Originality Rating for this thread: 3.2/5 (6 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 2.5/5 (6 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast) |
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21430
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
  
 
|
Posted: Wed 2006-04-05 15:43
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Average word counts, rising... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That is interesting that Paul says "12" instead of "11". I always thought the whole Judas thing was a little odd to begin with. Because if Jesus' crucifixion was part of some pre-arranged human sacrifice, why was Judas called a "traitor" for participating in making this great event come about? If Judas didn't do what he did, mankind would never have become “saved’. So why is Judas portrayed as such a bad guy? |
The 11 thing came from the Mark tradition and obviously Paul was following another tradition.
| Quote: |
| Another interesting tidbit in that passage was when Paul claimed that Jesus' resurrection was witnessed by "more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time". |
Again, its hyperbole. This spirit of Jesus, which spoke to no one according to the earliest religious writings, was more of a feeling than anything. This matches of with the Gospel of Thomas. When Jesus was dead, the memory/spirit lives on and helps guide people. It does not talk nor is it really a person. It is apparently a feeling. How else does one "live with Jesus inside?" Does Jesus climb down your throat?
| Quote: |
It is also important when you read passages such as this to consider the importance of the Jewish prophecy of a Messiah. One of the biggest obstacles to Jesus become the heir to King David is the fact that he was dead. The only way around this little problem was to claim that Jesus was not actually dead, and that he would return at a later time in order to build his kingdom upon the Earth.
The idea of Jesus’ return was of great importance to Paul (as we have discussed earlier). And the reason it was so important was that only by rising from the dead would Jesus be able to fulfill Jewish messianic prophecy. But of course, most of Paul’s flock was not Jewish, so the reason for Jesus’ ascension was probably lost on many of them. As Christianity became more and more de-Judaized, the entire meaning and purpose of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and eventual return changed. Jesus’ death was used as an excuse to allow Christians to ignore old Jewish law, and Jesus’ “kingdom” moved from the Earth to Heaven (with some Christians believing that this kingdom of heaven would eventually be expanded to include Earth as well)
The whole thing is actually pretty silly when you look at it. |
Well, I think the lack of jewishness of Paul's teachings and his seemingly faith sell-out religion is the result that he could not expect the gentiles to understand all of these prophets supposedly fortelling Jesus and the importance of Jesus' sacrifice to jews. Paul thought the world was coming to an end very soon, so he only taught what was most urgent: repent and accept Jesus in spirit. The details were less important than the crux of paul's theology.
| Quote: |
| No, but it does seem to view Jesus as some sort of “spirit” or “light”. And there are a few passages in Thomas which seem to be slight altered version of similar events in the gospels (or visa-versa). For instance, verse 12 asks who will lead the Christians after Jesus has left (but Thomas never specifies where Jesus is going or by what means he is leaving). It also talks about Jesus returning. |
I believe the returning part was not literal in the Gospel of Thomas, and as Paul elaborated on, purely spiritual. However, while Paul claims to see some sort of ghost, the gospel of thomas makes the return of Jesus more akin to a memory that lives on. You know, kind of like saying, "He lives on in our hearts."
| Quote: |
Here are a few passages from Thomas which talk about the life, death, and return of Jesus.
From Gospel of Thomas
12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
[…] |
Clearly, this passage implies that the writer of the Gospel of Thomas knew that the death of Jesus occurred. He probably believed it was crucifiction, unless he believed Jesus would be carried up into heaven by God like Elijah.
| Quote: |
| 15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father." |
This passage intrigues me. It can mean the obvious: fall before me, for I am a son of God. It can also mean that Jesus will be "reborn," brought back by God. However, I believe Jesus here is saying, "Do not pray to any person born by a human." The bible often makes a big deal out of "seeing God face to face" and what Jesus here is alluding to is that through turning away from sin, you can get so close to God that you can see him face to face...a honor held by Moses and no others after him.
| Quote: |
| 28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. |
Again, this passage either implies that Jesus passes in and out of existence, a lot like the Jesus who resurrects in flesh but can walk through walls in the gospels. However, Jesus could be saying several different things here. What comes to mind is that he is alluding to what John believes, that Jesus is the Word made flesh...this divine idea encompassing the order of existence jam packed into human form. This might not be very humble of Jesus to say...It might also be Jesus simply saying, "Yeah that was really me, in the flesh."
| Quote: |
37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid." |
This seems to me saying, through being humble Jesus is alive in your life, such as the reference of turning away from sin allows one to be face to face with God. That's why I think the word "appearance" is being used, but in a less boastful way than Paul's usage.
| Quote: |
43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"
"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you. Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree." |
I'm not sure what this reference has to do with the resurrection.
It might be making reference to Matthew 7:
| Quote: |
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them. |
Jesus seems to be saying he's a true prophet and is complaining that people don't know a real prophet when they see one.
| Quote: |
| 46. Jesus said, "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted. |
Jesus might be praising John and be humble about himself or is claiming that he is literally the son of God, is a hologram, or he is figuratively the son of God. He is probably praising John.
| Quote: |
| 49. Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again." |
If the kingdom of heaven is all around us, Jesus is saying that through God's grace (like Paul said), God will choose those who attain salvation. According to the Gospel of Thomas, salvation is seeing the kingdom of heaven. Think of this as like seeing "the good" according to Socrates in Plato's Republic.
| Quote: |
| 50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" |
I am not quite sure what this has to do with the resurrection. If anything, this appears that Jesus is assigning his disciples as sons (servants) of God, children of the light living in the light [of divine truth.]
| Quote: |
| 51. His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it." |
Paraphrase: "There is no heaven or second coming. Heaven is around us now in the fabric of existence."
| Quote: |
| 52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead." |
I like this one, because it has caught my eye. Jesus seems to be saying that the prophets in the bible are dead and he is scolding his disciples for looking at him as literally their means of getting good with God instead of seeking the living [God] who is all around us like the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is not speaking of himself. Even if he were, this quotation would seem like it is saying, "Forget what those dead guys say about me, just listen to me now."
| Quote: |
| 55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me." |
Those who compromise their beliefs are not going to find divine truth...obviously, the carrying of the cross reference refers either to the crucifiction (obviously) or it is an expression which speaks of struggle.
| Quote: |
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." |
Jesus is saying he is the Word made flesh, the essence of divine truth seen in all of existence.
| Quote: |
| 85. Jesus said, "Adam came from great power and great wealth, but he was not worthy of you. For had he been worthy, [he would] not [have tasted] death." |
Sin leads to death, very clearly state in genesis. As humanity delves into more and more sin, our life expectancy falls because we are getting farther and farther away from God through sin. It is a literary point, contradicted by the fact that God did not plan Adam to be immortal, because he did not want him eating from the tree of immortality...unless, God didn't want Adam to be immortal under the condition that Adam knows good and evil.
| Quote: |
| 87. Jesus said, "How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two." |
"Depend on God and not humans."
| Quote: |
91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment. |
Jesus appears to be advocating a faith that is unpopular today, the faith in that the Way is seeking truth and turning away from sin to find God.
| Quote: |
99. The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside."
He said to them, "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father's kingdom." |
Based upon everything else written in the Gospel of Thomas, I do not believe that the Kingdom of God referred here is an actual afterlife.
| Quote: |
| 101. Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For My mother [gave me falsehood], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life." |
This appears to be a doublet of Jesus telliong people to seek truth and not compromise to others.
| Quote: |
| 108. Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." |
"If you listen to my words, my spirit will live within you"...this is a popular Pauline notion.
| Quote: |
| Even though Thomas seems to believe that Jesus can manifest himself in human form at will, this is quite a different view than that presented in the New Testament. And if Thomas really does pre-date the gospels as most people believe, you really have to wonder if Jesus started out as a simple myth which was later claimed to be true, or rather if Jesus was a real person upon whom later myths were built. Unfortunately, unless some more writings can be found, I don’t think there is any way to decide conclusively between either of these two possibilities. And unfortunately for us, orthodox Christians had a terrible habit of burning anything they considered “heretical”, so it’s possible that were may never be able to answer this question. |
Thomas does not seem to claim that Jesus isn't human, because Jesus does not do any blatant ghost tricks or anything. It appears that Jesus in the Gosapel of Thomas is being portrayed as a prophet.
| Quote: |
| Just a side note… What makes you so sure that Peter and the rest of the disciples really existed in the first place? About the only evidence I can find for there existence is from the writings of Paul. So it remains a possibility that Paul fabricated these people to give the Jesus story more credence. However, if that were the case, you have to wonder why Paul would have fabricated theological disagreements with his imaginary friends. |
He wouldn't. Peter's name is found in Q, Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas. Source not from Paul from around the same period mention him. All these different sources lead me to believe that individual is as real as Olympias, alexander the great's mother.
| Quote: |
| But, even if you assume that these people existed, what evidence is there that they actually knew the flesh-and-blood Jesus? |
There isn't any, but we do not doubt that Cleon, an ancient Athenian, exists. He's mentioned by Thucydides...one source who wrote many years after the events. You weigh the evidence, think about the motive one might have for making up a person, and then make a judgment. Barbabbas (sp?) guy is probably made up...Peter is probably not. If I were to be more critical, I would have to doubt most of ancient history.
Perhaps you are being too critical about whether or not these individuals existed; being critical about what they have supposedly done is understandable.
| Quote: |
In that verse, Jesus tells his disciples to follow James, the person Paul referred to as Jesus’ brother. But was James really Jesus’ biological brother?
Isn’t it possible that James was this type of brother?... A brother in belief, rather than of blood? |
Yes. Just like son of God could easily mean "servant of God."
| Quote: |
52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."
So Jesus’ disciples heard of Jesus though these 24 Israeli prophets and not by meeting Jesus himself? What up wit’ dat? |
I don't believe that is what is said....I went into this previously.
| Quote: |
| I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if you insist on believing in some of the mythology associated with the Jesus tale, I don’t think God would be too upset at a person doubting some of the mortals (such as Paul) who claimed to be preaching the accurate teachings of Jesus, but who may have in fact been utter charlatans. |
My fear is not if I am wrong, but if beneath it all I am being arrogant. If I am being prideful by denying a tenel of modern christianity with disregard for truth, then God need not exist for me to be atthe very least bring mental harm to myself. I try not to think of how God might judge if judge at all, but if God does may it have mercy on us all.
| Quote: |
| Much of the time it really does seem like Paul was more concerned about increasing the size of his gentile cult, rather than with teaching the “accurate” words of Jesus. So again, if you believe that Jesus really was preaching the “will of god”, it probably would be best to remove as much of Paul’s influence from church doctrine as possible. |
Paul was certainly packaging things and selling it to people so they may understand, but I do believe that important beliefs underlie what he is saying. Beneath it all, he is telling people to follow Jesus' example (I approve of that) through faith in this resurrection of Jesus' spirit...he plays up the faith in the resurrection to make a more complicated idea (faith in a way of life) sound more simple. In the end, we all put our faith into whatever path we choose.
| Quote: |
| Again, that “easy way out” seems to have been a creation of Paul. By claiming that all a person needs to do to become immortal is believe the words of Paul, it made Christianity a very easy sell – especially in a time when many other cults had much harsher requirements for obtaining a happy eternity (such as self-castration). |
I certainly agree with you here.
| Quote: |
| I find your faith in the Jesus tale rather interesting. We both seem to have a similar level of knowledge in biblical history, so I have to wonder what you are seeing that I am not. |
I believe it may be a couple things:
1. A firm belief in God. I was driving my car one day, and like a nerd, was going over the teological and cosmological arguments in my head. Suddenly they made sense, I could not argue against it. The arguments were persuasive.
2. I might be wrong, but if you are correct in doubting, you would not be humbled by first, being so wrong (supposedly), and second, realizing that the eternal truths in existence are exemplified in a creator's order. This to me, if one were to justify through the teological argument that morality reflects God given order, this certainly increases the probability there is a just God...not by much, because what are you measuring the numbers against? However, it is enough to light a fire under your ass.
3. A belief that the message of the bible is overall correct, though not 100 percent perfect. You openly do not appreciate the bible as much, but certainly you do have reasons for it.
You might not be seeing anything wrong at all and I am. I do think these different circumstance do account for the differences in belief, unless I sold out my truthfulness to avoid being uncomfortable or vise versa. Hopefully that is not the case for either or both of us.
| Quote: |
When I look at the issues we have been discussing, I see an interesting historical puzzle (which is my primary interest in researching it), but nothing that would in any way lead me to believe that the story is true. To the contrary, the more I learn, the less of it I believe.
I am still on the fence when it comes to the question of whether or not a guy named Jesus every really existed at all, but lately I have found myself moving towards the “never existed at all” camp. I still believe that Jesus was probably a real person, but after looking into Thomas (and other related issues) a little more, that “faith” has begun to become shaken. |
Well, from my Cleon and Olympias example, I do believe you are being topo critical of some aspects of ancient history than others. I too see are historical puzzle, which is why I went so far into the conclusions I have been making. I cannot understand the bible or history without at least peicing together as much as I can. My study of the bible has chiefly led me to one important thing:
In the end, we are always trusting that whatever life we lead is the way we are supposed to live it, otherwise we would be doing things differently.
It depend where we choose to put that faith. In Jesus, in Jesus' flesh and blood resurrection, in Mohammed, in ourselves, in Buddha, in science, in humanity, in etc. What path do we faithfully choose? I believe that I have found out that pretending that what I believed was the be all end all and my pride was what was most important was my error. I hope for my sake I am not in error now and for your sake you are not in an error somewhat like my own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21461
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-04-05 21:21
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| I owe you a 2nd response! |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ahh... it is just a small seed of belief that if one accepts and nurtures, it will provide "shelter" later on for the spirits of the sky. I still don't like it, but at least I have some idea of what he was trying to say. |
I think there are also implications like, "One you see the kingdom of heaven, like the mustard seed, you will grow (spiritually that is) and bring forth life."
| Quote: |
| It is interesting how many of the same sayings existed in all of the various sects of the proto-Christian church, even though they each portrayed a radically different vision of who Jesus was and what his "purpose" was. It makes you wonder what Jesus' original messages really was (assuming that a person named Jesus ever really existed in the first place, that is). |
Jesus probably wanted people to not take some jewish laws too seriously and hae people repent their sins not for the sake of God crushing them, but for spiritual growth.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure about that. You have to wonder how Docetism could have thrived so early on in Christian history if Jesus had, in fact, been a real living person. Paul seems to argue against this doctrine in 58AD when he describes Jesus’ birth --
From http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#3
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
This seems to indicate that Paul though Jesus was a mortal being -- a descendent of King David, and therefore a king.
On a side note, it is interesting how the first gospel (Mark) also seems to share this opinion. Mark doesn't give a magical explanation for Jesus' birth. In fact, he really doesn't give any explanation at all. The only mention Mark gives of Jesus’ family is in 3:31 (When Jesus ignores his Holy Virgin mother) and in Chapter 6 (when the people of his hometown don't buy the whole "prophet" thing). And mot importantly, both of these incidents have parallels in the Gospel of Thomas. (Thomas 99 and 31). This seems to indicate that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood mortal, with all of the mythological elements of his birth added at a later time.
It seems that the early Christian faith had at least 5 different theories of Jesus birth and his divinity. |
Very interesting theorizing so far...
| Quote: |
Jesus was a mortal descendant of King David (through his biological father, Joseph).
Jesus was a born a mortal, but became divine after his baptism (or after his cricifiction). |
This was probably the original and intended belief. Mark very clearly has Jesus as a sinner, who through God's grace (kind of like Moses) was chosen after God appeared to him. The king david thing was cooked up by jews to seek religious meaning from their jewish traditions.
| Quote: |
| Jesus was never actually born (Docetism). |
Based on the evidence we have at hand, I believe this is probably not true.
| Quote: |
| Jesus was born in the flesh, but was half-human/half-god (Mathew and Luke). |
Same as above.
| Quote: |
| Jesus was god (The holy trinity). |
Who the hell came up with that first?
| Quote: |
| And as if this wasn't confusion enough, when you try to fit the beliefs or other "heretical" sects into this puzzle, it becomes extremely difficult to determine who was right – was Jesus a real person, or was he just a myth to which a bunch of quotes had been attributed? Or was Jesus a real person (of minor importance) whose real teachings were altered and expanded upon by others? |
Good questions. His initial following must have been, and based on biblical evidence, was indeed small. This leads one to believe that "making the blind see" was less a miracle that wowed crowds of thousands than a literary device.
| Quote: |
The existence of the Gospel of Thomas and other early Christian sects demonstrate the difficulty in determining what the "real" Jesus actually said. This divergence of opinion shows that few people really cared what Jesus had to say while he was alive (if he ever lived at all, that is).
To me, this casts a cloud on the supposed value of what this supposed religious teacher had to say. Even after the Jesus story had been bolstered and improved as it traveled along the grapevine, the values taught by Jesus really aren't that impressive when compared with other philosophies.
Perhaps it is that we hold a different view of who Jesus is. When you look at the progression of the Jesus myth from mark to Matthrew&Luke to John ... and when you look at other apocryphal stories ... and when you look at the lack of documentation from Jesus' own lifetime, it seems pretty clear that most of the "mystical" elements of the Jesus tale were added at a latter time. |
On the most part, yes.
| Quote: |
| I mean, Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War in the 6th Century BC, and yet his writings have survived to this day. So why is it that the teachings of "god incarnate" are obscured by the cloud of history? (And on a side note, I have found Sun Tzu’s writings to be far more “enlightening” than Jesus’) |
We have no writings from Socrates at all...he's fucking socrates man! He could not hand anything? Was everything written about him a hoax?
| Quote: |
| If the Jesus story were true (i.e. If he really was somehow related to GOD), his life would have been the most important event in human history. So why is it that nobody at the time seemed to care? We can't even be sure that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus were ever actually spoken by him. And when you couple this with the fact that the moral value of his preachings aren't anything particularly special, it is difficult to understand why anybody would be so concerned about what this minor Jewish religious teacher had to say. |
Well, that's your opinion, but I think you are presuming the will of God if the fact that people weren't wowed enough by his supposed incarnate. Maybe, God does not supposedly want that. God is not like us, so we should stay away from assumptions.
| Quote: |
| You are correct. Despite our shared interest, we both seem to be coming at this problem from two different angles. You seem to believe that Jesus really was the son of god (or at least an inspired prophet). |
I have evidence for inspired prophet, which led to inspired writings. That is what I believe.
| Quote: |
| But from my perspective, this seems like an utter impossibility. Even if there were a GOD, I have a hard time understanding why his would have allowed his teaching to be lost and scattered to history. |
Perhaps the writings are not God's. They are ours...humans lose and destroy things. Even if Jesus was inspired, that does not mean he was in 100% accordance with God's will, if God wills anything of course.
| Quote: |
| Throughout the ages there have been countless individuals who have claimed to speak to gods of some sort or another, and there is simply no way that all of them are telling the truth. |
They might all be speaking some aspoects of truth...or blatantly lying. However, I do believe there is truth in everything at some level.
| Quote: |
The historical record for this person is extremely weak. The only reason anybody knows about this character is due to the efforts of a handful of people who preached various contradictory forms of his teachings. And when it comes to the teachings as presented in the New Testament, I have serious doubts if these are an accurate presentation of what Jesus may have actually said. The modern church (and most of the New Testament) is pretty much derived from Paul and his followers -- and Paul never actually heard Jesus preach. And in fact, Paul's letters show that there was a serious degree of friction between Paul and the people who may have actually known Jesus -- James the Just and other "Jewish Christians".
