
But what on earth does he mean when he says "Melanthius ... even fetches arms for the suitors to fight Odysseus-just as Odyssues brings armed guards to arrest Jesus"? Obviously bringing weapons is a different thing from being part of an angry mob. And Melanthius has a name meaning "the Black One" while Judas means "Judah". I'm afraid I don't see any similarity there. Besides those points, Melanthius and Judas are different in virtually every point. Judas was a disciple throughout, Melanthius a late arrival in the Odyssey. Judas is motivated by greed, Melanthius not. And so forth.
The claim that both these characters were "scoundrels" is meaningless. That word is so vague that it could apply to any character who's viewed negatively. In specifics, there is absolutely nothing in common between Irus and Barabbas. And how is Barabbas "competing for the attention of the enemy"? As for "both are symbolic of the enemy's culpability", one could argue that any bad guy in any work is symbolic of the bad guys as a whole. That means nothing.

If you would like to read a thorough, point-by-point debukning of MacDonald's entire book, I recommend the following:

Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark -- a critical examination

However, I think the ball's in your court now. Do you still believe that MacDonald is an honest scholar and that there's anything meaningful in the claim that Mark was influenced by Homer? We've looked at the first seven specific claims in Carrier's review here and what do we see? Half of what MacDonald and Carrier say is flatly false. The other half is pointing out similarities so vague that they could be used to tie together almost any two works that you care to name. So if you want to defend this thesis, please tell me exactly what evidence you think to be convincing.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Once again we are looking at the fragmented early church, the many gospels, the many Jesus's, the many Christs, the many apostles of the New Testament. Where did they all come from? How can this all originate from one Jesus? For instance:
2 Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 5For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
Gal. 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Mark 13:21"And then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ'; or, 'Behold, He is there'; do not believe him; 22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

2 Cor11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
We seem to see many Christs, apostles, gospels, and Jesus's arising out of a common background looking for an annointed savior. ("Christ" means annointed, "Jesus" means savior).

Okay, let's look at what we know about Apollos of Alexandria in detail.

First of all, we can throw out those quotes you mentioned from 2nd Corinthians. Those are utterly irrelevant and have nothing to do with Apollos of Alexandria. He is never even mentioned in that letter.

We don't know whom was the recipient of Pauls's ire in 2 Cor 11, but it may well have been the Apollos he disputes in 1 Corinthians. The point is that there were many people calling themselves apostles and teaching many different things. The picture of the church as presented in 1 Cor and 2 Cor is far from that of an organized body dedicated to one Jesus, one gospel, and one clearly defined set of apostles.


We differ on this. I suggest that any interested reader look at 1 Cor 1-3 in the light of what Doherty says at Jesus Project Demise-Supplement 01.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
During this response I’m going to have to assume that you understand correctly and think exactly like Doherty since you posted a link instead of speaking for yourself.
Isn't that a rather unusual asumption? Do you know any two people that think exactly alike?
Why does Hebrews 9:22-23 refer to the earthly sacrifices in a temple as a copy of the things in heaven? If the "things in heaven" refers simply to the self-sacrifice of a messiah claimant, how can the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament possibly be a copy of that? The detailed description of Old Testament blood sacrifices are very different from the idea of a man laying down his life for his friends.

And why does Hebrews 9:11-14 say that Christ entered into the heavenly tabernacle with his own blood "as a high priest"? You do remember what high priests did with blood when they entered the tabernacle, don't you? These verses look a whole lot more like a picture of a blood sacrifice, then praising a man for laying down his life for others.

See Hebrews 9 - Passage[bless and do not curse]Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, after all that, are you still going to assert that "if you look at early second century Christian writings, the traditions of both Mark and Paul were marginal. Instead folks were talking about the Logos (Word) as a revealer of God"?
OK, that may have been a little strong.

Going into the second century, Paul's writings do indeed appear to have become marginal. His writing don't appear to be at the forefront until they pick up steam midway into the second century.

The historical Jesus movement per Mark gradually developed, and led to Matthew and Luke and Ignatius at the turn of the century. By 180 AD this movement dominates almost all of Christianity.

But before 180 AD, there was also a huge swath of Christianity, represented by the Gnostics and most of the Christian apologists, that emphasized the personified Logos and hidden wisdom rather than an historical Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
OK, what I should have said is that the evidence for a Jesus/Cynic connection has been known for a long time, and has been argued by many scholars. And yes, there are those who disagree.
I haven't been ignoring your links. I've tried to click on all of them and read them as I have time.

If you haven't noticed, there has been an enormous amount of material directed at me on this thread. It sometimes takes me weeks to respond to something. I have only a limited amount of time to spend here. And yet, in spite of that, several people insist that I must respond to them personally immediately--or read and write an essay on their links immediately--and that I must direct my full attention to them right now. Does it never occur to people here that I might actually have a life, with a family and job, and that I am here only as a hobby? Did it never occur to you that I do not have unlimited time to read and respond to every link that you can find on the Internet?
Oh, please, where did I ever demand that you read entire books? Pardon me, but can you please tell me where you are getting this stuff from? Can you see how some people might think you are just making this up? If I really made such a demand, please show me where.
I don't have that book, and never claimed that I did. The only reason I linked to it was because you said you had never heard the claim of a Jesus/Cynic connection, so I showed you a sample of a book that made that claim. I was not demanding that you read that book, or claiming that I had read it.

My knowledge of the claimed Jesus/Cynic connection comes mainly from reading Crossan's The Historical Jesus many years ago. I no longer have that book.
OK, we differ on this.

The site that I linked to had many more than just 4 quotes if you want to look into it further. And many have aruged that the similarity between Jesus and the Cynics is far greater than a superficial resemblance. Again, the interested lurker who wants to study this in more detail has been given information from both sides, and he is welcome to read both sides and make up his own mind.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Go back to the post that you were responding to and you will see that I've already quoted from an article which specifically addresses this question.
I have already responded to your quote from the Internet.

Let's look at the contradiction it is trying to explain away.
Matthew give one genealogy of Jesus:
Matthew 1:15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
But Luke says:
Luke 3: 23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
Your source get around the contradiction by asserting a onetime special meaning for the words shown in red, saying that they really mean "the son-in-law of" in this one special instance. How convenient! Can you understand how this looks like a contrived explanation? After all, the word translated "son" clearly means son, and never means "son-in-law". Also Jewish tradition would never use Mary's genealogy at this point. And your response? You have a link on the Internet saying not to worry, its all good.
Even if they did disagree on the genealogy, that would not bring you even a tiny bit closer to proving that your interpretation of Romans 1:1-4 is correct.
What it shows is that genealogy might not have been held to the standard you claim. For if Luke--or his sources--can fabricate a false genealogy for Jesus, why could not somebody else refer to metaphorical seed of David?
And have you dropped the argument about seed? Previously you were insisting that "seed" can never be metaphorical, and that it always must be literal, and means the sperm. When I asked you whose sperm contributed to the immaculate conception, you seem to have suddenly dropped the demand that seed (sperm) needs to be literal, and changed to "descendents" instead. As I have previously shown you that "son of Abraham" can be a metaphorical expression, how are you so certain that "seed of David" cannot also be metaphorical?
The word "seems" is a wonderful device for anyone trying to do an end run around facts and logic.
I am not trying to do an end around with facts. I simply point out that this is what my senses determine. I think that is better than yelling from the housetops "you are wrong".

Which do you prefer? Should I tell you "it seems to me" that something is being taught here, or should I scream from the housetops, "I am right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong"?
We have clashing interpretations of a phrase. Let's look at how it's interpreted by people who know what they're talking about.
You turn to the NCV as your source, a version written for children? See this scathing review of the NCV, ending with this summary:

We offer these criticisms somewhat reluctantly, because it is evident that the NCV was not designed to be used by adults for any serious study of the text. An attitude of kindly indulgence would seem to be more appropriate in dealing with a Bible designed for children. But unfortunately in these days it has become necessary to draw attention to shortcomings in such versions, because inflated claims of "accuracy" have become usual in the advertisements for them. The publisher of this version should not be making such claims, and should not be presenting this version as one suitable for adults. The version may be useful in teaching children, but it falls short in this regard also.
The New Century Version
Nevertheless you turn to the NCV and its phrase "as a man"?