I can tell you that one of my dreams is that further pre-gospel literature (like the Gospel of Thomas and "Q") may someday be discovered. I would love to see what would happen if these documents were to paint an entirely new picture of what Jesus preached. If the records showed conclusively that the myth presented in the gospels were fabricated (or extremely inaccurate), I have to wonder what would happen to today's Christian Church. Would the Catholic Church merely close up shop and go home? What if the original teachings of Jesus showed that the guy was merely a mortal cult leader/nutty prophet? Would modern Christians convert to a radically different set of teachings, and a radically different picture of Jesus as a mortal Jewish rabbi? |
Very interesting. IMHO, people would just call the new findings hoaxes, even if Jesus himself wrote them.
| Quote: |
| Paul didn't seem have any clue of what Jesus actually said. So therefore, it seems likely that if the teachings of an historical Jesus were ever discovered, they probably would differ significantly from the version portrayed in the bible -- possibly being more akin to Gospel of Thomas or Gnosticism -- and it would certainly be more "Jewish". |
I agree with you here, but if one were to just read Paul alone and not attribute the context of the 4 Gospels, Paul would not be as far off from Gospel of Thomas as you think...and judging from his writings, bona fide christianity was jewish.
| Quote: |
| On a side note, if the "Q" document really did exist, you have to wonder why it wasn't preserved. It was apparently widespread enough for both Matthew and Luke to get their hands on it, yet the original document is lost and there seems to be no direct mention of this document in antiquity. Could it be that this "Q" document was considered heretical to Mathew, Luke, and most other early Christians? Is it possible that these sayings came from some sort of proto-Gnostic or other Docetic document similar to that of the Gospel of Thomas? Perhaps both Matthew and Mark got a hold of some rival sect's book of sayings, and even though they believed that the document was heavily tainted with "heretical" ideas, they tried to salvage what they could. That would explain why both Mathew and Luke were picky about what parts of it to include in their gospels. If they had believed that “Q" represented the untainted and divine word of their lord, would both writers have been so quick to discard so much of it? |
Interesting stuff.
| Quote: |
| There are almost 30 parables found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. Yet Mathew and Luke are only in agreement on 6 of those. That leaves 24 other parables which, for some reason were chosen by Matthew and not Luke, or visa-versa. |
1. I just realized I have been spelling "visa-versa" wrong all this time. I apologize for this mistake.
2. All their parables seem to match up. I am unsure what you are speaking of. Can you elaborate?
| Quote: |
Perhaps I am just being overly cynical, but that Psalm seems like a direct plea for religion to become your own personal opiate. Don't think too much -- Ignorance is bliss.
Not my cup of tea. |
That's understandable.
| Quote: |
The Gospel of Thomas certainly is fascinating. And while Thomas's connection to Mathew and Luke is interesting, what is even more interesting is Thomas' connection to the first Gospel written, Mark. There are at least 13 places where Mark and Thomas contain similar passages. This seems to indicate that they both stem from an earlier common tradition, although the connection is tenuous at best and seems to be most likely from a common oral tradition rather than a written one. Although there are a couple places where the wording between Mark and Thomas are so similar, you have to wonder if perhaps there really was an earlier written document which was shared by both authors. (see: Parable of the Sower, The Lamp, Jesus' True Relatives, Caesars Coin, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed)
There is even one place where the chronology of Thomas matches Mark. In Mark 12:1-9, he gives the parable of The Wicked Husbandmen immediately followed by Mark 12:10 which states: "And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner". Likewise, Thomas 65 also gives the same parable as Mark 12, and the next verse (verse 66) states: "Show me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone.". That bit about the rejected stone really has nothing to do with the parable which precedes it, yet they are both presented together in both Thomas and Mark which seems to indicate a shared written record. |
Very awesome find, because the chances of it being coincidence are extremely low, unless Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century forgery which borrowed from the "true" gospels and in one case, Paul. This is probably not trure.
| Quote: |
| But for the most part, the wording is so radically different that it seems more likely that their shared content came via words of mouth. In the The Patch and the Wineskins, Mark, Mathew, and Luke talk about putting a new patch on an old garment, but Thomas reverses this and speaks of putting and old patch onto a new garment (A screw up in the oral tradition possibly??). |
Screw up in tradition most probably, unless there is a change in emphasis with belief's effect on the body, with Gospel of Thomas putting the body first and the other Gospels going the other way around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21470
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
   
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-04-06 00:26
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Average word counts, rising... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Does Jesus climb down your throat? |
Sorry... I don't swing that way.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid." |
This seems to me saying, through being humble Jesus is alive in your life, such as the reference of turning away from sin allows one to be face to face with God. That's why I think the word "appearance" is being used, but in a less boastful way than Paul's usage.
|
I think the part about "stripping naked" alludes to something else which was stated in verse 108 - "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.". One of the themes of Thomas is that anybody can become as great as Jesus, if only they understand the mysteries which Jesus has spoke through his parables. The part about "stripping naked" may mean that a person must be able to see himself and understand himself (see himself naked) in order to obtain divinity.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"
"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you. Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree." |
I'm not sure what this reference has to do with the resurrection.
It might be making reference to Matthew 7:
| Quote: |
18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them. |
Jesus seems to be saying he's a true prophet and is complaining that people don't know a real prophet when they see one.
|
I agree. But it's possible that this passage may be referring specifically to the Judeans that strung him up on a tree.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" |
I am not quite sure what this has to do with the resurrection. If anything, this appears that Jesus is assigning his disciples as sons (servants) of God, children of the light living in the light [of divine truth.]
|
Or Thomas may have been implying that Jesus was part of the "light" which was created in the first day in Genesis.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead." |
I like this one, because it has caught my eye. Jesus seems to be saying that the prophets in the bible are dead and he is scolding his disciples for looking at him as literally their means of getting good with God instead of seeking the living [God] who is all around us like the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is not speaking of himself. Even if he were, this quotation would seem like it is saying, "Forget what those dead guys say about me, just listen to me now."
|
Or this could be a condemnation against listening to mortal prophets (who will someday die) instead of listing to the mystical Jesus portrayed in Thomas.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me." |
Those who compromise their beliefs are not going to find divine truth...obviously, the carrying of the cross reference refers either to the crucifixion (obviously) or it is an expression which speaks of struggle.
|
This is the only direct reference to the crucifixion in Thomas. Is it possible that this bit about the cross was added later (just like verse 114)? Even though Thomas is thought to pre-date the gospels, the only complete copy we have today dates from the 2nd century. So it's possible that this may be a later corruption. Or perhaps the writer of Thomas was aware of the crucifixion tale, but didn't view it as being very significant to Jesus' overall message or purpose.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." |
Jesus is saying he is the Word made flesh, the essence of divine truth seen in all of existence.
| Quote: |
| 85. Jesus said, "Adam came from great power and great wealth, but he was not worthy of you. For had he been worthy, [he would] not [have tasted] death." |
Sin leads to death, very clearly state in genesis. As humanity delves into more and more sin, our life expectancy falls because we are getting farther and farther away from God through sin. It is a literary point, contradicted by the fact that God did not plan Adam to be immortal, because he did not want him eating from the tree of immortality...unless, God didn't want Adam to be immortal under the condition that Adam knows good and evil.
|
Go back and look at verse 50 again in light of these two passages. Did Thomas believe that Jesus was created on the "first day"?
| sorianofan wrote: |
Thomas does not seem to claim that Jesus isn't human, because Jesus does not do any blatant ghost tricks or anything. It appears that Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas is being portrayed as a prophet.
|
I'm not so sure...
| From Gospel of Thomas |
13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."
|
Here Jesus seems to be saying that he is not a prophet, but rather a "light" which all of his disciples become a part of if they follow his way.
| sorianofan wrote: |
He wouldn't. Peter's name is found in Q, Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas. Source not from Paul from around the same period mention him. All these different sources lead me to believe that individual is as real as Olympias, alexander the great's mother.
|
What other sources mention Peter or the rest of the disciples? Josephus doesn't mention them, so do you know what other secular writings mention these people? I haven't been able to find them yet. (link please)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But, even if you assume that these people existed, what evidence is there that they actually knew the flesh-and-blood Jesus? |
There isn't any, but we do not doubt that Cleon, an ancient Athenian, exists. He's mentioned by Thucydides...one source who wrote many years after the events. You weigh the evidence, think about the motive one might have for making up a person, and then make a judgment. Barbabbas (sp?) guy is probably made up...Peter is probably not. If I were to be more critical, I would have to doubt most of ancient history.
|
I think you are probably right ... these people probably existed. But I really have to wonder if they actually knew Jesus, or if they were just members of his mystical church who knew him in spirit only. I don't think Paul ever says that these people actually knew Jesus, but I could be wrong there ... lemme check...
Places where Paul mention Jesus' disciples:
| From Galatians 2:15-16 |
2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. |
| From 1 Corinthians 15 |
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
|
I'm a little confused here. Paul says he was seen by the "12", and then later by James and all of the apostles. This seems to mean that the 12 which walked with Jesus were not the same apostles which hung out with James. But then again, I've never really be altogether clear on who exactly was a "disciple" and who was an "apostle"... and what exactly the difference was.
it is interesting to note that I cannot even fid a single reference to the term "disciple" in any of Paul's letters. All Paul seems to know about are the Apostles -- people who preach the gospel of Jesus, but did not ever see him in the flesh. The only indication that any of these apostles ever knew Jesus was the fact that Paul referred to James as Jesus' "brother". And as I pointed out earlier, this term may not have meant to imply a blood relationship with the son of god. Thomas refers to James as well, but never indicates a blood relationship to Jesus -- Thomas merely refers to James as the Leader of the Church (A lofty position, but not quite as important as being the Brother of the Messiah)
It seems that is was the later Gospel writers who tied these people into the story of the real flesh-and-blood Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Perhaps you are being too critical about whether or not these individuals existed; being critical about what they have supposedly done is understandable.
|
It may be possible that I am being over-critical. But I find it odd that Paul would never mentioned the fact that the Apostlese with whom he spoke to in Jerusalem actually knew the flesh-and-blood Jesus. First-hand witness testemony of this kind certainly would have help Paul's story.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Even if you insist on believing in some of the mythology associated with the Jesus tale, I don’t think God would be too upset at a person doubting some of the mortals (such as Paul) who claimed to be preaching the accurate teachings of Jesus, but who may have in fact been utter charlatans. |
My fear is not if I am wrong, but if beneath it all I am being arrogant. If I am being prideful by denying a tenel of modern christianity with disregard for truth, then God need not exist for me to be atthe very least bring mental harm to myself. I try not to think of how God might judge if judge at all, but if God does may it have mercy on us all.
|
I'm glad I don't have to worry about such things. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I find your faith in the Jesus tale rather interesting. We both seem to have a similar level of knowledge in biblical history, so I have to wonder what you are seeing that I am not. |
I believe it may be a couple things:
1. A firm belief in God. I was driving my car one day, and like a nerd, was going over the theological and cosmological arguments in my head. Suddenly they made sense, I could not argue against it. The arguments were persuasive.
|
I bet I could argue against them, if you gave me a chance. 
But I too often find myself engaged in these types of internal conversations while driving. And my last job afforded me plenty of time for this activity (I drove 60,000+ miles a year as part of my job).
| sorianofan wrote: |
2. I might be wrong, but if you are correct in doubting, you would not be humbled by first, being so wrong (supposedly), and second, realizing that the eternal truths in existence are exemplified in a creator's order. This to me, if one were to justify through the theological argument that morality reflects God given order, this certainly increases the probability there is a just God...not by much, because what are you measuring the numbers against? However, it is enough to light a fire under your ass.
|
The "argument from order" or "design" doesn't really work with me, since it demands that the ultimate in naturally-occurring design (i.e. GOD) must have "evolved" on his own in order to be around to create all of the rest of the "lesser" order we see in the universe. Saying that "god did it" may appear to answer these questions, but it only works if you don't think about it very hard.
| sorianofan wrote: |
3. A belief that the message of the bible is overall correct, though not 100 percent perfect. You openly do not appreciate the bible as much, but certainly you do have reasons for it.
|
I'm not sure that the teachings of this minor (and mostly undocumented) prophet are all that important. If Jesus was that important, I doubt we'd be left with the clusterfuck of biblical questions that we have been discussing in this thread.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
When I look at the issues we have been discussing, I see an interesting historical puzzle (which is my primary interest in researching it), but nothing that would in any way lead me to believe that the story is true. To the contrary, the more I learn, the less of it I believe.
I am still on the fence when it comes to the question of whether or not a guy named Jesus every really existed at all, but lately I have found myself moving towards the “never existed at all” camp. I still believe that Jesus was probably a real person, but after looking into Thomas (and other related issues) a little more, that “faith” has begun to become shaken. |
Well, from my Cleon and Olympias example, I do believe you are being topo critical of some aspects of ancient history than others.
|
But the question is, what would be the purpose about lying about Cleon's existence?
When it comes to Jesus, there exists a motivation for the early Christians to try to turn this myth into a historical reality – it makes the religion more believable. It is evident that many early Christians themselves did not believe Jesus was a real living person. It is also easy to see why the early apostles may have tried to convince their followers of the historical truth of Jesus' myth.
So yes, there are other historical figures who's existence is weakly documented. But seldom are these important figures. (Their level of documentation often seems to be proportional to their importance)
So, you have to question what the motives for teaching that a myth is true. And you also have to question whether or not the myth is realistic in the first place, and the Jesus story fails that test as well.
It's possible that the Jesus story started as a small piece of fiction, but was later believed by some to be true. Frank Herbert fabricated a similar piece of fiction in Dune. Is it really so hard to believe that a person living 2000 years ago might read this piece of fiction, and come to believe that the Kwisatz Haderach was a real person?
| sorianofan wrote: |
It depend where we choose to put that faith. In Jesus, in Jesus' flesh and blood resurrection, in Mohammed, in ourselves, in Buddha, in science, in humanity, in etc. What path do we faithfully choose? I believe that I have found out that pretending that what I believed was the be all end all and my pride was what was most important was my error. I hope for my sake I am not in error now and for your sake you are not in an error somewhat like my own. |
I wouldn't include "science" with all of the other "faiths", since most of the ideas in Science are testable and provable. The Jesus/God myth doesn't even compare. I suppose you can call them all a set of "beliefs". But the "cult" of science exlains the universe in far more detail than any single prophet ever has. And additionally, the "cult leaders" of science can offer physical evidence for every single one of those beliefs. It is true that some of th "gaps" in scientific knoledge is filled in with theoretical hypothesis. But these hypothesis are not accepted into offical "scientific canon" until such time that they are demontrated to be accurate. Additionally, if a piece of scientific knowledge is later deemed to be wrong or slightly inacurate, it is either replaced or modified -- can you think of any other "religion" which does that?
Science is in a different classification than religion because it relies on things which can be observed in reality, instead of relying on the imagination of a few people of questionable sanity.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21471
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-04-06 02:31
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: I owe you a 2nd response! |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I mean, Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War in the 6th Century BC, and yet his writings have survived to this day. So why is it that the teachings of "god incarnate" are obscured by the cloud of history? (And on a side note, I have found Sun Tzu’s writings to be far more “enlightening” than Jesus’) |
We have no writings from Socrates at all...he's fucking socrates man! He could not hand anything? Was everything written about him a hoax?
|
I suppose you could draw parallels between Socrates and Jesus. Both taught a certain "philosophy", their teachings are only known thanks to their "followers", and both were executed due to their teachings.
But as far as the historical record of their existence, Socrates beats Jesus hands down.
Socrates' existence is attested to by Plato, Xenophon, and other contemporaries, whose writings do survive and whose existence in turn is also documented by other sources (even by some which disagreed with Socrates). Additionally, none of Socrates contemporaries doubted his existence. So in order to believe that Socrates was a myth , you would have to believe the just about everybody in Ancient Greece was either lying or delusional.
For comparison, none of Jesus’ writings exist today (if they existed at all), and none of his disciples writings survive either. The only early writings which survive we most likely culled from an oral tradition -- and were written by unknown persons -- and contain many, many contradictions. None of Jesus' contemporaries ever wrote about him, and there were many people from the first century who doubted his existence.
This does not mean that it is impossible for Jesus to have existed ... It just means that if he did exist, he wasn't very important.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| If the Jesus story were true (i.e. If he really was somehow related to GOD), his life would have been the most important event in human history. So why is it that nobody at the time seemed to care? We can't even be sure that any of the sayings attributed to Jesus were ever actually spoken by him. And when you couple this with the fact that the moral value of his preachings aren't anything particularly special, it is difficult to understand why anybody would be so concerned about what this minor Jewish religious teacher had to say. |
Well, that's your opinion, but I think you are presuming the will of God if the fact that people weren't wowed enough by his supposed incarnate. Maybe, God does not supposedly want that. God is not like us, so we should stay away from assumptions.
|
The idea that you shouldn't question the "mind of god" seems a bit to me like the Orwellian concept of crimestop. While it is true that I have no personal experience at being a deity, I don't think that disqualifies me from trying to figure out if the actions of a deity make any sense. So I think it's a legitimate question to wonder why a god would give his "perfect" message to an individual (a message that was of key importance to a person's eternal soul), and then not seem to care if anybody heard it, or whether or not the "apostles" who he ordained to spread Jesus' words (i.e. Paul) got the message correct.
This goes back to the basic philosophy that if the Christian god really does behave in this manner, he must be the biggest Jerk to have ever existed. And if this is the case, why should we be so concerned about obeying him -- and obeying a message which he seems to have so little interest in conveying correctly to all of humanity.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You are correct. Despite our shared interest, we both seem to be coming at this problem from two different angles. You seem to believe that Jesus really was the son of god (or at least an inspired prophet). |
I have evidence for inspired prophet, which led to inspired writings. That is what I believe.
|
Would you say that it would be impossible that a mortal human being could have developed the same philosophy? Was divine intervention really necessary for a human to teach people that the should try to get along with each other? It isn't as if Jesus reveled any divine secrets of the universe or anything. Einstein seemed to have more "god-like" knowledge of the structure of the universe than Jesus did. The ideas which Jesus taught were not entirely original to Jesus, nor were they anything that an average mortal person could have came up with on their own -- which is what I believe probably what happened here.
There's nothing in Jesus' teachings which indicates that the creator of the universe was involved in their creation. Nothing at all.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Perhaps the writings are not God's. They are ours...humans lose and destroy things. Even if Jesus was inspired, that does not mean he was in 100% accordance with God's will, if God wills anything of course.
|
But if Jesus' words were not the words of a deity, what is it that makes them so important? I know you’ve tried to explain that, but I still don’t get it.
| sorianofan wrote: |
IMHO, people would just call the new findings hoaxes, even if Jesus himself wrote them.
|
You're probably right. Even if scholars were able to demonstrate that gospels were derived from these earlier writings, and even if scientists were able to date the documents to the correct time period, it likely that that most Christians wouldn't "believe" in them -- and would rely on their "faith" in their false doctrines.
Faith sucks.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| There are almost 30 parables found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. Yet Mathew and Luke are only in agreement on 6 of those. That leaves 24 other parables which, for some reason were chosen by Matthew and not Luke, or visa-versa. |
1. I just realized I have been spelling "visa-versa" wrong all this time. I apologize for this mistake.
2. All their parables seem to match up. I am unsure what you are speaking of. Can you elaborate?
|
I just find it odd that both Matthew and Luke posses this book of all of Jesus' saying, yet discarded so much of it. They both included most of what Mark said, but they just seem to have cherry picked the pieces of Q which fit their beliefs. And since both seemed to pick mostly different parts of Q, you have to wonder how much of Q was left out by both Matthew and Luke. It would be quite a coincidence if all of Q was represented by either Matthew or Luke. It is much more likely that there is far more which were ignored by both. And you have to wonder what these discarded portions said. But whatever they said, you can probably be sure that it was something that Matthew and Luke didn't like. So what was is it about these pieces of Jesus' teachings that made them suitable candidates for the memory hole?
| sorianofan wrote: |
Very awesome find, because the chances of it being coincidence are extremely low, unless Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd century forgery which borrowed from the "true" gospels and in one case, Paul. This is probably not true.
|
I admit that that is a possibility, but I agree that this seems unlikely. If the Gospel of Thomas was written in the second century, the writer seemed to have almost no knowledge of the gospels. And that seems a little unlikely. But I suppose it may have been written by a guy who heard the Jesus tale orally from an evangelist in the 2nd century, and then wrote down what he remembered. This could explain the simplicity of the sayings in Thomas as opposed to those in the Gospels. And it is possible that the writer of Thomas may have not entirely understood Jesus' teachings, which is why Thomas doesn't explain any of Jesus' teachings (and presents them as “mysteries”) whereas the gospel writers often offered more concrete explanations of the parables.