Here is the original greek of that verse --http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=1&v=4&t=KJV#conc/3 . Now please tell me where this children's Bible got the phrase "as a man". Did they just make it up, and insert it in there so children would better understand traditional theology? How can anybody call that scholarship?
Now from the NIV:
Please show me where the phrase, "in his earthly life" comes from. You can see the original Greek at my link. Now please show me which words in the orignal were the source of this phrase. Again, if people are just inserting stuff into their versions to sell more Bibles, what does that have to do with scholarship?

Experts? Were these "experts" you refer to committed to accuracy, or to giving people what they wanted so they could sell more Bibles?

I use the NASB, because it is generally accepted by evangelicals, and has a reasonable commitment to scholarly accuracy.
By what authority do you claim to interpret what this passage "seems" to say in contrast to what everyone else sees that it simply does say?
So now you turn to the argument from authority? Why do I need to go find an authority to interpret the Bible for me? Why can't I just read the Bible and tell you what it says?
Here is an article which addresses the exact question that we're discussing; can you reply to it?
OK, I'll add this to my to do list.
you're just wrong.
Do you prefer I use this kind of dogmatic statement, as opposed to saying, "it seems to me"?

Uh, if Paul wanted to make sure we understood he meant on earth with Paul's peers, he could have simply stated it. There is no question that Mark was protraying his Jesus as being on earth. Why would Paul drop in multiple poetic hints hoping that people catch on, rather than simply state it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The word "Messiah" appears only in Daniel 9: 25-26 (in my version), and it refers to an annointed one to come 42 months after Antiocus Epiphanes desecrated the temple. Clearly that does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
The Hebrew word translated "Messiah" here is the word "mashiyach" which means "annointed" or "annointed one". It appears 39 times in the Old Testament. In none of these places does it specifically refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The priests are called mashiyach (messiah); King Saul is mashiyach. King David is mashiyach; King Cyrus of Persia is mashiyach. God's annointed "mashiyach" (messiah) can mean anybody that God annoints for his purposes. Nowhere does it say that God's annointed (mashiyach) needs to be a physical person. See Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
How do you know it needs to be a person?
More importantly, a list of the messianic prophecies gives dozens of specific, earthly events that are expected in the messiah's life. (The link below contains a partial list of messianic prophecies, but there are many more.)
It appears that first century Jews must have put together lists of "prophecies" that they interpreted as referring to the messiah. Paul seems to have gotten his Jesus from such a list of "prophesies". He never says this Jesus he found in scriptures became a physical man and lived with his peers.
Buuuzzzz. Oh sorry, wrong answer. That's not what I say. See above.
How do you know the Jews thought the Messiah had to be flesh and blood?
Ah, now this would make an interesting thread! Are you interested in looking at this topic together?
No, that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is, when Paul quotes scripture, that scripture generally meant something completely different in the original from what Paul uses it to mean. Don't believe me? OK, you could start anywhere in Paul, and read until you come to an Old Testament quote. Then look up the original, and see if the original means in context what Paul uses it to mean. It won't be long until you find many instances of what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What you need to do is explain to me what difficulties you saw in a historical core becoming what we see today; that made you think a mythical origin was more likely.
See the OP.
The reason there is variance in the gospels is that they were written from slightly different perspectives of what was going on, at different times and influencing each other.
How does that explain that the snyoptics all decide to use the same parentetical expression at the same time when they write? How does that explain that Matthew repeats 90% of the verses in Mark, often nearly word for word? How does that explain the almost total lack of coordination of John with the other gospels before the passion narrative? How does that explain anything?
Yes, I believe in heaven, life after death and angels. But I don&#8217;t understand them as happening in a magical realm filled with beings that have wings and harps. I understand the concepts rationally; not taken from art literally.
Which tells me nothing.

Do you think the New Testament writers refer to a literal heaven or a metaphorical heaven? Did they think life after death is literal or metaphorical? Did they think angels were literal or metaphorical?

What exactly do you believe?
Same goes with Revelations. You either try to understand it rationally or come away with nonsense. You don&#8217;t imagine things like blood literally being sprinkled in heaven.
So do you think the millenium is literal or metaphorical? Is hell literal or metaphorical?

What exactly is the "rational" interpretation of Revelations?
Yes, MLK and Lincoln live on, metaphorically at least. Is that the way your Jesus lives on? Are you saying that the memory of him lives on? Or do you think he literally rose from the dead? If he literally rose from the dead, where exactly is he now, if there is no literal heaven?


You ask me what Paul taught. Why exactly can't I use Paul's own letters to show you what Paul taught? What better source is there to show you what Paul taught then to quote his own letters?
If you think Paul is all we have of anyone who thought the way you think he does, then just say so.
The books of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians were probably written by somebody other than Paul but they share much of Paul's theology. Hebrews, I Peter, and 2 Peter are also close.
Which post did you elaborate on Peter&#8217;s beliefs most recently you said?
Post #243.
No it doesn&#8217;t come from single example and thinking it applies to everything. It comes from you not distinguishing between the two different kinds of thinking in regards to the kingdom they were trying to establish, or get to.
That's very odd you would say that. For in the very post you were replying to, I talk of both the spiritual and literal interpretations of the kingdom.
So you recognize that kingdom of heaven and kingdom of god had understandings of establishing that on earth? And there were groups of Jews who thought that the kingdom of heaven was a magical place you go when you die to live with your loved ones?
Do you think heaven in the Bible is only a metaphorical place? Is the entire concept of a literal heaven nothing more than magical thinking to you?

If heaven is not literal, where do you think God is?
In regards to calling your understanding of heaven "magical"; Christianity is based on belief in the resurrection of the dead, not in an uneducated pagan&#8217;s understanding of the afterlife.
And what exactly is your educated, non-pagan view of the afterlife?
And did you have an argument against Q being from a failed messiah claimant?
I don't see much in Q that indicates it comes from a Messiah claimant.
How does Jesus help or signify the establishment of this kingdom to Mark and Q?
In many places the Jesus of the synoptics refers to the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, probably referring to a kingdom on earth.
So Paul&#8217;s concern isn&#8217;t about Jesus and him helping with establishing a kingdom but about getting people to heaven where Jesus was actually crucified at because his blood opened up a door somehow to that realm?
Yes, I think that is what Paul is saying, except Paul isn't specific about the location of the crucifixion.
He doesn&#8217;t see any improvement to this world coming from Jesus being established as the messiah, or following his example?
That's not his emphasis. His emphasis is personal redemption.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
According to Paul, the earth is waiting anxiously for the resurrection of Christians.
It is figurative there. That figurative description of their imitation of his death leads to an actual death. If you believed the accounts of their martyrdoms.
It's getting to the point where I need to ask you if you mean literal or metaphorical almost every time you use a noun or verb from the Bible. Much of the Bible appears to be metaphor in your view.
How do you think they are trying to get to the point of the resurrection if not by establishing he kingdom of god?
By personal salvation that leads to a resurected life in heaven.
So nothing about salvation for anyone, just the messiah came in the past predicted the fall of the temple so they would believe the messiah was still to come? No actual purpose to establishing Jesus as the Christ?
I think Mark's gospel intended to portray Jesus as the Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I&#8217;m saying people get their faith from their parents and those around them in regards to Jesus being resurrected.
And if they had different parents with a different faith, they would believe something else?

If your faith is based on what your parents told you, and different parents teach different things, how do you know your parents told you the right things?

Not to ask an overly stupid question but I can&#8217;t be sure. The nation of Israel isn&#8217;t to be understood as an anthropomorphic spirit living some place that can be beaten but figurative language describing the actual nation, correct?
Thanks for asking that "overly stupid question". I'm stilling trying to figure out what it means. I too can make stupid questions: Why for trucks if faster becoming cute wherefore when certainly trees dog breath and so forth?

Ok, your question may be more nonsense than mine, but at least I tried!
So we don&#8217;t have an expectation of a failed messiah at the time of Jesus?
No, I don't think they thought the messiah would fail.
Ok, now that we know it was written as fiction; how did it get confused for history?
I think the gospels were intended to be viewed as history, even though the writers probably knew that at least much of the content was not true. They may have justified this because they were giving hope, just like parents tell stories of Santa Claus that they know aren't really true.
So you don&#8217;t have any problems of your own to discuss? Just want to throw up a list of talking points from a myther's website?
Yes, I have problems of my own.