But overall, it seems more likely that Thomas' simplicity is due to it's earlier date. It just seems unlikely that Thomas could have stolen most of his ideas from the gospels, yet ignore so much of what they had to say. And the fact that Thomas seems more in line with the early beliefs of people like Paul rather than the later more developed Christianity of the gospels also seems to confirm an earlier date. However, it would be wrong to say that the issue has been settled with anything close to 100% certainty.
On a side note, I just realized that this thread was supposed to be about he old testament, not the new one. Oh well. So much for staying on topic.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21490
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-04-06 12:14
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
delete this post
Last edited by sorianofan on Thu 2006-04-06 21:22; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21495
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-04-06 21:02
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sorry... I don't swing that way. |
lol!
| Quote: |
| I think the part about "stripping naked" alludes to something else which was stated in verse 108 - "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.". One of the themes of Thomas is that anybody can become as great as Jesus, if only they understand the mysteries which Jesus has spoke through his parables. The part about "stripping naked" may mean that a person must be able to see himself and understand himself (see himself naked) in order to obtain divinity. |
You could certainly be right, but "strip without being ashamed" does imply that one must be humble in their actions.
| Quote: |
| I agree. But it's possible that this passage may be referring specifically to the Judeans that strung him up on a tree. |
I am somewhat following you. Where is the "hanging on a tree" part implied? Excuse my ignorance if I am missing the obvious!
| Quote: |
| Or Thomas may have been implying that Jesus was part of the "light" which was created in the first day in Genesis. |
Certainly, John's "word made flesh" remark. However, just because Jesus boasts that he and everyone else can see and live in the light, does not mean that he literally believes he was there when the "light" first was there.
| Quote: |
| Or this could be a condemnation against listening to mortal prophets (who will someday die) instead of listing to the mystical Jesus portrayed in Thomas. |
What you said does make sense, but Jesus does not allude to that fact in that sentence that he is eternally living, immortal, or anything like that. Often, in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus doesn't call God God. He uses two forms of terminology: the Father and the Living God. One implies that God is parent to us all and we inherit spiritual things from it and the other implies that God is all around us, active in our spiritual lives.
| Quote: |
| This is the only direct reference to the crucifixion in Thomas. Is it possible that this bit about the cross was added later (just like verse 114)? Even though Thomas is thought to pre-date the gospels, the only complete copy we have today dates from the 2nd century. So it's possible that this may be a later corruption. Or perhaps the writer of Thomas was aware of the crucifixion tale, but didn't view it as being very significant to Jesus' overall message or purpose. |
To your second point, you are precisely right. Jesus' destiny, to struggle for the sake of spiritual truth (within the context of the gospel of thomas of course) destined to end in crucifiction, is the destiny of all those who seek truth in a sense. Thomas clearly does not go into any "if you carry my cross, you will resurrect and have eternal life" clearly shows that Thomas did not have literal resurrection in mind.
| Quote: |
| Go back and look at verse 50 again in light of these two passages. Did Thomas believe that Jesus was created on the "first day"? |
Thomas might be claiming that Jesus, the word made flesh, is the human essence of this divine truth that has existed since the very beginning, but I do not believe it is entirely clear that Thomas is actually arguing that Jesus, the person, was there. It is more like the truth was first and Jesus epitomized the truth afterward than Jesus and the truth are the sme thing and began at the same time.
| Quote: |
I'm not so sure...
From Gospel of Thomas
13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."
And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."
___
Here Jesus seems to be saying that he is not a prophet, but rather a "light" which all of his disciples become a part of if they follow his way. |
I would agree with you, especially now you bring this up. However, Thomas seems to be making the claim that Jesus is beyond a wise teacher, he knows all spiritual truth. However, this does not seem to be a chronological assertion of Jesus' existence since the beginning. See what I wrote previously for my opinion on that.
| Quote: |
| What other sources mention Peter or the rest of the disciples? Josephus doesn't mention them, so do you know what other secular writings mention these people? I haven't been able to find them yet. (link please) |
No, our sources are all not-secular. However, some of these sources are letters written by these people...which is much better than what we have for some historical figures, such as Olympias, and yes, Jesus.
| Quote: |
I think you are probably right ... these people probably existed. But I really have to wonder if they actually knew Jesus, or if they were just members of his mystical church who knew him in spirit only. I don't think Paul ever says that these people actually knew Jesus, but I could be wrong there ... lemme check...
Places where Paul mention Jesus' disciples:
Galatians 1:18-19 (Paul refers to James as Jesus' "brother")
Galatians 2 (Discussion of circumcision with the Jewish Christians)
1 Corinthians 4:9... (The Apostles are fools for Christ)
1 Corinthians 9:1-2... (Paul is an Apostle because he has "seen" Jesus.)
1 Corinthians 12 (last half) (I think Paul is saying that he is a better Apostle than all of the rest.)
1 Corinthians 15 (Paul meets the Apostles, and then calls himself the "least of all the apostles")
1 Corinthians 11 (Paul warns of "false" Apostles, i.e. Those who don't agree with him.)
Ephesians 3:1-5... (The apostles know Jesus by his "Spirit" and understand Jesus' "mysteries".)
Ephesians 4:11
1 Thessalonians 2:6
From Galatians 2:15-16
2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
From 1 Corinthians 15
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. |
It is good to keep historical doubt, I agree with you on that. Furthermore, the probability of Peter existing is higher than Jesus. However, because Peter does say that Jesus appeared after the crucifiction, this implies that someone was certainly crucified...that being Jesus. Paul was too busy selling his theology which was seperate from Jesus' in many ways that emphasizing things that Jesus did in life. However, he also (rarely) quotes Jesus, which leads us to believe he is talking about a person, because he never quotes the Jesus that appeared to him (because spirits don't talk...)
| Quote: |
| I'm a little confused here. Paul says he was seen by the "12", and then later by James and all of the apostles. This seems to mean that the 12 which walked with Jesus were not the same apostles which hung out with James. But then again, I've never really be altogether clear on who exactly was a "disciple" and who was an "apostle"... and what exactly the difference was. |
Well, Cephas (paul) is part of the 12, so Paul was essentially saying "He appeared first to paul and then the rest of the 12 apostles (special disciples of Jesus that followed him I guess.)
| Quote: |
| it is interesting to note that I cannot even fid a single reference to the term "disciple" in any of Paul's letters. All Paul seems to know about are the Apostles -- people who preach the gospel of Jesus, but did not ever see him in the flesh. The only indication that any of these apostles ever knew Jesus was the fact that Paul referred to James as Jesus' "brother". And as I pointed out earlier, this term may not have meant to imply a blood relationship with the son of god. Thomas refers to James as well, but never indicates a blood relationship to Jesus -- Thomas merely refers to James as the Leader of the Church (A lofty position, but not quite as important as being the Brother of the Messiah) |
Yes, but early sources such as Q, Mark, and Thomas speak of the 12 disciples, who we have letters from some.
They might have took it for granted that they knew Jesus as a person and did not explicitly write: "Hey, I chilled with Jesus, I would know." At the very least, Paul knew these people and Paul purports that Jesus was real. So this means that Peter and company, unless Paul was lying about them (but why?), knew Jesus. It is likely the writers of the first Gospels and supposed sayings of Jesus were among the early church leaders and thus had access to the same oral traditions and sources, thus the interlap in sayings and events in them.
It seems odd that all that oral tradition would come out of thin air, especially when it was not the early church leaders whop are in the bible writing them...they took it for granted that the message was out. Other men compiled those messages into thomas, Q, and Mark. Thus, people were hearing of what Jesus said from people other than Paul and company. This also increases the probability of the existence of Jesus, because who said all those things otherwise?
Yes, it is possible that it was a runaway myth with no basis in reality or real people at all. However, if it is all made up, the message made up to many is really impacting so again, not totally lacking in importance.
| Quote: |
| It seems that is was the later Gospel writers who tied these people into the story of the real flesh-and-blood Jesus. |
This is possible, but for the reasons I stated previously, not as likely in my opinion.
| Quote: |
| It may be possible that I am being over-critical. But I find it odd that Paul would never mentioned the fact that the Apostlese with whom he spoke to in Jerusalem actually knew the flesh-and-blood Jesus. First-hand witness testemony of this kind certainly would have help Paul's story. |
True, but he was writing to established institutions already. At that point, they were convinced, but Paul wanted to convince them of his theology. For this reason, we don't have Paul elaborating about the actual deeds of the mortal Jesus.
| Quote: |
| I'm glad I don't have to worry about such things. |
You never worry about being dishonest?
| Quote: |
| I bet I could argue against them, if you gave me a chance. |
That should probably be a second thread.
| Quote: |
| The "argument from order" or "design" doesn't really work with me, since it demands that the ultimate in naturally-occurring design (i.e. GOD) must have "evolved" on his own in order to be around to create all of the rest of the "lesser" order we see in the universe. Saying that "god did it" may appear to answer these questions, but it only works if you don't think about it very hard. |
Evolved? How so?
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure that the teachings of this minor (and mostly undocumented) prophet are all that important. If Jesus was that important, I doubt we'd be left with the clusterfuck of biblical questions that we have been discussing in this thread. |
Well, maybe Jesus was so important, that is the very reason we have so much. For example, in the grand scheme of things, Cleon is not that important. However, due to the one account of his existence combined with his relative unimportance that more people did not write about him, we just accept that one account. The existence of so many differeing accounts of Jesus, beginning at a time about 20 years after Jesus' death, were written about the same amount of years after Thucydides wrote about Cleon. Apparently, Jesus made more waves in his respective community. This does not make him divine, but it definitely increases the probability of his existence and relative importance.
To make this even more complicated, let me quote a passage from Luke:
[quote]1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.[/qute]
Luke is plaing the 80 CE Jesus historian for Theophilus and has apparently consulted several sources. How do I know this?
1. Luke claims many have already explicitly wrote an account of Jesus. This is certainly more than 2, Q and Mark or as another theory states, just Matthew. He copies ad verbatim a Q source, or even matthew if you go by another theory, but at the same time has many stories not found in Thomas, Mark, or Matthew. Was he really uncreative and then all of the sudden his writer's block went away? O Luke 15:8 to 18:14 a sudden burst of creative energy all in a row?
More likely, he was like a redactor and copied from several sources, Q probably the largest to small written or spoken sayings and traditions. However, Q possibly could have been a massive document and luke added more from it than matthew. If this is so, this does not explain Luke claiming there are many written accounts.
Luke probably read matthew or was exposed to tradition that matthew was exposed to, because both have events that are not found in mark, including the acension in the end to th family ancestery of Jesus in the beginning. However, they disagree on the details which leads me to believe that either (1)Luke was not a copy cat of Matthew, (2) Matthew was not a copy cat of Luke's, or most likely (3) both probably had at hand, possibly in Q or oral tradition, shreds of "evidence" of lineage and "ascension" (which they might have inferred from Mark. They could have seen that one source or tradition had part of the lineage so they filled out the rest or it was really trendy like Swatches in the 1980s to in the 0080 CE add lineage accounts. Who knows.
Luke appears to be a historian...of sorts. Sadly, he has much in common with a college freshman with a pile of books and a night to write an essay-- plagiarism and more plagiarism! The difference is that Luke was specifically commissioned, or desired to, make sense of fragmented and contradictory sources and bring them together...Luke's research was better than Matthew's, who ripped off Aesop!
2. Luke claims to draw from eye whitness accounts, which are probably oral tradition and probably things like Q and maybe even proto-Gospel of Thomas (Particularly Thomas 63.)
3. Luke wrote both about Jesus and the Apostles. Unless he maticulously consulted sources when making plain old Luke and just made up Acts, it is likely he had a pile of relatively early christian manuscripts and tried to make sense of it for his patron, Theophilus.
So Luke, unlike Matthew, appears to have done some research...even if his thesis was off the wall in your opinion. This existence of sources that Luke used, now lost to history, shows us that Jesus made some sort of splash relatively early on.
| Quote: |
| But the question is, what would be the purpose about lying about Cleon's existence? |
To make his history have a cast of characters, thereby making his writing more interesting, and as thucydides boasts, his book will be "a possession forever." I don't think that this is what happened, but it is at least just as probable as an array of sources making up a guy named Jesus and all of his apostles.
| Quote: |
| When it comes to Jesus, there exists a motivation for the early Christians to try to turn this myth into a historical reality – it makes the religion more believable. It is evident that many early Christians themselves did not believe Jesus was a real living person. It is also easy to see why the early apostles may have tried to convince their followers of the historical truth of Jesus' myth. |
If early Christians really believed there was no flesh and blood Jesus, then yes. However, based upon the evidence at hand, even the Gospel of Thomas points more at Jesus being a real live talking person. People recorded his words...not coincidently, none are recorded from after his resurrection.
| Quote: |
| So yes, there are other historical figures who's existence is weakly documented. But seldom are these important figures. (Their level of documentation often seems to be proportional to their importance) |
True, but if Alexander the Great did not literally shift the borders of many a nation, we would find the written sources on his life relatively poor...that might have something to do with all those fires in Alexandria though.
| Quote: |
So, you have to question what the motives for teaching that a myth is true. And you also have to question whether or not the myth is realistic in the first place, and the Jesus story fails that test as well.
It's possible that the Jesus story started as a small piece of fiction, but was later believed by some to be true. Frank Herbert fabricated a similar piece of fiction in Dune. Is it really so hard to believe that a person living 2000 years ago might read this piece of fiction, and come to believe that the Kwisatz Haderach was a real person? |
True, but I believe there is enough evidence to believe that this is less likely.
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't include "science" with all of the other "faiths", since most of the ideas in Science are testable and provable. |
Is every reality observable? Is our knowledge of science so poor compared to the overall truth, that our faith in many scientific laws and theories is misguided? Probably not, but there is room for doubt.
I am sure you have noticed that I am a man of logic. I refuse to believe that all things worth knowing require that they are logical aside from God. If God is real or not real and if there is a "best way" to live, it ought to be logical, because otherwise it would fly in the face of the rest of existence. In the end though, beause we are finite beings, even our well thought out logic can be erroneous. We realize this and so, to a degree, we put faith in one belief (or shades of it) or another. Even agnosticism requires faith, because one admits that one can never know if there is God, instead of choosing based upon perceived probability.
| Quote: |
| The Jesus/God myth doesn't even compare. I suppose you can call them all a set of "beliefs". But the "cult" of science exlains the universe in far more detail than any single prophet ever has. And additionally, the "cult leaders" of science can offer physical evidence for every single one of those beliefs. It is true that some of th "gaps" in scientific knoledge is filled in with theoretical hypothesis. But these hypothesis are not accepted into offical "scientific canon" until such time that they are demontrated to be accurate. Additionally, if a piece of scientific knowledge is later deemed to be wrong or slightly inacurate, it is either replaced or modified -- can you think of any other "religion" which does that? |
Yeah, Christians rewrote Judaism. Protestants rewrote Catholicism. Nuts rewrite Islam according to "new understandings," right or wrong. However, I do know where you are coming from and I agree with you.
Thanks for your response! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21498
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-04-06 21:54
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I suppose you could draw parallels between Socrates and Jesus. Both taught a certain "philosophy", their teachings are only known thanks to their "followers", and both were executed due to their teachings.
But as far as the historical record of their existence, Socrates beats Jesus hands down.
Socrates' existence is attested to by Plato, Xenophon, and other contemporaries, whose writings do survive and whose existence in turn is also documented by other sources (even by some which disagreed with Socrates). Additionally, none of Socrates contemporaries doubted his existence. So in order to believe that Socrates was a myth , you would have to believe the just about everybody in Ancient Greece was either lying or delusional. |
LOL, definitely true. However, if one's evidence of Jesus not existing is inferring that Paul does not convincingly claim that Jesus was real, that seems to disregard other sources during the time and afterwards.
| Quote: |
| For comparison, none of Jesus’ writings exist today (if they existed at all), and none of his disciples writings survive either. The only early writings which survive we most likely culled from an oral tradition -- and were written by unknown persons -- and contain many, many contradictions. None of Jesus' contemporaries ever wrote about him, and there were many people from the first century who doubted his existence. |
You have more reasons to doubt the existence of a religious figure than a contemporary, non religious figure, because the claims made about the person are enough to make anyone raise the bar of belief...while others lower it drastically of course.
| Quote: |
| This does not mean that it is impossible for Jesus to have existed ... It just means that if he did exist, he wasn't very important. |
Or his followers were mostly illiterate and it took years for anyone to begin writing anything about an illiterate hero.
OT: Was Socrates illiterate?
| Quote: |
| he idea that you shouldn't question the "mind of god" seems a bit to me like the Orwellian concept of crimestop. |
Not really... If God is real, it is so much grander than you, it would be like a two year old questioning your motivations...the 2 year old would not be very accurate.
| Quote: |
| While it is true that I have no personal experience at being a deity, |
NO WAY! 
| Quote: |
| I don't think that disqualifies me from trying to figure out if the actions of a deity make any sense. So I think it's a legitimate question to wonder why a god would give his "perfect" message to an individual (a message that was of key importance to a person's eternal soul), and then not seem to care if anybody heard it, or whether or not the "apostles" who he ordained to spread Jesus' words (i.e. Paul) got the message correct. |
You have the right to speculate, like the 2 year old, but I do not believe that with difference between you 2 considered, that you can be very accurate.
| Quote: |
| This goes back to the basic philosophy that if the Christian god really does behave in this manner, he must be the biggest Jerk to have ever existed. And if this is the case, why should we be so concerned about obeying him -- and obeying a message which he seems to have so little interest in conveying correctly to all of humanity. |
Perhaps we need to be motivated by other thins. Assuming the standard Christian story is real, why was Jesus born of humble circumstances and not a mighty roman emperor who would create monuments for all time so no one can doubt his existence?
For the same reason why the first gentile christian was some black guy with his balls chopped offf: God's ways are not our ways.
I am not purporting that this is fact. I am just representing the biblical views.
| Quote: |
| Would you say that it would be impossible that a mortal human being could have developed the same philosophy?Was divine intervention really necessary for a human to teach people that the should try to get along with each other? It isn't as if Jesus reveled any divine secrets of the universe or anything. Einstein seemed to have more "god-like" knowledge of the structure of the universe than Jesus did. The ideas which Jesus taught were not entirely original to Jesus, nor were they anything that an average mortal person could have came up with on their own -- which is what I believe probably what happened here. |
Entirely possible. It could be a high sounding scam in initial intent. I am not saying "inspired by God." That presumes I know divine will, which I do not. "Inspired" as a Da Vinci painting. Human inspired, but inspired nonetheless.
| Quote: |
| There's nothing in Jesus' teachings which indicates that the creator of the universe was involved in their creation. Nothing at all. |
I'm not disagreeing with you. All that there is for us to see is a shimmer of truth, because the whole truth will forever be hidden to us. I think that there is truth to everything and every way. It is, in the end, which way you put faith into, and what kind of faith. Perhaps this is a personal flaw of mine, or a strength, but as you can see, I am not believing in things that I cannot logically back up.
| Quote: |
| But if Jesus' words were not the words of a deity, what is it that makes them so important? I know you’ve tried to explain that, but I still don’t get it. |
Try living by them, even if they sound contradictory. Legitimately try it and judge for yourself.
| Quote: |
You're probably right. Even if scholars were able to demonstrate that gospels were derived from these earlier writings, and even if scientists were able to date the documents to the correct time period, it likely that that most Christians wouldn't "believe" in them -- and would rely on their "faith" in their false doctrines.
Faith sucks. |
I laughed when I read that, because I can see it happening.
| Quote: |
| I just find it odd that both Matthew and Luke posses this book of all of Jesus' saying, yet discarded so much of it. They both included most of what Mark said, but they just seem to have cherry picked the pieces of Q which fit their beliefs. And since both seemed to pick mostly different parts of Q, you have to wonder how much of Q was left out by both Matthew and Luke. It would be quite a coincidence if all of Q was represented by either Matthew or Luke. It is much more likely that there is far more which were ignored by both. And you have to wonder what these discarded portions said. But whatever they said, you can probably be sure that it was something that Matthew and Luke didn't like. So what was is it about these pieces of Jesus' teachings that made them suitable candidates for the memory hole? |
Luke wrote in the 1st chapter that he is weighing the sources and write "an orderly account" (were Q and Thomas too disorderly for his tastes? were they to heretical?) of Jesus. I believe that Luke, out of all the gospels, was working with the most sources. That does not make it the most accurate however.
I think Luke borrows sources outside of Q that matthew doesn't have. Luke does not lack what matthew has, it is the other way around. So Matthew likely just worked with Q and mark and Luke used more than Q and mark.
| Quote: |
| I admit that that is a possibility, but I agree that this seems unlikely. If the Gospel of Thomas was written in the second century, the writer seemed to have almost no knowledge of the gospels. And that seems a little unlikely. |
I agree. He probably would have added sayings from the gospels into his work, if he knew of them...it would add clout. Furthermore, the text lacks gnostic terminology from the 2nd century.
| Quote: |
| But I suppose it may have been written by a guy who heard the Jesus tale orally from an evangelist in the 2nd century, and then wrote down what he remembered. This could explain the simplicity of the sayings in Thomas as opposed to those in the Gospels. And it is possible that the writer of Thomas may have not entirely understood Jesus' teachings, which is why Thomas doesn't explain any of Jesus' teachings (and presents them as “mysteries”) whereas the gospel writers often offered more concrete explanations of the parables.But overall, it seems more likely that Thomas' simplicity is due to it's earlier date. It just seems unlikely that Thomas could have stolen most of his ideas from the gospels, yet ignore so much of what they had to say. And the fact that Thomas seems more in line with the early beliefs of people like Paul rather than the later more developed Christianity of the gospels also seems to confirm an earlier date. However, it would be wrong to say that the issue has been settled with anything close to 100% certainty. |
One can argue that the non-mysterious nature of the gospel shows that they are more corrupted. If Jesus spoke in parables and was a high and mighty sort of guy (supposedly), it is unlikely that everything he said would be so easily understood.
| Quote: |
| On a side note, I just realized that this thread was supposed to be about he old testament, not the new one. Oh well. So much for staying on topic. |
Oh well...how did Socrates, Cleon, and Swatches get into this? Oh, my bad...
___________________
By the way, online annotated version of the Gospel of Thomas, mostly believes it is an early gnostic work:
http://www.gospelthomas.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21514
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-04-07 03:15
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Two responses become one. |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Damn... over 4,000 words in this post... We really need to stop this. 
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I agree. But it's possible that this passage may be referring specifically to the Judeans that strung him up on a tree. |
I am somewhat following you. Where is the "hanging on a tree" part implied? Excuse my ignorance if I am missing the obvious!
|
Well, Judaism could be the tree and Jesus could be the fruit.
(Jesus is a fruit... I just realized what I said... hardee-har-har...) 
| From Gospel of Thomas |
43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"
"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.
Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."
|
The Jews loved the old religion, but not Jesus' reforms... and new Christians love Jesus, but don't care about old Jewish laws.
But you're right... I'm just making that up. If Jesus had said that, he would have had to say it after he was dead... so that can't be right. (Unless somebody else made it up)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| What other sources mention Peter or the rest of the disciples? Josephus doesn't mention them, so do you know what other secular writings mention these people? I haven't been able to find them yet. (link please) |
No, our sources are all not-secular. However, some of these sources are letters written by these people...which is much better than what we have for some historical figures, such as Olympias, and yes, Jesus.
|
Letters? Where? I know there are a few pseudepigraphical texts which bear the names of apostles... are these what you are talking about? If not, enlighten me.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I think you are probably right ... these people probably existed. But I really have to wonder if they actually knew Jesus, or if they were just members of his mystical church who knew him in spirit only. I don't think Paul ever says that these people actually knew Jesus, but I could be wrong there .... |
It is good to keep historical doubt, I agree with you on that. Furthermore, the probability of Peter existing is higher than Jesus. However, because Peter does say that Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, this implies that someone was certainly crucified...that being Jesus. Paul was too busy selling his theology which was separate from Jesus' in many ways that emphasizing things that Jesus did in life. However, he also (rarely) quotes Jesus, which leads us to believe he is talking about a person, because he never quotes the Jesus that appeared to him (because spirits don't talk...)
| BB wrote: |
| I'm a little confused here. Paul says he was seen by the "12", and then later by James and all of the apostles. This seems to mean that the 12 which walked with Jesus were not the same apostles which hung out with James. But then again, I've never really be altogether clear on who exactly was a "disciple" and who was an "apostle"... and what exactly the difference was. |
Well, Cephas (paul) is part of the 12, so Paul was essentially saying "He appeared first to Paul and then the rest of the 12 apostles (special disciples of Jesus that followed him I guess.)
|
| From Dictionary.com: disciple |
dis•ci•ple
- often Disciple, One of the original followers of Jesus.
|
| From Dictionary.com: apostles |
- Apostle - One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.
- A missionary of the early Christian Church.
- A leader of the first Christian mission to a country or region.
|
So, the disciples were the people who hung out with Jesus, and te apostles were the ones who spread his word. The story goes that the 12 disciples (minus 1) became the original 12 apostles, and that later on anybody who spread the story of Jesus was called an apostles. Things are confused a little more by the fact that there were actually more than 12 disciples (Mary Magdalene, for example).
But the question is, how is it that we know that the apostles in Jerusalem who Paul spoke actually knew Jesus? Paul himself never states this. When Paul does mention these "apostles" seeing Jesus, it is only in spirit (i.e. after the supposed crucifixion). The Gospel of Thomas conveys a similar sentiment -- that Jesus only spoke to people as a spirit.
Following the most widely accepted timeline, the first mention of living people seeing a living Jesus in in the book of Mark. Right off in chapter 1, Mark tells the breif tale of Jesus being baptized by John. Immediately following the Baptism, Jesus and Satan roam the wilderness for 40 days (mark 1:12-13 - Mark doesn't give any details of this event). In Mark 1:14-18, Jesus says 14 words to Simom (Peter) and his brother Andrew, and they give up their lives and follow Jesus (Damn, that was easy). And then in the next two verses (Mark 1:19-20) Jesus nets up "James the son of Zebedee and John his brother".
After this (the rest of Mark 1, mark 2-3), Jesus healed people, cast out devils, and argued with Pharisees. And then in Mark 3:13, after seemingly curing every disease in Judea, he has managed to collect twelve disciples.
| From Mark 3:13- |
3:13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
3:15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
|
That's a rather flimsy history. Jesus collect 4 disciples with little effort, and then he collect the other 8 with no effort. And then there’s that bit about giving these disciples the power to cast out devils. What up wit' dat?
The explanation of where these disciples met Jesus in Mathew is really no better (Matt 4:18-23,Matt 5:1 ). The only major difference is that when Jesus goes up on the mountain (as in Mark 3:13) Matthew uses this as an opportunity to insert a 3 chapter long speech by Jesus (The Sermon on the mount). Also, Matthew leaves out that part about Jesus bestowing magical powers upon his disciples, but only for now (He adds it back in verse 10:1).
Luke was understandably not satisfied with the disciples’ history presented in Mark. Where Mathew pretty much repeated mark verbatim on this subject, Luke re-arranged the material and expanded upon it. For instance, in Mark and Mathew, Jesus heals Simon’s mother after Simon had become a disciple -- in Luke the chronology is reversed. In Mark and Mathew, Simon joined up with Jesus at with little effort. Luke adds additional dialogue between Jesus and Simon (Luke 5:1-11), but didn't expand much on the netting of the other two disciples (James and John).
Mathew and Luke also include a short bit about Levi (Matthew) joining Jesus. (Matt 9:9-10,Luke 5:27-28) It's funny that Matthew didn’t include more info about he met up with Jesus. You would think that he would have explained his first meeting with Jesus in a little more detail (But then again, few scholars believe that this book was written by Jesus’ actual disciple).
Interestingly, Luke also inserts a rather long sermon at the same point as Matthew (Sermon on the Plain), but as in Mark and Matthew, most of the rest of the 12 disciples suddenly materialize out of nowhere. But, just like Matthew, Luke leaves out the bit about Jesus' apostles being granted the power to cure the sick on the mount.
So back to the original question... How to we know that the Apostles in Jerusalem actually hung with the big J-Man?
At the end of Mark, he tells his disciples to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.". But as you know, much of Mark 16 was added at a later date. And Mark was probably not written until after Paul's death (and after the death the Jewish apostles). So what we have here is the first known record of the Jewish apostles hanging out with a flesh-and-blood Jesus being written after their deaths (or about the same time as their deaths) by some guy named Mark. And who was Mark? nobody is 100% certain, but he generally considered to be Mark the Evangelist -- a guy who hung out with Paul, who later had a falling out with Paul, but returned back to Paul's flock later in life. And there is some evidence that this same person may have known Peter as well. There is also a tradition that this guy founded the Christian church in Alexandria, and could perform miracles. (But appearently he lacked the power to save himself, because the Egyptians eventually got tired of him and killed him off.
So the idea that apostles actually hung out with a real dude named Jesus seems to have originated with Miracle-worker Mark. (Hmmmm....) And then Matthew and Luke picked up on this theme, and Luke expanded upon it in Acts. But is this historically accurate? Is it possible that these apostles did not know a human named jesus?... And after their death some of their followers merely incorporated their story into that of the Jesus myth, in order to claim that these martyred leaders really did know Jesus?
We need to take note of the events which occurred around 62-70CE. During this short time span, Paul died, Peter died, and James died, as did just about all of the other apostles. On top of all this, the Destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70CE and wiped out the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem. And it is in the aftermath of all of this chaos that the gospels were finally written. So I see it as extremely likely that Mark's gospel may be more of an heroic myth than a historical document. He may not have even intended for people to take it as literal truth -- it may have simply been a fanciful story written to commemorate the lives of his fallen religious leaders, with a secondary purpose of recording some of their teachings.
The fact that Paul never claims that these apostles actually hung out with Jesus, and the fact that no writings from the apostles themselves claim such a relationship (I don't even think any of their writings have ever been found), means that we are hearing the story of Jesus 3rd-hand from people like Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John. It's easy to see how the story may have been exaggerated just a bit.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Yes, but early sources such as Q, Mark, and Thomas speak of the 12 disciples, who we have letters from some.
|
Twelve is just a nice number, and was most likely was chosen by the authors for its symbolism rather then as an historical fact. This could be why the gospel writers seem unable to agree on all twelve of their names. And even though all the gospel writers claim that Jesus only had 12 disciples, in the stories they tell Jesus seems to have had more than that (Mary Magdalene, for instance).
| sorianofan wrote: |
They might have took it for granted that they knew Jesus as a person and did not explicitly write: "Hey, I chilled with Jesus, I would know." At the very least, Paul knew these people and Paul purports that Jesus was real. So this means that Peter and company, unless Paul was lying about them (but why?), knew Jesus. |
It isn't that Paul is lying about them ... When he talks about them, all he is saying is that they were the leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem. The idea that these "apostles" were the people who actually knew Jesus may have developed some time later. And plus, would Paul have been so quick to disagree with people who actually spent several years walking around with his Lord? Overall, it seems that Paul respected these Apostles, and wanted to get along with them, but really didn't give two hoots about what they had to say.
Look again about what Paul said about these guys...
- In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul only mentions meeting two of the apostles - Peter and James.
- In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul only mentions meeting three of the apostles - Cephas (Peter), James, and John
- In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions the apostles again, and again he only names Peter and James.
So Paul speaks of the apostles several times, but never mentions the names of any of these other apostles. As far as I can tell, he never even met any of the other 12. He still claims that there are 12, but is seems that the entire church in Jerusalem is run by James and Peter (and may have been invented by them as well).
And furthermore, when Paul speaks of the Apostles meeting Jesus, it is always in spirit form.
| From Ephesians 3 |
3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
|
(And in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul also mentions the Apostles seeing Jesus … and again, they see him in spirit form.)
Although he mentions that the apostles saw “Spirit Jesus” at lease twice in his letters, he never deems it important to mention that these people also know Jesus while he was alive.
According to Paul, the other apostles met Jesus in the same manner as he did -- by way of a spiritual vision. And he should know ... he met with the other apostles several times. And he even called himself the "least" of the Apostles -- not because he's the only guy that never met him in the flesh, but rather because Paul used to persecute Christians. As far as Paul is concerned, that is the only thing that separates himself from Peter and James.
Where people got this idea that the Jewish Apostles hung out with a guy named Jesus is a mystery. All we know is that it seems that this myth started to circulate some time after Paul's, Peter's, and James' death... and was probably started by Mark himself.
What a jerk.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Yes, it is possible that it was a runaway myth with no basis in reality or real people at all. However, if it is all made up, the message made up to many is really impacting so again, not totally lacking in importance.
|
Yes, I agree that it is important... but only because so many people think Jesus was important. But in fact, if it weren't for Paul, nobody would probably know Jesus' name today. And that's why Paul pisses me off.
| sorianofan wrote: |
...Luke's research was better than Matthew's, who ripped off Aesop!
|
Actually, I think I like Matthew better. Matthew seems to remain more true to Mark and Q (and Thomas), whereas I have to wonder where Luke got all of his extra material. It's possible that he may have had more sources... or it's possible that he Just made it up -- or got his sources from people who just made it up.
Again, we need to find more of the original sources to answer this question.
| sorianofan wrote: |
So Luke, unlike Matthew, appears to have done some research...even if his thesis was off the wall in your opinion. This existence of sources that Luke used, now lost to history, shows us that Jesus made some sort of splash relatively early on.
|
But again, it's amazing that Paul never mentions any of these other sources. Which is odd, because the purpose of Paul's letters was to set his distant flock back on the right track. It would have seemed natural for him to tell his followers to re-read these stories, and to occasionally refer to this book or that. But he doesn't. And the fact that he never quotes anything from these books seems to indicate that he has unaware of their existence. After all, he makes several references to the old testament, so why wouldn't he quote any works which spoke of his Lord? And of all the people in Western Christianity, you would think he would have seen them.
So this means that even if Paul had seen them, he apparently didn't care very much for them. But I suppose this is possible -- Paul generally seemed to prefer his own version of Christianity to everybody else's.
| sorianofan wrote: |
However, based upon the evidence at hand, even the Gospel of Thomas points more at Jesus being a real live talking person. People recorded his words...not coincidently, none are recorded from after his resurrection.
|
Not really... To me, the Gospel of Thomas seems to treat Jesus as a Spirit, not a person. And Paul seems to hold this opinion as well. Additionally, it is possible that "Q" presented this view as well. And as I stated above, the first time anybody claimed Jesus was a living person who walked the land was in Mark .. And once again, this was probably written after everybody who supposedly talked to Jesus was already dead.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
The Jesus/God myth doesn't even compare. I suppose you can call them all a set of "beliefs". But the "cult" of science explains the universe in far more detail than any single prophet ever has. And additionally, the "cult leaders" of science can offer physical evidence for every single one of those beliefs. It is true that some of the "gaps" in scientific knowledge is filled in with theoretical hypothesis. But these hypothesis are not accepted into official "scientific canon" until such time that they are demonstrated to be accurate. Additionally, if a piece of scientific knowledge is later deemed to be wrong or slightly inaccurate, it is either replaced or modified -- can you think of any other "religion" which does that?
|
Yeah, Christians rewrote Judaism. Protestants rewrote Catholicism. Nuts rewrite Islam according to "new understandings," right or wrong. However, I do know where you are coming from and I agree with you.
|
Just to clarify, I mean that Christians should revise their bible like this...
| From Big Brother: Post #11856 |
Despite the fact that few church leaders are willing to eliminate all the “fiction” from their sermons, most self-proclaimed Christian are not fundamentalist. I think that most of the people in the “flock” realize that many parts of the bible may not be 100% factual. But if this is the case, why keep these stories in the bible? Why mixed fictional stories together with other stories that they believe to be "factual". Why not separate the fact from the fiction. The fictional parts can retained and turned into children's stories. But, on Sunday, only preach the "facts" to the adults.
I'm serious. I want the Vatican to sit down with a Bible and two markers -- A black marker and a yellow highlighter. Divide the passages of the bible into 3 categories --
1) The "facts" - the parts which are supported by sufficient 3rd party evidence to verify their validity
2) The "fiction" - the parts which can be invalidated by external evidence (or by common sense)
3) The "possible truths" - the passage for which there isn't much evidence, one way or the other.
Now, take that black marker and knock out all of the fiction. Now highlight all the "facts". Now take a look at what you are left with, and use that to preach your sermons.
But you can see that the reason the church is not willing to do this is because there really wouldn't be all that much left. As a result, they knowingly keep fiction in their "Holy Book", and then try to pretend that the bible is the 100% gospel truth. (no pun intended) But the problem with this is that some nut-bags believe these stories, and then think that everybody who claims to be a Christian believes all of these stories as well. Then they go off and elect religious fanatics to office, and in turn, those fanatics demand that "creation science" be taught in high school biology class.
And that is what bugs me about Christians, and why all of them (including the "agnostics") piss me off. If you don't believe your bible is actually true, throw the damn thing out the window and write a new damn book. Or, at the very least, buy a damn marker.
|
It is true that various Christian movements use slightly different versions of the bible. But so far, no one has come out with a new revised historically accurate (or even historically probable) version of the bible. It would be as if all biology classes in the world still used Darwin's books as their sole source of information. There comes a time that you just need to move on.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Thanks for your response!
|
No, thank you.
There is more of an incentive to study this stuff while disusing it with another. It also gives you the opportunity to present these ideas in front of others in order to verify that they make some sort of sense.
I could do this all day. (And so far, I really have been doing this all day)
--------------------
| sorianofan wrote: |
Or his followers were mostly illiterate and it took years for anyone to begin writing anything about an illiterate hero.
OT: Was Socrates illiterate?
|
Yes, Socrates may have been illiterate... and Jesus' followers may have been too... as well as Jesus himself.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| he idea that you shouldn't question the "mind of god" seems a bit to me like the Orwellian concept of crimestop. |
Not really... If God is real, it is so much grander than you, it would be like a two year old questioning your motivations...the 2 year old would not be very accurate.
|
But... But.... Oh, nevermind. This response is getting long enough already.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But if Jesus' words were not the words of a deity, what is it that makes them so important? I know you’ve tried to explain that, but I still don’t get it. |
Try living by them, even if they sound contradictory. Legitimately try it and judge for yourself.
|
No thanks... My Atheistic Satanism is working out fine for me.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
You're probably right. Even if scholars were able to demonstrate that gospels were derived from these earlier writings, and even if scientists were able to date the documents to the correct time period, it likely that that most Christians wouldn't "believe" in them -- and would rely on their "faith" in their false doctrines.
Faith sucks. |
I laughed when I read that, because I can see it happening.
|
The really funny thing is, that before I read your response, I was actually thinking that Fundamentalists Christians could be dissuaded from their beliefs by Archeology and Science. How could have I been so foolish?
| sorianofan wrote: |
I believe that Luke, out of all the gospels, was working with the most sources. That does not make it the most accurate however.
|
That reminds me of a parable which was given by one of my favorite wisemen....
| From Richard P. Feynman: Judging Books by Their Covers |
This question of trying to figure out whether a book is good or bad by looking at it carefully, or by taking the reports of a lot of people who looked at it carelessly, is like this famous old problem:
Nobody was permitted to see the Emperor of China, and the question was, What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose? To find out, you go all over the country asking people what they think the length of the Emperor of China's nose is, and you average it. And that would be very "accurate" because you averaged so many people.