Would you like to discuss my bunions?
Have you figured out if you should be interpreting Paul as taking poetry literally or being philosophically minded?
Would you like to elaborate on why we should interpret Paul one way or the other?
Everyone wasn&#8217;t in agreement and edited texts to fit their view point. Do you think Matthew came first?
Read the OP.

Regardless if you think Jesus&#8217; statement "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." is pro or anti-Pauline antinomianism, the text is after Paul introduced the idea.
Matthew says we need to follow everthing the Pharisees teach, for they teach the law of Moses. Paul disagrees.

There was a large movement of people who thought like Paul in Greece and Turkey?
Maybe several thousand, I don't know.


I understand the blood atonement from the perspective of Orthodox Christianity and that is how the texts are going to read to me.
Oh, this should be interesting. What do you think Orthodox Christianity teaches about the blood atonement?
I need something like: Before his date Paul was with this group, then after this date and these events Paul is now associated with orthodox Christianity&#8230; to start with.
Two can play that game. I need the date when the first person described the deity as a trinity, and when the first person declared that Jesus was in the beginning with God. (I don't need the hour, just the year, month and date, please. Thank you.)
So far your theory is completely empty of any plot for anyone to make any sense of. There is nothing to this theory to examine. Vaporware.
Then read post #204.

By comparison, we have nothing but evasions about your unusual Christian views. Do you care to share what you think actually happened in first century Christianity?
Does it matter if there was exaggeration of the martyrdoms when it comes to explaining how the movement stared around them?
Yes, truth matters.

So at about what year do you put martyrdom as being part of the movement?
There was probably some martyrdom early, but the great waves of martyrdom didn't occur until the 3rd century.
Answer post #215 in a way that actual explains what you think happened.
See post #216.
But we have already come to the conclusion you don&#8217;t know what happened at any point and don&#8217;t know what anyone&#8217;s beliefs are right?
We have?

Yes, Doherty has done well on that board.
Did you ever jump in and try to help him and show some support for his argument?
yes

You missed the point. I have actively asked for experts on Christianity to debate me. I have come here looking for those who understand Christianity. I would gladly accept a debate here with any Christian writer who has written a book defending the faith.

But you have a dispute on Doherty's views of Greek mythology. And yet you refuse to discuss it with the man who wrote the book.

Can you see the difference?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay, I originally said that I had never heard the thesis of a connection between Greek cynicism and Q. You've now pointed to some works about the topic. So I have now heard of the thesis, but I still don't agree with it.
OK, let's agree to diagree then.
Here's what you originally said:
Q concentrates only on sayings that resemble the Greek cynics.
OK, I should have worded it, "Q concentrates on sayings. These sayings often resemble the Greek Cynics."
Then take it up with the author of Acts please. Twice the book of Acts refers to Hellenized Jews, that is, to Jews who were stronly influenced by Greek thought.

See also Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Yes, of course, there may have been some Jews that stubbornly refused to talk to their new
Greek neighbors, but some did talk, and eventually ideas spread throughout the world.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The life story of Paul is that first he persecuted the Christians,
I don't consider Acts to be historical (and yes, I've seen your link saying it is). The only record that we have of Paul persecuting the Christians other than in Acts is Galations 1 where Paul says he presecuted (Greek dioko) the Christians. If you look up that Greek word, you see that it has to do with harrassing or mistreating. It definately does not prove that Paul went about killing Christians, only that he dispute Peter and the others that claimed the mountaintop experience of "Christ". See Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon.
Here Paul, in the book of Galations disagrees with Acts. Paul denies that he spent any time talking with other Christians before he went into hiding for 3 years and emerged with "the gospel that was preached by me".
That is a vague way of saying that he received it from the disciples. Actually, he seems to be claiming that he received his gospel from scripture.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Cr 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Is he preaching what he knows about Jesus according to what Peter and James told him, or according to what the scriptures told him?
All of this is discussed at great length
OK, I'll put that on my to do list.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Walter Kovacs

Justice is coming, no matter what we do.
Jan 22, 2011
1,922
91
Florida
Visit site
✟17,624.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why would Paul drop in multiple poetic hints hoping that people catch on, rather than simply state it?

Because Paul was a Jew, and that's how Jews wrote. Jews didn't write fact sheets for academic dissection, thought wrote in a poetic and metaphoric form that the Hebrew people would actually understand instead of just intellectually 'know'.
 
Upvote 0