But it's no way to find anything out; when you have a very wide range of people who contribute without looking carefully at it, you don't improve your knowledge of the situation by averaging.
|
Amen.
Feynman be praised!
| sorianofan wrote: |
I think Luke borrows sources outside of Q that Matthew doesn't have. Luke does not lack what Matthew has, it is the other way around. So Matthew likely just worked with Q and mark and Luke used more than Q and mark. |
Not exactly. Matthew includes 14 Parables not found in Mark or Luke, whereas Luke includes 12 parables not found in Mark or Matthew. They both seem to have added about the same amount of unique material (as far as the parables go). Matthew has more chapters than Luke (28 vs. 24), but Matthew actually has fewer verses than Luke (1071 vs. 1151). So overall, they are roughly the same length.
| sorianofan wrote: |
___________________
By the way, online annotated version of the Gospel of Thomas, mostly believes it is an early Gnostic work:
http://www.gospelthomas.com/ |
it might seem that was to modern Christian ears, but as you have stated, Thomas lacks Gnostic terminology.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21555
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-04-07 21:48
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Damn... over 4,000 words in this post... We really need to stop this. |
Eventually, we will run out of stuff to talk about!
| Quote: |
The Jews loved the old religion, but not Jesus' reforms... and new Christians love Jesus, but don't care about old Jewish laws.
But you're right... I'm just making that up. If Jesus had said that, he would have had to say it after he was dead... so that can't be right. (Unless somebody else made it up) |
Or people started acting that way when he was still alive.
However, the context probably deals with prophets, like it does in the canonical gospels.
| Quote: |
| Letters? Where? I know there are a few pseudepigraphical texts which bear the names of apostles... are these what you are talking about? If not, enlighten me. |
I do not think there is reason to think that paul didn’t write his letter to the romans and several others.
| Quote: |
So, the disciples were the people who hung out with Jesus, and te apostles were the ones who spread his word. The story goes that the 12 disciples (minus 1) became the original 12 apostles, and that later on anybody who spread the story of Jesus was called an apostles. Things are confused a little more by the fact that there were actually more than 12 disciples (Mary Magdalene, for example).
But the question is, how is it that we know that the apostles in Jerusalem who Paul spoke actually knew Jesus? Paul himself never states this. When Paul does mention these "apostles" seeing Jesus, it is only in spirit (i.e. after the supposed crucifixion). The Gospel of Thomas conveys a similar sentiment -- that Jesus only spoke to people as a spirit. |
I believe you are going too far. In Thomas, Jesus in my opinion is clearly a special mortal, not entirely spiritual. This disagrees with late Gnostic belief in hologram jesus.
How do we know they actually knew Jesus? We don’t know for sure. But the very fact they were called “the 12” and narratives that correspond with the idea of 12 apostles have them hanging around with a living Jesus. I think you are stretching it, as far as Ancient history goes, to say that Paul supposedly believed that Jesus was just a spirit and only a spirit, and the disciples who are spoken of in a few (albeit non-secular) sources either did not exist, or the importance of their very existence is non-existent. It is possible, but not as probable as there was a flesh and blood Jesus.
Concerning whether Christ was just a spirit, Paul clearly does not believe that:
Colissians 1
| Quote: |
19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— |
1. The idea of God having “fullness dwell in him” is found often in the Old Testament, for those that are holy and live by God’s spirit. People have this happen to them, not holograms.
2. Jesus, according to Paul, was a person literally killed on a Cross.
3. Paul refers to Jesus’ physical body.
We cannot doubt that Paul claims Jesus is real. We also cannot doubt that there were probably some contemporary sources from Paul’s time, Q, Thomas, and Mark at the very least, that concur with the idea that there was a living and talking Jesus.
Mark might be later than we think, because it mentions both the Pharisees and temple being destroyed, which were around in 70 CE…meaning Mark would have to write afterward. The scholars don’t agree though. This would increase the probability of what you’re arguing if Q and Thomas are later than 70 as well…though, he could have guessed right about the temple, like the jewish prophets.
| Quote: |
Following the most widely accepted timeline, the first mention of living people seeing a living Jesus is in the book of Mark. Right off in chapter 1, Mark tells the breif tale of Jesus being baptized by John. Immediately following the Baptism, Jesus and Satan roam the wilderness for 40 days (mark 1:12-13 - Mark doesn't give any details of this event). In Mark 1:14-18, Jesus says 14 words to Simom (Peter) and his brother Andrew, and they give up their lives and follow Jesus (Damn, that was easy). And then in the next two verses (Mark 1:19-20) Jesus nets up "James the son of Zebedee [and clearly not the brother of Jesus] and John his brother".
After this (the rest of Mark 1, mark 2-3), Jesus healed people, cast out devils, and argued with Pharisees. And then in Mark 3:13, after seemingly curing every disease in Judea, he has managed to collect twelve disciples.
That's a rather flimsy history. Jesus collect 4 disciples with little effort, and then he collect the other 8 with no effort. And then there’s that bit about giving these disciples the power to cast out devils. What up wit' dat? |
Well, stories about people getting magical powers are not very historical, but the fact that they exist in early church writings as characters means that they probably existed. On a side note, people back then believed that sickness was caused by demons…Jesus was a “miracle healer” of sorts according to the story.
| Quote: |
| So back to the original question... How to we know that the Apostles in Jerusalem actually hung with the big J-Man? |
The fact they are mentioned in early sources of doing that. I mean, we could doubt that Alexander ever talked to his mother. I see no compelling reason to. If Jesus was entirely made up, they could have done a way better job. They already made up fake census and court details…how about expanding in depth about the disciples and make Jesus do some really cool stuff, like throwing satan down a volcano, defeat a roman army by staring at it, or something like that? Instead, we have confused gospels who are all apparently drawing upon earlier sources, which inter-lap with the teachings of Paul, who wrote only 10-20 years after the fact. Now, this is enough time for a real person to have his memory totally altered, which would explain all the disputes (Gnostics, jewish Christian, and gentiles) and different interpretations of Christianity. If Jesus totally didn’t exist, the existence of the disputes would be less understandable, but not entirely.
The fact that the Jesus story is not grander leads me to believe that it is a myth of a real person than a myth in its own right.
| Quote: |
At the end of Mark, he tells his disciples to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.". But as you know, much of Mark 16 was added at a later date. And Mark was probably not written until after Paul's death (and after the death the Jewish apostles). So what we have here is the first known record of the Jewish apostles hanging out with a flesh-and-blood Jesus being written after their deaths (or about the same time as their deaths) by some guy named Mark. And who was Mark? nobody is 100% certain, but he generally considered to be Mark the Evangelist -- a guy who hung out with Paul, who later had a falling out with Paul, but returned back to Paul's flock later in life. And there is some evidence that this same person may have known Peter as well. There is also a tradition that this guy founded the Christian church in Alexandria, and could perform miracles. (But appearently he lacked the power to save himself, because the Egyptians eventually got tired of him and killed him off.
So the idea that apostles actually hung out with a real dude named Jesus seems to have originated with Miracle-worker Mark. (Hmmmm....) And then Matthew and Luke picked up on this theme, and Luke expanded upon it in Acts. But is this historically accurate? Is it possible that these apostles did not know a human named jesus?... And after their death some of their followers merely incorporated their story into that of the Jesus myth, in order to claim that these martyred leaders really did know Jesus? |
Thomas and Q mentioned the disciples and they apparently drew from earlier oral and possibly written sources...Yes, my argument is stretching here, because neither of these are canonical sources.
| Quote: |
| We need to take note of the events which occurred around 62-70CE. During this short time span, Paul died, Peter died, and James died, as did just about all of the other apostles. On top of all this, the Destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70CE and wiped out the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem. And it is in the aftermath of all of this chaos that the gospels were finally written. So I see it as extremely likely that Mark's gospel may be more of an heroic myth than a historical document. He may not have even intended for people to take it as literal truth -- it may have simply been a fanciful story written to commemorate the lives of his fallen religious leaders, with a secondary purpose of recording some of their teachings. The fact that Paul never claims that these apostles actually hung out with Jesus, and the fact that no writings from the apostles themselves claim such a relationship (I don't even think any of their writings have ever been found), means that we are hearing the story of Jesus 3rd-hand from people like Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John. It's easy to see how the story may have been exaggerated just a bit. |
That’s possible, but it does not explain why “the 12” are mentioned by Paul and that oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings, which probably existed before Mark, mentioned the apostles…unless Mark invented Christianity as we know it.
| Quote: |
| Twelve is just a nice number, and was most likely was chosen by the authors for its symbolism rather then as an historical fact. This could be why the gospel writers seem unable to agree on all twelve of their names. And even though all the gospel writers claim that Jesus only had 12 disciples, in the stories they tell Jesus seems to have had more than that (Mary Magdalene, for instance). |
I agree with you here. Thomas for example never mentions all the disciples. 3 or 4 of them probably definitely existed and people knew that there were a dozen or so hardcore disciples, but didn’t have all their names…thus, the oral tradition of this screwed up some details.
What bolsters my argument is that Luke read mark, but disagreed with the 12 disciples (using judas 1 over Thaddeus). Luke, who used several sources by his own admission, had no need to fuck up such a detail if he was lying and only working with 2. Thus, Luke probably read things with Jesus’ sayings and heard of other traditions with a second judas and he jumped on the idea, because he possibly did not want to believe jesus versus addressed to the evil judas 2. He even changes Simon “the zealous” to Simon Zeolotes. This is evidence of the use of additional sources, because he disagreed with what mark had clearly written which stared him in the face.
| Quote: |
| It isn't that Paul is lying about them ... When he talks about them, all he is saying is that they were the leaders of the Christian church in Jerusalem. The idea that these "apostles" were the people who actually knew Jesus may have developed some time later. And plus, would Paul have been so quick to disagree with people who actually spent several years walking around with his Lord? Overall, it seems that Paul respected these Apostles, and wanted to get along with them, but really didn't give two hoots about what they had to say. |
Yes, but Paul had his own ideas and his own “meeting” with Jesus to justify his differences with those who knew the flesh and blood Jesus.
| Quote: |
- In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul only mentions meeting two of the apostles - Peter and James.
- In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul only mentions meeting three of the apostles - Cephas (Peter), James, and John |
Paul calls James a brother of Jesus, implying a special relationship like that inferred in Gospel of Thomas. If Jesus never existed, the “specialness” implied by both paul and Thomas would be meaningless.
| Quote: |
| 2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. |
God’s grace, a Pauline theology, was made to him by revelation. He then boasts that his insight of Jesus was revealed to him by God after the fact of Jesus passing…this is totally concurrent with Paul rejecting standard jewish Christian (and probably closer to what jesus’ wanted) practice in favor of ideas that came to him by reading and spiritual occurrences later. Paul might have convinced the original apostles, claim he did, or the apostles he is speaking of here are not peter, james, john, or etc of the 12.
| Quote: |
| (And in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul also mentions the Apostles seeing Jesus … and again, they see him in spirit form.) |
I don’t disagree with you there.
| Quote: |
| Although he mentions that the apostles saw “Spirit Jesus” at lease twice in his letters, he never deems it important to mention that these people also know Jesus while he was alive. |
These people that paul is writing to are sold to what Jesus said. That’s why paul rarely mentions it. However, paul wants to convince them of theology he clearly developed outside that of the flesh jesus, so he emphasizes the spirit that “met” with him.
| Quote: |
| According to Paul, the other apostles met Jesus in the same manner as he did -- by way of a spiritual vision. And he should know ... he met with the other apostles several times. And he even called himself the "least" of the Apostles -- not because he's the only guy that never met him in the flesh, but rather because Paul used to persecute Christians. As far as Paul is concerned, that is the only thing that separates himself from Peter and James. |
It is not the only thing…he is not only the least of the apostles, but by his own admission, should not even be one. If he had not met “spirit jesus,” he would be nothing compared to paul.
| Quote: |
Where people got this idea that the Jewish Apostles hung out with a guy named Jesus is a mystery. All we know is that it seems that this myth started to circulate some time after Paul's, Peter's, and James' death... and was probably started by Mark himself.
What a jerk. |
However, luke apparently draws from different and possibly earlier sources that speak of the apostles than Mark’s…so it cannot be all Mark, especially if Thomas and Q were first.
| Quote: |
Yes, I agree that it is important... but only because so many people think Jesus was important. But in fact, if it weren't for Paul, nobody would probably know Jesus' name today. And that's why Paul pisses me off.
|
Was this “thinking that Jesus was important” the true version of Paul’s theology, the faith we should have? Who knows? I think he was making a more profound spiritual point, because Paul was afraid people would not follow Jesus’ maxims without the trust that Jesus was so special, that we ought to.
I believe that logic dictates that Jesus’ Way is right.
| Quote: |
Actually, I think I like Matthew better. Matthew seems to remain more true to Mark and Q (and Thomas), whereas I have to wonder where Luke got all of his extra material. It's possible that he may have had more sources... or it's possible that he Just made it up -- or got his sources from people who just made it up.
Again, we need to find more of the original sources to answer this question. |
True, but it makes you wonder why Luke would clearly ignore Mark’s details if he had them, unless he had good reason to, possibly from several sources.
| Quote: |
| But again, it's amazing that Paul never mentions any of these other sources. Which is odd, because the purpose of Paul's letters was to set his distant flock back on the right track. |
They lost track of Paul’s theology, which could easily be lost if one emphasized Jesus’ ambiguous sayings.
| Quote: |
| It would have seemed natural for him to tell his followers to re-read these stories, and to occasionally refer to this book or that. |
Not if it raised more questions than answers. If we were early Christians, how much ink would we have spilled just debating the sources and significance of certain sayings? Paul was a jailbird, he didn’t have the time or direct need for that.
| Quote: |
| But he doesn't. And the fact that he never quotes anything from these books seems to indicate that he has unaware of their existence. |
To be fair, he quotes some. So does James. In fact, some of the Q and Thomas sayings are, if not quoted, inferred to in the letters. (Ex: Matthew 5:37=James 5:12)
| Quote: |
| After all, he makes several references to the old testament, so why wouldn't he quote any works which spoke of his Lord? And of all the people in Western Christianity, you would think he would have seen them. |
The old testament was God’s word, which let him go on his soap box and prove his theology. Jesus’ ambiguous and poorly recorded (probably several sources and oral traditions) sayings would have hurt him in this effort. However, he does not totally ignore them, as I have said previously.
| Quote: |
| Not really... To me, the Gospel of Thomas seems to treat Jesus as a Spirit, not a person. |
We will have to disagree on this! I just don’t see that as substantiated, but it does go with your theory that docetism was the original Christianity. However, I believe docetism was invented by those who liked the Jesus stuff, but could not bring themselves to believe in the importance of the crucifiction…this reason once heavily attracted me.
| Quote: |
| And Paul seems to hold this opinion as well. |
Paul clearly says there was a flesh and blood crucifiction…however, Colissians IS a letter heavily suspected of tampering, because of its anti-female views. Nonetheless, the crucifiction is inferred in romans for example, which leads one to believe it was a physical occurrence. Lastly, a spirit actually dying makes no sense. How do spirits die? 1 Corinthinans 15 clearly states that those of flesh die and resurrect as spirits… like Jesus:
Romans 6:5:
| Quote: |
| For if we have been united with him in a death like his [through baptism,] we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. |
So we physically die, like Christ, and spiritually resurrect, like Christ.
| Quote: |
| Additionally, it is possible that "Q" presented this view as well. And as I stated above, the first time anybody claimed Jesus was a living person who walked the land was in Mark .. |
Only if you hold by all of the preceding, which I have shown, could be false…I do admit the possibility that I can be mistaken.
| Quote: |
From Big Brother: Post #11856
Despite the fact that few church leaders are willing to eliminate all the “fiction” from their sermons, most self-proclaimed Christian are not fundamentalist. I think that most of the people in the “flock” realize that many parts of the bible may not be 100% factual. But if this is the case, why keep these stories in the bible? Why mixed fictional stories together with other stories that they believe to be "factual". Why not separate the fact from the fiction. The fictional parts can retained and turned into children's stories. But, on Sunday, only preach the "facts" to the adults. I'm serious. I want the Vatican to sit down with a Bible and two markers -- A black marker and a yellow highlighter. Divide the passages of the bible into 3 categories -- 1) The "facts" - the parts which are supported by sufficient 3rd party evidence to verify their validity 2) The "fiction" - the parts which can be invalidated by external evidence (or by common sense) 3) The "possible truths" - the passage for which there isn't much evidence, one way or the other. Now, take that black marker and knock out all of the fiction. Now highlight all the "facts". Now take a look at what you are left with, and use that to preach your sermons. But you can see that the reason the church is not willing to do this is because there really wouldn't be all that much left. As a result, they knowingly keep fiction in their "Holy Book", and then try to pretend that the bible is the 100% gospel truth. (no pun intended) But the problem with this is that some nut-bags believe these stories, and then think that everybody who claims to be a Christian believes all of these stories as well. Then they go off and elect religious fanatics to office, and in turn, those fanatics demand that "creation science" be taught in high school biology class. And that is what bugs me about Christians, and why all of them (including the "agnostics") piss me off. If you don't believe your bible is actually true, throw the damn thing out the window and write a new damn book. Or, at the very least, buy a damn marker.
|
The harpercollins nrsv study bible is the closest thing to the marker idea I have seen.
| Quote: |
No, thank you.
There is more of an incentive to study this stuff while disusing it with another. It also gives you the opportunity to present these ideas in front of others in order to verify that they make some sort of sense.
I could do this all day. (And so far, I really have been doing this all day) |
LOL, this has been taking my free time all week as well. I agree with you, I do enjoy the opportunity to present and cross check my ideas.
| Quote: |
| Yes, Socrates may have been illiterate... and Jesus' followers may have been too... as well as Jesus himself. |
Yeah, that really does a number on the written evidence of the individuals. I wonder if many of the apostles couldn’t write and fell from view because of it…only if the holy spirit gave people the ability to write on top of speaking in toungues…and now even speaking in toungues is an useless babble talk…
| Quote: |
| But... But.... Oh, nevermind. This response is getting long enough already. |
Yes, that’s a different topic indeed.
| Quote: |
| No thanks... My Atheistic Satanism is working out fine for me. |
I do not know you, so you might be like my friend Jay. He was happy as a pig in shit as a Catholic, and now that he’s an atheist, he’s pretty much just as happy (though he had 1 or 2 episodes which I would blame on age, such as the complication that women add to our lives, than religion.) Back to the point, he is predisposed to happiness. I believe I am predisposed to slightly moderate sadness (chemically perhaps), and I am very happy since I started making changes in my life.
Hell, if atheistic Satanism does not work out and you try out some Buddhism or reasonable Christianity, you might be absurdly happy! Who knows? However, you do what you believe is best.
I have actually had someone contact me on a forum about interest in my beliefs and he wanted me to convince him of them. I recommended some books and told him that nothing worth knowing comes to us easily and that he should figure out for himself what the best answer is. I only say this to bring up the fact I am not trying to convert you or something of that nature.
| Quote: |
The really funny thing is, that before I read your response, I was actually thinking that Fundamentalists Christians could be dissuaded from their beliefs by Archeology and Science. How could have I been so foolish?
|
LOL! I still agree with WK Clifford, my favorite philosopher of my agnostic days…truth is moral…yet many institutions want to disregard truth for the sake of morality!
| Quote: |
| Not exactly. Matthew includes 14 Parables not found in Mark or Luke, whereas Luke includes 12 parables not found in Mark or Matthew. They both seem to have added about the same amount of unique material (as far as the parables go). Matthew has more chapters than Luke (28 vs. 24), but Matthew actually has fewer verses than Luke (1071 vs. 1151). So overall, they are roughly the same length. |
Yes, I am wrong and you are right about that.
| Quote: |
| it might seem that was to modern Christian ears, but as you have stated, Thomas lacks Gnostic terminology. |
Again, I agree.
Until next time!
Random bible things:
Col 1:16 definitely seems to infer that Jesus was always around, the word made flesh. However, it says that Jesus was specifically the “image” of God, or in other words, exemplified a flesh God.
Thomas matching up with parts of Bible, not from wiki parables of jesus or http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-6gv.htm, from my harpercollins study bible.
Matthew 5:42 to Thomas 95.
Matthew 5:14 to Thomas 32.
I’ll probably add to this as I slowly reread the new testament. I have other books to read too! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21559
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-04-08 02:24
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Damn... over 4,000 words in this post... We really need to stop this. |
Eventually, we will run out of stuff to talk about!
|
We might almost be to that point. We seem to be agreeing now more often than not, especially when it comes to the timeline of the gospels and their relationship to each other. And on the points that we disagree on, we're probably too unchangeable in our opinions for further debate to do much good.
But there still are a few minor quibbles left for us to discuss...
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Letters? Where? I know there are a few pseudepigraphical texts which bear the names of apostles... are these what you are talking about? If not, enlighten me. |
I do not think there is reason to think that paul didn’t write his letter to the Romans and several others.
|
I'm not talking about Paul's letters... The authorship of most of those isn't in dispute. I'm talking about the other apostles -- The "Big 12" in Jerusalem.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
So, the disciples were the people who hung out with Jesus, and te apostles were the ones who spread his word. The story goes that the 12 disciples (minus 1) became the original 12 apostles, and that later on anybody who spread the story of Jesus was called an apostles. Things are confused a little more by the fact that there were actually more than 12 disciples (Mary Magdalene, for example).
But the question is, how is it that we know that the apostles in Jerusalem who Paul spoke actually knew Jesus? Paul himself never states this. When Paul does mention these "apostles" seeing Jesus, it is only in spirit (i.e. after the supposed crucifixion). The Gospel of Thomas conveys a similar sentiment -- that Jesus only spoke to people as a spirit. |
I believe you are going too far. In Thomas, Jesus in my opinion is clearly a special mortal, not entirely spiritual. This disagrees with late Gnostic belief in hologram Jesus.
|
I have to disagree. There really isn't anything in the Gospel of Thomas which would seem to indicate that Jesus was a flesh-and-bone human, other than those couple references to Jesus' family. But all of those seem to be included to teach a simple lesson -- that you should join the Jesus-cult no matter what your family says. And if they don't like it, fuck 'em. (Scientology and several other cults work under a similar principle.)
But for the most part, Jesus is portrayed and magical, mystical, immortal, and invisible...
| From Gospel of Thomas |
15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."
16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
17. Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart."
[...]
24. His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it."
He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."
[...]
28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.
But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."
29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.
Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."
30. Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."
[...]
37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
38. Jesus said, "Often you have desired to hear these sayings that I am speaking to you, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me."
[...]
44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."
[...]
50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'
If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'
If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"
[...]
52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."
[...]
59. Jesus said, "Look to the living one as long as you live, otherwise you might die and then try to see the living one, and you will be unable to see."
[...]
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
[...]
79. A woman in the crowd said to him, "Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you."
He said to [her], "Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, 'Lucky are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk.'"
80. Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy."
[...]
91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."
[...]
99. The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside."
He said to them, "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father's kingdom."
[...]
101. "Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [deceived me], but my true [mother] gave me life."
[...]
108. Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him."
[...]
111. Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence, and whoever is living from the living one will not see death."
Does not Jesus say, "Those who have found themselves, of them the world is not worthy"?
112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."
|
I suppose the point could be made either way. Thomas sems a little schizophrenic about the exact nature of Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
How do we know they actually knew Jesus? We don’t know for sure. But the very fact they were called “the 12” and narratives that correspond with the idea of 12 apostles have them hanging around with a living Jesus. I think you are stretching it, as far as Ancient history goes, to say that Paul supposedly believed that Jesus was just a spirit and only a spirit, and the disciples who are spoken of in a few (albeit non-secular) sources either did not exist, or the importance of their very existence is non-existent. It is possible, but not as probable as there was a flesh and blood Jesus.
[...]
We cannot doubt that Paul claims Jesus is real.
|
But is interesting that Paul's knowledge of a flesh-and-blood ministry seems to start with the crucifixion - the event that permanently turned him into a spirit.
It must be remembered that there were any pagan stories of a similar nature -- stories of gods which had holy offspring, and who were killed off. Think of Hercules -- he was the son of a god as well. And according to the story, his mortal body was killed which allowed his god-like spirit to leave his body and join his father up on Mount Olympus.
Sound a little familiar?
Now, do you think that the myth of Hercules was true? Hercules had shrines dedicated to him, and several cults formed around him. But, even while some people were worshipping his myth, there were others who realized that it was just a myth.
And the Hercules myth is not the only such myth which spoke of the life and death of various gods. There were many other such tales. In fact, I think most of these myths have the potential for being mistaken as an historical event by an unsuspecting reader.
So even though Paul talks about the Passion myth on several occasions, that does not mean that he was discussing real events. Even if Paul believed this myth was true, he apparently does not know very many details about Jesus' life -- this, despite the fact that he met with the Apostles (who in the gospels are claimed to have known a flesh-and-blood Jesus).
| From Letter to the Heberws 8:1-4 |
8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
8:4 "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
We also cannot doubt that there were probably some contemporary sources from Paul’s time, Q, Thomas, and Mark at the very least, that concur with the idea that there was a living and talking Jesus.
|
Again, the Gospel of Mark no more confirms the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus any more than the myth of Dionysus confirms his existence. The fact remains that none of the writings of Jesus survive, nor do the writings of anybody who claims to have known him personally. The story has "myth" written all over it.
About the only argument which seems to point to the existence of a real flesh-and-blood Jesus is the Criterion of embarrassment -- The fact that there are a few things which occur in the gospels that show that Jesus was not as perfect or as admired as other mythological heroes. (Such as the people of Jesus' hometown laughing at his claims of divinity). And to me, this is just about the only thing which salvages the argument in favor of mortal existence.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Mark might be later than we think, because it mentions both the Pharisees and temple being destroyed, which were around in 70 CE…meaning Mark would have to write afterward. The scholars don’t agree though. This would increase the probability of what you’re arguing if Q and Thomas are later than 70 as well…though, he could have guessed right about the temple, like the Jewish prophets.
|
It's possible that the Temple thing was a lucky guess about something which was bound to happen eventually (the Temple had been destroyed before) -- or that it was a general prophecy which was not meant to be taken so literally.
But the other reason for doubting a very early date for Mark and Q is that Paul seems to be unaware of their existence, or of anything these books contained. Since Paul died in the 60's, it's likely that Mark was written during that period of time or shortly after, which puts in the 60's-70's range as well.
Personally, I think Paul would have been surprised to find out that the apostles with which he had disputes had traveled with a flesh-and-blood Jesus for almost 3 years. If he had been aware of this fact, he may have had more respect for their opinions.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Well, stories about people getting magical powers are not very historical, but the fact that they exist in early church writings as characters means that they probably existed. On a side note, people back then believed that sickness was caused by demons…Jesus was a “miracle healer” of sorts according to the story.
|
Yes, that is an interesting point, isn't it? It seems that Jesus seemed to think that diseases could be cured by laying his divine hand on people and scaring away the demons. And according to the gospels, he seemed to be very successful at this skill.
Does this sound like an historical person to you?
Faith-healers were very common in history, but none were that successful. If Jesus really was able to cure diseases, that would imply that he knew what really caused them. Perhaps he should have shared the secret of Pasteurization and Vaccination with the ancient Jews.
If the historical Jesus really was a faith-healer -- and if were able to set-up stunts that convinced people that he was successful -- that would put Jesus in the con-man category to me. Perhaps it is best that we assume that mark Made all of this crap up.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, this is enough time for a real person to have his memory totally altered, which would explain all the disputes (Gnostics, Jewish Christian, and gentiles) and different interpretations of Christianity. If Jesus totally didn’t exist, the existence of the disputes would be less understandable, but not entirely.
|
But, also, the amount of time which passed between the period of time in which Jesus supposedly lived and the time his myth was taken seriously was just long enough that if Jesus were a myth, there wouldn't be very many people left alive that remembered the story differently.
You have to remember that Christianity was an extremely small cult for the first art of its existence in Jerusalem. Paul had a great deal of success at converting people in far-away lands, but Jewish Christianity was essentially a dismal failure -- probably because it was harder to convince people in Jerusalem of Jesus' story while there were still enough people around who knew better.
Have you ever really wondered why the Jews seemed to have no great love for their "King"?
| sorianofan wrote: |
The fact that the Jesus story is not grander leads me to believe that it is a myth of a real person than a myth in its own right.
|
Not grand? I don't know you can get much grander than being the son of a god, defeating Satan, saving all of humanity, and obtaining the power to sit in judgment of everybody's immortal soul for all eternity.
Even Superman, Neo, and the Kwisatz Haderach pale in comparison.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Thomas and Q mentioned the disciples and they apparently drew from earlier oral and possibly written sources...Yes, my argument is stretching here, because neither of these are canonical sources.
|
Yes, they mentioned disciples... but did "Q" mention them by name? "Disciple" merely means "follower".
Take a look at some of the stories which came from "Q" -- stories while are only found in Matthew & Luke (and possibly Thomas)....
The Leaven - Matthew and Thomas have Jesus giving this parable ot all of his disciples; in Luke, Jesus is talking to the " ruler of the synagogue".
The Lost Sheep - Matthew and Thomas again have Jesus giving this parable to all of his disciples; in Luke, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees.
Marriage of the King's Son - Thomas has Jesus giving this parable with no definite audience; in Matthew he is speaking to the Pharisees; in Luke, Jesus seems to be talking to the Chief Pharisee while dining at his house.
Parable of the Pounds - In Matthew, Jesus is speaking with Zacchaeus the Publican; In Luke, Jesus is talking to his disciples in a Temple.
I suppose I could go on. But these were the first 4 parables I looked at, and so far I see no connection at all. It really doesn't appear that "Q" offered much context to Jesus' sayings (But feel free to look for some examples to the contrary if you wish). it really does seem that most of the details of Jesus' flesh-and-blood disciples comes from Mark. And calling these "details is over-stating their importance just a bit -- Mark didn't seem to know much more about these guys than their names.
| sorianofan wrote: |
That’s possible, but it does not explain why “the 12” are mentioned by Paul and that oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings, which probably existed before Mark, mentioned the apostles…unless Mark invented Christianity as we know it.
|
Mark didn't have to invent the Apostles ... he just had to invent the fact these Apostles had walked the land with a living Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Paul calls James a brother of Jesus, implying a special relationship like that inferred in Gospel of Thomas. If Jesus never existed, the “specialness” implied by both paul and Thomas would be meaningless.
|
Not at all. The fact that he was the cult leader affords James a certain degree of notoriety. Don't forget that Thomas considers James to be important as well, but never claims that James was a blood relation to Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| (And in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul also mentions the Apostles seeing Jesus … and again, they see him in spirit form.) |
I don’t disagree with you there. |
Paul says that the Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection, with no mention of them seeing Jesus while alive (no mention of the Last Supper, Judas, for instance). And when Paul does mention the Communion and Last Supper ((1 Cor 10:16, (11:25) he never mentions who Jesus ate with -- or who betrayed him. Jesus seems to be aware of these myths, but doesn't know any details. (None of Paul's letters contain the name "Judas", for example)
BTW... Here's a cool site -- biblegateway.com. It's allows to to search the Bible, and includes just about every version of the Bible which has ever been translated (It includes two Swedish versions, for instance).
| sorianofan wrote: |
These people that Paul is writing to are sold to what Jesus said. That’s why paul rarely mentions it. However, paul wants to convince them of theology he clearly developed outside that of the flesh jesus, so he emphasizes the spirit that “met” with him. |
No really. That is why he is writing these letters -- to bring them back into the fold.
But there are just some things that you would think would come up ion the conversation. If your Messiah had hung out with some of the people you knew, I think that would be difficult to keep that to yourself. He talks about the Apostles several times, and Jesus' crucifixion on many occasions as well, yet he never seem to link the two. The purpose of these letter was to re-affirm his flock's faith, yet he never mentions the witnesses, except to claim that they talked to ghosts just like he did. And why go through all this trouble to mention these visions, and never mention his magical birth, his temptation by Satan, his miracles, his followers, or any other pre-crucifixion details. Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem several times, so Paul's lack of pre-crucifixion knowledge just has to be more than a coincidence.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| According to Paul, the other apostles met Jesus in the same manner as he did -- by way of a spiritual vision. And he should know ... he met with the other apostles several times. And he even called himself the "least" of the Apostles -- not because he's the only guy that never met him in the flesh, but rather because Paul used to persecute Christians. As far as Paul is concerned, that is the only thing that separates himself from Peter and James. |
It is not the only thing…he is not only the least of the apostles, but by his own admission, should not even be one. If he had not met “spirit jesus,” he would be nothing compared to paul.
|
Again, he feels his inferiority comes from the fact that he used to murder Christians for sport. If I've missed some other reason, please cite it.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It would have seemed natural for him to tell his followers to re-read these stories, and to occasionally refer to this book or that. |
Not if it raised more questions than answers. If we were early Christians, how much ink would we have spilled just debating the sources and significance of certain sayings? Paul was a jailbird, he didn’t have the time or direct need for that.
|
A holy man is not much without his sacred documents and relics. Perhaps Paul just didn't fit in with the modern image of an evangelists -- waving the bible in his hand while screaming at his flock. But the fact that Paul was originally a Pharisee makes me wonder how Paul could ignore these holy writings if he had them.
Paul may have ignored them if he disagreed with them. But hen again, if he disagreed with them (and these writings were available to his flock) it's hard to imagine that Paul wouldn't come right out and condemn them in his letters. So for Paul to completely ignore their existence and their teachings seems highly unlikely.
| sorianofan wrote: |
To be fair, he quotes some. So does James. In fact, some of the Q and Thomas sayings are, if not quoted, inferred to in the letters. (Ex: Matthew 5:37=James 5:12)
|
What did he quote? I've made the last few biblical verse lists... it's your turn.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And Paul seems to hold this opinion as well. |
Paul clearly says there was a flesh and blood crucifixion…however, Colossians IS a letter heavily suspected of tampering, because of its anti-female views. Nonetheless, the crucifiction is inferred in romans for example, which leads one to believe it was a physical occurrence. Lastly, a spirit actually dying makes no sense. How do spirits die? 1 Corinthians 15 clearly states that those of flesh die and resurrect as spirits… like Jesus:
Romans 6:5:
| Quote: |
| For if we have been united with him in a death like his [through baptism,] we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. |
So we physically die, like Christ, and spiritually resurrect, like Christ.
|
See the tale of Hercules above... or Dionysus (Divine Savior, Eucharist of Body and Blood) .... Mithras (Another Savior God, nearly a mirror image of Christ)... Tammuz (a life-death-rebirth deity who died and rose 6 days later)... Osiris (Had a Eucharist of bread and ale)... etc ... etc... etc.
It is interesting to note that the only knowledge Paul seem to have about Jesus could have easily came from these other cults. And the fact that Paul seems to lack all of the later details that made the Jesus myth a little more unique to Jesus seems to confirm this.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Additionally, it is possible that "Q" presented this view as well. And as I stated above, the first time anybody claimed Jesus was a living person who walked the land was in Mark .. |
Only if you hold by all of the preceding, which I have shown, could be false…I do admit the possibility that I can be mistaken.
|
It is true that Paul just may have happened to forget to mention any of these details -- or that he didn't care what Jesus said or did while he was alive. But I see both of these as a little unlikely.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No thanks... My Atheistic Satanism is working out fine for me. |
I do not know you, so you might be like my friend Jay. He was happy as a pig in shit as a Catholic, and now that he’s an atheist, he’s pretty much just as happy (though he had 1 or 2 episodes which I would blame on age, such as the complication that women add to our lives, than religion.) Back to the point, he is predisposed to happiness. I believe I am predisposed to slightly moderate sadness (chemically perhaps), and I am very happy since I started making changes in my life.
|
Interesting point. Although my love of debate is often misconstrued as a certain kind of bitterness by those who don't share my interests in discussing these subjects,
I am generally a fairly cheery fellow (but some of that may be absinthe induced).
| sorianofan wrote: |
Hell, if atheistic Satanism does not work out and you try out some Buddhism or reasonable Christianity, you might be absurdly happy! Who knows? However, you do what you believe is best.
|
The Satanism thing is a little tongue in cheek. But it was one of the first fields of religious studies that I looked into.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I have actually had someone contact me on a forum about interest in my beliefs and he wanted me to convince him of them. I recommended some books and told him that nothing worth knowing comes to us easily and that he should figure out for himself what the best answer is. I only say this to bring up the fact I am not trying to convert you or something of that nature.
|
That's good. I would expect your proselytizing to work on me anymore than I expect my evangelical atheism to work on you. Changes in opinion generally come in much smaller steps as opposed to outright conversions. (Except in the case of people who never really had their own opinions to begin with.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
LOL! I still agree with WK Clifford, my favorite philosopher of my agnostic days…truth is moral…yet many institutions want to disregard truth for the sake of morality!
|
Hmmm... William Kingdon Clifford ... I may have to add that that quote to my sig, if I can find it (I've found essays which state this opinion, but I can't find it in summarized quote form.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not exactly. Matthew includes 14 Parables not found in Mark or Luke, whereas Luke includes 12 parables not found in Mark or Matthew. They both seem to have added about the same amount of unique material (as far as the parables go). Matthew has more chapters than Luke (28 vs. 24), but Matthew actually has fewer verses than Luke (1071 vs. 1151). So overall, they are roughly the same length. |
Yes, I am wrong and you are right about that.
|
Don't feel bad. I always though that it was the other way around (Matthew was longer than Luke). I counted them up to show that you were wrong, it turned out that you were closer to the truth than I was. (Although I have yet to perform a word count on both.)
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21605
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-04-09 01:44
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
We might almost be to that point. We seem to be agreeing now more often than not, especially when it comes to the timeline of the gospels and their relationship to each other. And on the points that we disagree on, we're probably too unchangeable in our opinions for further debate to do much good.
But there still are a few minor quibbles left for us to discuss... |
This might be one of the few times where I took on an issue such as this, so divided in opinion with someone else, and have not been enraged or enraged the other guy. It is hard for many people, once including myself, to stay level headed about these issues. So for you, I must say, bravo!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I'm not talking about Paul's letters... The authorship of most of those isn't in dispute. I'm talking about the other apostles -- The "Big 12" in Jerusalem. |
Their letters? Like James' letter for example?
| Big Brother wrote: |
I have to disagree. There really isn't anything in the Gospel of Thomas which would seem to indicate that Jesus was a flesh-and-bone human, other than those couple references to Jesus' family. But all of those seem to be included to teach a simple lesson -- that you should join the Jesus-cult no matter what your family says. And if they don't like it, fuck 'em. (Scientology and several other cults work under a similar principle.)
But for the most part, Jesus is portrayed and magical, mystical, immortal, and invisible... |
Well, Jesus after death is portrayed these things. In life, he has family, real conversations ("spirit Jesus" never talks in early sources).
In Thomas 60:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| He (i.e., Jesus) saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb, when he (i.e., Jesus) was on his way to Judaea... |
Jesus is walking around...pretty life-like to me.
Thomas 52 has Jesus kind of angry that the disciples were neglecting him, the one "who is alive before you."
Thomas 71 makes mention of Jesus "destroy[ing] this house," the house being his body...thus, he did have a body.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Tho 71 - Jesus said: I will des[troy this] house, and none shall able to build it [again]. |
Thomas 86 has Jesus calling himself "son of man." The title would have no significance if he was not mortal.
Clearly, Jesus was supposed to be special, because he was worrying about the soul over the body, so much so that his spirit would live on and it reflected all of creation.
I do find this following line interesting though:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Tho 102 - And Jesus said: Woe to them, the Pharisees! For they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats, nor does he let the cattle eat. |
Does this indicate that at the very least, this passage was written after 70 CE when Pharisaic Judaism became mainstream again and worth complaining about? To be fair, Pharisees existed before that and were notable. Paul might have had been a Pharisee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#.22Pharisees.22_and_Christianity).
Perhaps the fact that Matthew and Luke mentions the Sadducees, a sect that died out by the later 1st century, indicates that complaints about Pharisees and Sadducees are legitimate early complaints and cannot be used as evidence as later authorship of the gospels.
This makes me wonder why scholars say Mark was written before 70 CE. Mark has both Pharisees and a temple prediction. Why is Matthew and Luke older than 70 CE because of these same exact attributes, and not mark...especially if they copied it off from mark?
Granted, Pharisees and temple predictions existed before 70 CE, so I believe those 2 things are not accurate judges. At the same time then, we must be wary about the "earliness" of Mark as a source.
So, we can argue 2 things:
1. EVERY gospel, including Thomas, was written after 70 CE due to their mentioning of the Pharisees.
2. The very fact that the every gospel is written towards a gentile audience and it even invokes the pharisees, which would be meaningless to gentiles, is evidence that there was legitimate early conflict between Jesus followers and Pharisees and Sadducees.
I do not see how it can be in between. Scholarship has really screwed up by picking some sort of middle path. With the evidence presented, it does not make sense.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
15. Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father." |
Jesus is referring to the G-man, not himself. God is the only entity that we should worship, because he is not mortal. I believe this is concurrent with Thomas, because Jesus claims to be a Buddhist Brahmin of sorts...he has seen the light and thus he is the image of perfection, with this part of his spirit living on forever. Anyone can be too, according to Thomas, if they follow Jesus and see the light as well.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone." |
This, like in the gospels, refers to the division among families that can occur in one's pursuit of following Jesus (truth.)
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 17. Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart." |
This seems to come straight from Paul, or more likely, Paul was quoting proto-Thomas. It is unlikely he was quoting Isaiah 64:4, though the quote itself sure as heck echos it. Perhaps he was mixing, a common Christian quotation practice, Isaiah 64:4 and 52:15. He even adds Isaiah 40:13 later, which leads me to believe he was reading from a scroll of Isaiah when he was writing this. Perhaps Jesus said these things as Thomas said and he was refering to Isaiah and added a twist to it, concerning his ability to reveal these things. Paul does not seemingly attribute Jesus to it:
| From 1 Corinthians 2:6 |
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ. |
To be honest with you, this seems to support your argument. Paul says that it is written, "blah blah blah" and that God reveals the answer to this question through our faith in the spirit (of God? Jesus?) out of all things! To be fair to what I am saying, Paul might be saying that if people understood what Jesus was saying, they would have not killed him. Thus, the spirit of God would have guided people in their understanding, which is concurrent with Isaiah.
Either way, this challenges the early authorship of Thomas, unless Paul was quoting Thomas and not mixing together quotes from Isaiah. There seems to be more evidence that Paul was quoting Isaiah, because he shortly quoted Isaiah 40:13 after mixing together to Isaiah quotes. This really hurts the "early Thomas camp," because that would indicate that the writer of Thomas was quoting Paul, not the other way around.
Any way you cut it, Paul was quoting some written source.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.
But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways." |
Are you asserting Jesus passes into and out of "fleshiness?" I think it is more consistent that he is always flesh.
The older greek fragment translates into something that sounds more like this:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 28) Jesus said: "I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh I was seen by them, and I found all drunken, and I found none among them thirsty. And my soul grieved over the souls of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not. |
On a side note, gnosticism rejects the idea that Jesus was ever flesh, so again, we have a conflict over when this thing was really written...did paul quote from it or not?
| From Gospel of Thomas |
29. Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.
Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty." |
Jesus is marveling how his great spirit and knowledge or trapped in flesh. Thus, Thomas does not deny Jesus' "fleshiness" but plays up Jesus' knowledge on how to live forever by liberating our spirits'. Sounds gnostic, but not 100%.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 30. Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, [b]I am with that one." |
The earlier greek translation:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Jesus said: "Where there are [two, they are not] without God, and when there is one alone, [I say,] I am with him. Raise the stone, and there you will find me; cleave the wood, and there I am." |
This matches up nicely with Matthew 18:20:
| From Matthew 18:20 |
| For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. |
Jesus is saying he is everywhere in spirit when you seek him (truth.)
| From Gospel of Thomas |
37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid." |
I think Jesus is saying, "After I am crucified, I'll see you in heaven."
The earlier Greek translation:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| (37) His disciples said to him, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?" He said, "When you disrobe and are not ashamed [...afraid]." |
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 38. Jesus said, "Often you have desired to hear these sayings that I am speaking to you, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me." |
Take advantage of what I say now, because when I am dead, you will often find yourself struggling to be inspired by my spirit.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven." |
Jesus essentially says the same thing in the bible: You can shoot the messenger and where he has come from, but above all the message is what is important. (Mark 3:28)
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 59. Jesus said, "Look to the living one as long as you live, otherwise you might die and then try to see the living one, and you will be unable to see." |
Seek to see God now, because if cannot see him now, you won't be able to see him when you are dead.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." |
The truth that Jesus is the image of is everywhere. That does not necessarily mean that Jesus is not flesh, but rather, he's "the Word made flesh."
| Big Brother wrote: |
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 112. Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh." |
I suppose the point could be made either way. Thomas seems a little schizophrenic about the exact nature of Jesus. |
That can be true, but I do believe in the end, though Jesus is of a mysterious nature, he is presented as a person and not a hologram...unless Thomas was a forgery that took some fleshy quotes from the canonical gospels to make it appear like a secret treasure trove of Jesus sayings to Thomas Christians.
| Big Brother wrote: |
But is interesting that Paul's knowledge of a flesh-and-blood ministry seems to start with the crucifixion - the event that permanently turned him into a spirit.
It must be remembered that there were any pagan stories of a similar nature -- stories of gods which had holy offspring, and who were killed off. Think of Hercules -- he was the son of a god as well. And according to the story, his mortal body was killed which allowed his god-like spirit to leave his body and join his father up on Mount Olympus.
Sound a little familiar? |
Yes, but the Jesus myth spread and developed in a matter of decades and not centuries, like many religious myths wit absolutely no basis in reality.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So even though Paul talks about the Passion myth on several occasions, that does not mean that he was discussing real events. Even if Paul believed this myth was true, he apparently does not know very many details about Jesus' life -- this, despite the fact that he met with the Apostles (who in the gospels are claimed to have known a flesh-and-blood Jesus). |
Your argument is possible, but I find it hard to believe that a myth that Jesus was actually a real person developed so fast in different sources. The fact that letters from James, Paul, and etc. infer Jesus' teachings from Q and Thomas increase the probability that they really believed they were quoting a real person. How many Hercules quotes were developed in a matter of decades? That took centuries of story telling. I think we can infer in the bible that earlier sources existed and that decreases the probability that Jesus was entirely myth.
Let me quote Young's literal translation for Hebrews 8:1-8:4
| From Hebrews |
1And the sum concerning the things spoken of [is]: we have such a chief priest, who did sit down at the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens,
2of the holy places a servant, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord did set up, and not man,
3for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer;
4for if, indeed, he were upon earth [RIGHT NOW], he would not be a priest...6and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned,
7for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.
[EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME] |
This is saying that Jesus is no mere human intermediary. He is not here with us for a reason, for his resurrection in spirit guarantees us a new covenant.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Again, the Gospel of Mark no more confirms the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus any more than the myth of Dionysus confirms his existence. The fact remains that none of the writings of Jesus survive, nor do the writings of anybody who claims to have known him personally. The story has "myth" written all over it. |
Not entirely, but I am following you. We do have evidence that there was earlier writings or traditions of Jesus' supposed quotations by the time of Paul's writings. That is relatively fast for someone who never existed. Indeed, these men seem to be reacting specifically to the fact that such a person existed.
I can disprove your theory, it is credible. However, for the reasons I stated, I believe it is less likely.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| About the only argument which seems to point to the existence of a real flesh-and-blood Jesus is the Criterion of embarrassment -- The fact that there are a few things which occur in the gospels that show that Jesus was not as perfect or as admired as other mythological heroes. (Such as the people of Jesus' hometown laughing at his claims of divinity). And to me, this is just about the only thing which salvages the argument in favor of mortal existence. |
But, what you present here is evidence derived from the "mark myth" as making it not typical of other myths.
| Big Brother wrote: |
It's possible that the Temple thing was a lucky guess about something which was bound to happen eventually (the Temple had been destroyed before) -- or that it was a general prophecy which was not meant to be taken so literally.
But the other reason for doubting a very early date for Mark and Q is that Paul seems to be unaware of their existence, or of anything these books contained. Since Paul died in the 60's, it's likely that Mark was written during that period of time or shortly after, which puts in the 60's-70's range as well.
Personally, I think Paul would have been surprised to find out that the apostles with which he had disputes had traveled with a flesh-and-blood Jesus for almost 3 years. If he had been aware of this fact, he may have had more respect for their opinions. |
Idea's of Paul's do seem paraphrased from Q, which Paul might have done purposely to give his theology some backing. Specifically, he quotes Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24 only because the quote (last supper stuff) is incredibly important! Otherwise, he paraphrases instead.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Yes, that is an interesting point, isn't it? It seems that Jesus seemed to think that diseases could be cured by laying his divine hand on people and scaring away the demons. And according to the gospels, he seemed to be very successful at this skill.
Does this sound like an historical person to you?
Faith-healers were very common in history, but none were that successful. If Jesus really was able to cure diseases, that would imply that he knew what really caused them. Perhaps he should have shared the secret of Pasteurization and Vaccination with the ancient Jews.
If the historical Jesus really was a faith-healer -- and if were able to set-up stunts that convinced people that he was successful -- that would put Jesus in the con-man category to me. Perhaps it is best that we assume that mark Made all of this crap up. |
Yes, it sounds like Jesus had many things made up about him, if he wasn't entirely made up. However, are we to discount all crazy magical stories? Yes, be very very critical, but we cannot discount absolutely everything.
For example, my dad has a new age friend who thinks she can talk to rocks and heal people. She really cannot. However, she did pull off a major feat. My brother used to have inflammation on his hard palette all the time that was uncomfortable. She offered to heal him and she did. My brother never had that problem again. Now, don't take my story as certifiable scientific evidence. However, the probability exists that there are human abilities and capacities we do not understand...a lot like those CIA psychics that happened to guess right what that Russian weapons facility looked like...(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19081)
| Big Brother wrote: |
But, also, the amount of time which passed between the period of time in which Jesus supposedly lived and the time his myth was taken seriously was just long enough that if Jesus were a myth, there wouldn't be very many people left alive that remembered the story differently.
You have to remember that Christianity was an extremely small cult for the first art of its existence in Jerusalem. Paul had a great deal of success at converting people in far-away lands, but Jewish Christianity was essentially a dismal failure -- probably because it was harder to convince people in Jerusalem of Jesus' story while there were still enough people around who knew better. |
That's possible. It is also possible that Jesus did not command a huge audience either.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Have you ever really wondered why the Jews seemed to have no great love for their "King"? |
He was not what was prophesized and only ambiguous prophecies point to him.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Not grand? I don't know you can get much grander than being the son of a god, defeating Satan, saving all of humanity, and obtaining the power to sit in judgment of everybody's immortal soul for all eternity. |
Yes, but the seemingly early elements of Christianity lacked this. The myth was added to the man later.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Yes, they mentioned disciples... but did "Q" mention them by name? "Disciple" merely means "follower".
Take a look at some of the stories which came from "Q" -- stories while are only found in Matthew & Luke (and possibly Thomas)....
The Leaven - Matthew and Thomas have Jesus giving this parable ot all of his disciples; in Luke, Jesus is talking to the " ruler of the synagogue".
The Lost Sheep - Matthew and Thomas again have Jesus giving this parable to all of his disciples; in Luke, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees.
Marriage of the King's Son - Thomas has Jesus giving this parable with no definite audience; in Matthew he is speaking to the Pharisees; in Luke, Jesus seems to be talking to the Chief Pharisee while dining at his house.
Parable of the Pounds - In Matthew, Jesus is speaking with Zacchaeus the Publican; In Luke, Jesus is talking to his disciples in a Temple.
I suppose I could go on. But these were the first 4 parables I looked at, and so far I see no connection at all. It really doesn't appear that "Q" offered much context to Jesus' sayings (But feel free to look for some examples to the contrary if you wish). it really does seem that most of the details of Jesus' flesh-and-blood disciples comes from Mark. And calling these "details is over-stating their importance just a bit -- Mark didn't seem to know much more about these guys than their names. |
I did some cross checking and you appear to be correct. Matthew and Luke share no material with corresponding disciple names outside of passages found in mark.
In fact, only the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Matthew 23:12 and Luke 18:9-14) are direct at the same person/people: Pharisees. This puts a lot of the “expertise” of the disciples in doubt, unless Thomas is indeed an early source or Mark is earlier than we think.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| BTW... Here's a cool site -- biblegateway.com. It's allows to search the Bible, and includes just about every version of the Bible which has ever been translated (It includes two Swedish versions, for instance). |
No NRSV though 
I didn't both quoting what you wrote just before this segment of your post, because I had no disagreements.
| Big Brother wrote: |
No[t] really. That is why he is writing these letters -- to bring them back into the fold.
But there are just some things that you would think would come up ion the conversation. If your Messiah had hung out with some of the people you knew, I think that would be difficult to keep that to yourself. He talks about the Apostles several times, and Jesus' crucifixion on many occasions as well, yet he never seem to link the two. The purpose of these letter was to re-affirm his flock's faith, yet he never mentions the witnesses, except to claim that they talked to ghosts just like he did. And why go through all this trouble to mention these visions, and never mention his magical birth, his temptation by Satan, his miracles, his followers, or any other pre-crucifixion details. Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem several times, so Paul's lack of pre-crucifixion knowledge just has to be more than a coincidence. |
He wasn't there, that's the reason. The main question is why, if he knew real disciples, did he not draw from them more. I believe the answer to that is that people were slipping from Paul's theology, so he wrote back only with theology. Is it a coincidence that Paul, even when he implies Jesus' teachings, many times does not bother to quote him? Again, you might ask, where's the beef? I'll get back to you tomorrow on that.
| Big Brother wrote: |
A holy man is not much without his sacred documents and relics. Perhaps Paul just didn't fit in with the modern image of an evangelists -- waving the bible in his hand while screaming at his flock. But the fact that Paul was originally a Pharisee makes me wonder how Paul could ignore these holy writings if he had them.
Paul may have ignored them if he disagreed with them. But hen again, if he disagreed with them (and these writings were available to his flock) it's hard to imagine that Paul wouldn't come right out and condemn them in his letters. So for Paul to completely ignore their existence and their teachings seems highly unlikely. |
This question can be answered when I get some cross references up  Give me a day.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| What did he quote? I've made the last few biblical verse lists... it's your turn. |
James 5:12 with Matthew 5:37...does not look like a coincidence.
I am getting tired (I am a student teacher and I am usually in bed at 10:00) so I'm not going to get into more, but I will start pulling them out of my bible and verify if the language is close enough. I might start a list as early as tomorrow, on this thread.
| Big Brother wrote: |
Interesting point. Although my love of debate is often misconstrued as a certain kind of bitterness by those who don't share my interests in discussing these subjects,
I am generally a fairly cheery fellow (but some of that may be absinthe induced).
|
I love debate, but sadly, I used to love getting angry. It is pretty self defeating.
I never had absinthe and I don't think I ever would. I am surprised that teens don't buy wormwood online and get high from it...
Oh yeah, its no fun when it's legal (http://www.herbspro.com/search/products.asp?txtSearch=Wormwood&vid=&gclid=CPLEkMPYnoQCFSdyGgodOUvqhw.) I don’t see why people don’t mix it themselves and get that lovely thujone high.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| The Satanism thing is a little tongue in cheek. But it was one of the first fields of religious studies that I looked into. |
I am sure you figured all religion is crap, but you have placed your faith in some sort of nameless Way…unless you are 100 percent certain that you are correct in every way!
| Big Brother wrote: |
| That's good. I would expect your proselytizing to work on me anymore than I expect my evangelical atheism to work on you. Changes in opinion generally come in much smaller steps as opposed to outright conversions. (Except in the case of people who never really had their own opinions to begin with.) |
Good point.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Hmmm... William Kingdon Clifford ... I may have to add that that quote to my sig, if I can find it (I've found essays which state this opinion, but I can't find it in summarized quote form.) |
His last sentence in "The Ethics of Belief" says it nicely:
| From The Ethics of Belief |
| It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe. |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Don't feel bad. I always though that it was the other way around (Matthew was longer than Luke). I counted them up to show that you were wrong, it turned out that you were closer to the truth than I was. (Although I have yet to perform a word count on both.) |
I don’t feel bad. Perhaps I spoke so straight forward, that it appeared I was disappointed. But again, than you for correcting me.
Perhaps you would like to respond once I start compiling that list, so you have even more to respond to… |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21660
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-04-09 19:45
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| 24 Examples That Prove That Jesus is L0rdz0r5 |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
The following are passages from Matthew that either theologically or literally resemble passages from the letters to the early churches. Because I do not believe it is possible that Matthew, or Q, copied all of these letters far flung around the Mediterranean in many churches, I believe this serves as evidence that the ideas presented in Matthew and the letters are derived from an earlier source, either early Q or early oral tradition. Thus, the ideas of the living Jesus are being presented in the letters and the supposed sayings of Jesus are not a later created myth. At the very least, the writers of the letters were aware of such sayings found in Q and in oral tradition, and to give their writings firmer foundation, often paraphrased Jesus’ ideas.
Example 1:
Matthew 3:17
| Quote: |
| And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. |
Romans 1:4
| Quote: |
| and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. |
Paul verifies the notion that it was believed a voice from heaven declared Jesus God’s servant.
Matthew does this as a doublet that closely matches Peter:
Matthew 17:5-6
| Quote: |
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!
6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground, terrified. |
2 Peter 1:17-18
| Quote: |
For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.
18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. |
Thus, this Q saying (was Q redacted if it contained doublets? Or was Mark being quoted once and Q the other time by Matthew?) existed before Peter wrote the letter. At the very least, Peter claims to be there and have heard it! There is also an implication that Jesus was real.
2 Peter 1:16
| Quote: |
| We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. |
Thus, Peter makes the claim that he knew the real-life Jesus.
Example 2:
Matthew 5:9
| Quote: |
| Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. |
1 Peter 3:14
| Quote: |
| But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened. |
Peter pretty much paraphrases a spiffy comment, “blessed are the peacemakers.”
Example 3:
Matthew 5:37
| Quote: |
| Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. |
James 5:12
| Quote: |
| Above all, my brothers, do not swear— not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your Yes be yes, and your No, no, or you will be condemned. |
This is definite evidence that James was aware of Q sayings or that Q sayings preceded James. The theological point and language are extremely similar.
Example 4:
Matthew 5:39
| Quote: |
| But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. |
1 Peter 3:9
| Quote: |
| Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. |
If you read on pass Matthew 5:39, it pretty much makes the same point as 1 Peter 3:9.
However, Lamentations 3:30 probably in the bona fida origin of this saying in the Jewish tradition:
| Quote: |
| Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. |
Example 5:
Matthew 10:26
Matthew 6:4
| Quote: |
| … so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. |
| Quote: |
| So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. |
1 Corinthians 4:5
| Quote: |
| Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. |
Romans 2:16
| Quote: |
| This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. |
The language is different, but the theology is exactly the same.
Example 6:
Matthew 6:20-21
| Quote: |
But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also |
1 Timothy 6:17-19
| Quote: |
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.
18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. |
This has the same idea as the Matthew quote. James gets it even closer in James 5:1-3:
| Quote: |
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you.
2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. |
The mentioning of both rust (corrosion) and moths makes this no coincidence in theology or language. The idea about thievery is written more so, but I will get into that later.
Example 7:
Matthew 7:1-2
| Quote: |
Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2 For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. |
Romans 2:1
| Quote: |
| You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. |
James 4:11-12
| Quote: |
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbour? |
Theology and language is the same, though Q is spiffy.
Example 8:
Matthew 7:18
| Quote: |
| A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. |
James 3:12
| Quote: |
| My brothers, can a fig-tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. |
Same idea, slight difference in delivery.
Example 9:
Matthew 7:20
| Quote: |
| Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. |
James 1:22
| Quote: |
| Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. |
Same idea, listen to the words and practice them, because this gives foundation to one’s faith. Matthew of course goes into it much more.
Example 10:
Matthew 10:9-10
| Quote: |
Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts;
10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. |
1 Corinthians 9:14
| Quote: |
| In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. |
Both passages mean the exact same thing. They are both commands from the Lord, Jesus…Matthew merely changed the context of this Q saying.
Example 11:
Matthew 10:20
| Quote: |
| for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. |
1 Corinthians 2:4-5
| Quote: |
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power,
5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. |
Theologically these are the same: the words one utters in God’s ministry are from the his spirit. However, the Old Testament also has this.
Example 12:
Matthew 26:26-30
| Quote: |
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take and eat; this is my body.
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you.
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.
30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. |
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
| Quote: |
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. |
This obviously is the same. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus was betrayed infers that he was a physical human being.
Romans 3 goes further into this (Young’s literal translation):
| Quote: |
| 3concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh |
Jesus was, according to Paul, flesh and blood. The bread and wine show the significance of this. Furthermore, as I am showing, the letters do indeed reflect the teachings of the living Jesus. Let me get into more.
Example 13:
Matthew 15:19
| Quote: |
| For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. |
This is called a sin list. It was popular at the time and found in 2 of Paul’s letters.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
| Quote: |
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor [/I]thieves[/I] nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. |
Look how much directly match up with Matthew! Galatians 5:19-21 is a differing sin list with some similarities.
Example 14:
Matthew 16:27
| Quote: |
| For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. |
2 Corinthians 5:10
| Quote: |
| For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. |
Same idea, different language.
Example 15:
Matthew 10:27
| Quote: |
| What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. |
Gospel of Thomas
| Quote: |
33 Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.
After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light." |
2 Peter 1:19-21
| Quote: |
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
|
The quote seems to have more in common with the Gospel of Thomas: what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. The real Jesus saying, which has been messed up by both Matthew and Thomas, is probably 2 Peter 1:19 judging from its use of the word light and the similarities it shares with Thomas (and Thomas obvious similarities with Matthew.)
Then again, it might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to Thomas or Matthew at all.
Example 16:
Matthew 18:1-5 (The importance of being humble)
| Quote: |
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them.
3 And he said: I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. |
There are two close to identical quotes from James and Peter:
1 Peter 5:5-6
| Quote: |
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because,
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.
6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. |
James 4:6, 10
| Quote: |
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble…. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. |
“Lift you up,” same Psalms quote, and a reference to young men by Peter. The “real” Jesus quote was probably closer to Peter than Matthew.
Example 17:
Matthew 19:10-12
| Quote: |
The disciples said to him, If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.
11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. |
1 Corinthians 7:1-11 includes Paul’s exact same opinion concerning marriage and sexual relations.
| Quote: |
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.
7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. |
Example 18:
Matthew 19:23
| Quote: |
| Then Jesus said to his disciples, I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. |
1 Timothy 6:9-10
| Quote: |
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. |
Same exact idea. However, passages in the Old Testament attest to the same thing, but I cannot think of any that take it on as directly as Jesus. The OT warns those with wealth not to be arrogant and turn away from God, while the NT is in many ways anti-wealth and presumes that those with wealth already turned away from God.
Example 19:
Matthew 19:28
| Quote: |
| Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. |
1 Corinthians 6:1-2
| Quote: |
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? |
While Paul often talks about God or Jesus judging, here he adds the idea of “saints” judging, apparently an idea like that of the disciples judging.
Example 20:
Matthew 20:28
| Quote: |
| 28even as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. |
1 Peter 1:18-19 (Young’s Literal Translation)
| Quote: |
having known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers,
19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's – |
Same exact idea of one being ransomed or redeemed by Jesus.
Example 21:
Matthew 22:21
| Quote: |
| Caesar's, they replied. Then he said to them, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. |
Spiffy little line that sums up Paul and Peter nicely:
Romans 13:7
| Quote: |
| Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour. |
1 Peter 2:15-17
| Quote: |
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.
16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king. |
Peter’s especially sums up the meaning behind Matthew 22:21.
Example 22:
Matthew 24:7-8, 43-44’s idea of the world coming to an end:
| Quote: |
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth-pains…But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. |
1 Thes 5:2-3
| Quote: |
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. |
As we see here, we have the same talk of thievery and birth pains.
2 Peter 3:10
| Quote: |
| But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. |
Even more thievery. Someone along the line said “the world’s end will sneak up on us like a thief” and it stuck in several sources. This sources was apparently early. See also Example 6.
Example 23:
Similarity in use of theological language:
Matthew 24:22
| Quote: |
| 22And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened.. |
Romans 8:33
| Quote: |
| 33Who shall lay a charge against the choice ones of God? God [is] He that is declaring righteous, |
Col 3:12
| Quote: |
| Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering, |
Paul purports that there is an “elect” or “chosen” among the people who are lucky to have God’s grace. This idea, if it was only Paul’s, some how found its way in Q or Matthew made a lucky guess of a theological idea. He might have been referring to God’s chosen people, the Israelites (see http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22chosen+ones%22&searchtype=all&version1=15&spanbegin=1&spanend=73), but Matthew (and a like Q passage in Luke 18:7) talk of the chosen ones as an elect of God’s grace, thus a specifically New Testament idea.
Example 24:
Matthew 26:64
| Quote: |
| 64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.' |
The idea of the right hand is found all over Paul’s writings:
Romans 8:34
| Quote: |
| who [is] he that is condemning? Christ [is] He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us. |
Col 3:1
| Quote: |
| 1If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated, |
For more, click the below link.
The “right hand” in the Old Testament refers to God’s ability to act through us or assist us, the right hand is the hand of doing stuff. (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search="right%20hand"&version1=31&searchtype=all) The idea of being on or helped by God’s right hand is all over the Old Testament. However, Jesus himself at God’s right hand is both explicitly written about by Paul and Peter, thus this idea came from somewhere, possibly Q or the J Man himself.
___________________
There are more examples, because I only covered Matthew and I rejected some "connections" that I thought were not provable. Some of the examples presented here might be false positives or false altogether due to erroneous analysis. However, I do think there is enough proof to show that Q and other purported Jesus sayings and ideas are outright quoted or paraphrased in the letters.
Lastly, http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-6gv.htm adds 5 more positive matches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21779
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-04-11 04:08
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
This might be one of the few times where I took on an issue such as this, so divided in opinion with someone else, and have not been enraged or enraged the other guy. It is hard for many people, once including myself, to stay level headed about these issues. So for you, I must say, bravo!
|
Most of the discussions I have had on the subject have generally broken down as well.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I'm not talking about Paul's letters... The authorship of most of those isn't in dispute. I'm talking about the other apostles -- The "Big 12" in Jerusalem. |
Their letters? Like James' letter for example?
|
Most scholars agree that the General Epistles are for the most part pseudepigraphical. This page gives a nice list of all of the arguments concerning the authorship of James (although that is a Christian site and is slightly biased in favor of traditional view). But even if you believe that James’ letter was penned by the apostles James of which Paul spoke of, that doesn't change the fact that the letter really does nothing to settle the question of whether or not this James knew a flesh-and-bone Jesus. The purpose of the letter seems to be to argue against some of Paul's ideas. But the letter does not discus James’s relationship to Jesus, nor does it mention any other historical evidence that would suggest that the author knew Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Well, Jesus after death is portrayed these things. In life, he has family, real conversations ("spirit Jesus" never talks in early sources).
|
Then what is up with this verse?...
| From Gospel of Thomas |
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
|
It doesn’t sound like the sort of thing a living person would say. And then there's that bit in verse 55 about carrying a cross. Did Jesus say that before his crucifixion?
| sorianofan wrote: |
In Thomas 60:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| He (i.e., Jesus) saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb, when he (i.e., Jesus) was on his way to Judaea... |
Jesus is walking around...pretty life-like to me.
|
I don't think verse 60 is claiming that Jesus went to Judea -- it says that the Samaritan was on his way to Judea.
But yes, it sounds like Jesus was hanging with his disciples when he saw this guy walking down the road. But were they hanging around with a mortal Jesus, or with his ghost? It's hard to tell.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Thomas 52 has Jesus kind of angry that the disciples were neglecting him, the one "who is alive before you."
|
I wonder who these "24 prophets" were. I'm not sure if there would have been this many prophets talking about Jesus before he was crucified. It seems more like Jesus is telling them to listen to the living spirit which is talking to them now, instead of listening to the apostles.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Thomas 71 makes mention of Jesus "destroy[ing] this house," the house being his body...thus, he did have a body.
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Tho 71 - Jesus said: I will des[troy this] house, and none shall able to build it [again]. |
|
That verse is interesting. It differs from all of the other gospels in that in the others all say that Jesus will rebuild the temple in 3 days, but in Thomas Jesus says that nobody will be able to rebuild it.
Mark 14:58 - We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'
If you look at the original Coptic text of this verse, it isn't exactly clear what Jesus is talking about here. It seems that the translation of this verse comes in part from the translators knowledge of similar gospel passages.
But this goes back to the old question -- Was Jesus talking about the literal destruction of the Jewish temple here?... And if he was, did he say it before the event occurred. Or was this part of the document added later? It's interesting that the wording here differs from the other gospels. It doesn't seem like Thomas copied the saying from Mark. So in order to believe that Thomas was written early in the 1st century, you have to believe that Jesus said something similar to this before the destruction of the temple occurred in 70CE.
The line in Thomas is a little obscure. It says that Jesus will destroy "this house" and nobody will be able to rebuild it. In Mark 13:1-2, Jesus specifically says that the Jewish Temple will be utterly destroyed -- "there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down". And in Mark (14:57-58) he specifically says that HE will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Could it be that the line in Thomas predated the destruction of the Temple, but later gospel writers took the line to be a literal prophecy? Could it be that the Gospel writers expanded it in order to make it appear as though Jesus was predicting the events in 70CE? Mark repeats the bit about the temple being destroyed 4 times (Before Jesus’ arrest, during the trial, while he's on the cross, and after his death). It seems that the reason Mark is displaying this prophecy so prominently is that he wants to make it clear that Jesus was correct. And the only way he could have known that Jesus was correct would be if Mark wrote after the events had occurred.
The years surrounding 70CE were a chaotic time for Christians and Jews. All of the early Christian leaders were dead, and Jerusalem had been flattened by the Romans. To me, it seems that Mark is implying that now that the Temple has been destroyed, people should forget about he old Jewish ways and Jesus should be the their new Temple.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I do find this following line interesting though:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Tho 102 - And Jesus said: Woe to them, the Pharisees! For they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of the cattle; for he neither eats, nor does he let the cattle eat. |
Does this indicate that at the very least, this passage was written after 70 CE when Pharisaic Judaism became mainstream again and worth complaining about? To be fair, Pharisees existed before that and were notable. Paul might have had been a Pharisee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#.22Pharisees.22_and_Christianity).
|
The Pharisees existed before 70CE.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| From 1 Corinthians 2:9 |
9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. |
To be honest with you, this seems to support your argument. Paul says that it is written, "blah blah blah" and that God reveals the answer to this question through our faith in the spirit (of God? Jesus?) out of all things! To be fair to what I am saying, Paul might be saying that if people understood what Jesus was saying, they would have not killed him. Thus, the spirit of God would have guided people in their understanding, which is concurrent with Isaiah.
Either way, this challenges the early authorship of Thomas, unless Paul was quoting Thomas and not mixing together quotes from Isaiah.
|
Thomas appears to be quoting directly from Isaiah 64:4
| From Isaiah 64:4 |
For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
|
The literal translation of the Coptic text of Thomas yields...
| From Coptic Thomas |
Said-YS this; I-will-give to-you(pl) he-who-did-not-eye look upon-him, and he-who-did-not-ear hear-him, and he-who-did-not-hand touch-him, and did-not-he\come up on-the-mind of-man. |
And Paul seems to be quoting from Isaiah as well:
[quote="sorianofan"]www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/2.html#9]1 Cor 2:9[/url]But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.[/equote]
It is strange that both Paul and Thomas quote the same passage from Isaiah.
| sorianofan wrote: |
There seems to be more evidence that Paul was quoting Isaiah, because he shortly quoted Isaiah 40:13 after mixing together to Isaiah quotes. This really hurts the "early Thomas camp," because that would indicate that the writer of Thomas was quoting Paul, not the other way around.
|
Not necessarily. Thomas doesn't include Paul’s bit about "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him". Thomas is pretty much a verbatim copy of Isaiah, and could have came directly from there without Paul's help.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Any way you cut it, Paul was quoting some written source.
|
Yes... it sems he had a copy of Isaiah.
Although it is possible that Paul had a copy of Thomas (or rather, some form of proto-Thomas). But, given the fact that this exact wording is used in Isaiah, it really isn't necessary to believe that Paul needed another secondary source.
BTW... 1 John 1:1 references that passage as well. (Although that really doesn't help this debate since we know John was written later)
| sorianofan wrote: |
Are you asserting Jesus passes into and out of "fleshiness?" I think it is more consistent that he is always flesh.
|
Not exactly. But this verse does seem to imply that Jesus existed before he became flesh.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 30. Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, [b]I am with that one." |
The earlier Greek translation:
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| Jesus said: "Where there are [two, they are not] without God, and when there is one alone, [I say,] I am with him. Raise the stone, and there you will find me; cleave the wood, and there I am." |
This matches up nicely with Matthew 18:20:
| From Matthew 18:20 |
| For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. |
Jesus is saying he is everywhere in spirit when you seek him (truth.)
|
That similarity between Matthew and Thomas is interesting, but it seems like they are interpreting that saying in two different ways. (Thomas seems to be talking about the gods of other religions, whereas Matthew is talking a gathering of Christians)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| From Gospel of Thomas |
| 44. Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven." |
Jesus essentially says the same thing in the bible: You can shoot the messenger and where he has come from, but above all the message is what is important. (Mark 3:28)
|
I wonder if this saying came from Paul, because Paul really did blaspheme against Jesus' followers. It seems like something he would say -- that Paul thinks he will be forgiven for persecuting Christians (because he had not yet "met" Jesus' spirit), but believes that people who deny his teachings (blaspheme the spirit) will roast in hell. He never gives that quote exactly as it appears in Gospels, but he does say a couple things which are along the same lines. In 1 Cor 2, the entire chapter seems to be saying that Paul has received the word of God via Christ's spirit, and that it is wrong to doubt his word.
A few more examples...
| From 1 Corinthians 12 |
12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
|
| From Ephesians 4 |
4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. |
| From 1 Thessalonians 4 |
4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit. |
It hard for me to imagine why Christians would have a saying which stated that it was OK to blaspheme against Jesus, but not the "holy spirit". But if this saying stems from Paul's belief that he will be forgiven or punish Christians, what is it doing in Thomas?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
I suppose the point could be made either way. Thomas seems a little schizophrenic about the exact nature of Jesus. |
That can be true, but I do believe in the end, though Jesus is of a mysterious nature, he is presented as a person and not a hologram...unless Thomas was a forgery that took some fleshy quotes from the canonical gospels to make it appear like a secret treasure trove of Jesus sayings to Thomas Christians.
|
It certainly is difficult to try to date any of these writings. It would have been nice if any one of these authors had dated their works, or would have at least created a bibliography to cite their sources. And it also would have been nice for these guys to be a little more specific about who the author was.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
But is interesting that Paul's knowledge of a flesh-and-blood ministry seems to start with the crucifixion - the event that permanently turned him into a spirit.
It must be remembered that there were any pagan stories of a similar nature -- stories of gods which had holy offspring, and who were killed off. Think of Hercules -- he was the son of a god as well. And according to the story, his mortal body was killed which allowed his god-like spirit to leave his body and join his father up on Mount Olympus.
Sound a little familiar? |
Yes, but the Jesus myth spread and developed in a matter of decades and not centuries, like many religious myths wit absolutely no basis in reality.
|
But that is thanks to the efforts of a single person -- Paul. If he hadn't existed, the myth of Christ probably would have died off with the destruction of the Jewish Christians.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So even though Paul talks about the Passion myth on several occasions, that does not mean that he was discussing real events. Even if Paul believed this myth was true, he apparently does not know very many details about Jesus' life -- this, despite the fact that he met with the Apostles (who in the gospels are claimed to have known a flesh-and-blood Jesus). |
Your argument is possible, but I find it hard to believe that a myth that Jesus was actually a real person developed so fast in different sources. The fact that letters from James, Paul, and etc. infer Jesus' teachings from Q and Thomas increase the probability that they really believed they were quoting a real person. How many Hercules quotes were developed in a matter of decades? That took centuries of story telling. I think we can infer in the bible that earlier sources existed and that decreases the probability that Jesus was entirely myth.
|
The fact is that just about every element of the Jesus myth of which Paul seems to be aware can be found in other Pagan myths of the time. There were several cults which believed that their god died, and that his death was man's salvation, just like Paul. There were several cults which practiced a Eucharist, just like Paul. It would truly be amazing if Paul's Christianity did not come from these earlier pagan religions. It seems almost impossible for the Jesus myth to describe real events, while these other cults had been celebrating similar events for centuries beforehand.
| From Wikipedia: Dionysus: Parallels with Christianity |
It is possible that Dionysian mythology would later find its way into Christianity. There are many parallels between Dionysus and Jesus; both were said to have been born from a mortal woman but fathered by a god, to have returned from the dead, and to have transformed water into wine. The modern scholar Barry Powell also argues that Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino (however, one must note that Dionysian cannibalism has no correlation with self-sacrifice as a means of propitiation). Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers.
|
| From Wikipedia:Mithraism: Similarities to Christianity |
According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without assuming a Christian derivation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.
“The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). Like Origen (an early Christian apologist), Mithraism held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions with God, and inhabited a body upon birth. Similar to Pythagorean, Essene, and Pauline theology, life then becomes the great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, ending in judgment, with the elect being saved. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth” (Cumont 191).
Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both the birth of Mithra and the birth of Christ have been celebrated on December 25th, although nowhere does the Bible claim that Christ was born on this day. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day. Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism.
Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, including a great and final battle at the end of times. Christianity adopted the millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. Mithraism's flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine, as do most religions. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184).
| Quote: |
| When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190). |
Although the cult of Mithra rivaled Christianity in Rome, they were among different social classes. Mithra was popular among soldiers and nobles after four centuries of growth. Mithraism had a disadvantage to Christian populism by barring women and emphasizing the elitist nature of the belief. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became the patron of Roman armies (Cumont 87). Christians referred to themselves as soldiers of Christ. They venerated Jesus in Mithraic sun-god fashion, calling him Light of the World or Son (Sun) of Righteousness. Christians also claimed their savior's death was marked by a solar eclipse. Sunday became the primary day of worship for Christians, despite observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries.
Mithra’s birthday was adopted by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birth of Christ (J. Smith 146). Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female rock, or the petra genetix, conceived by God's lightning (de Riencourt 135). Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi bearing gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock (J. Smith 146). Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, a sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. This was ritualistically removed each year, and he was said to live again. Mithra’s triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated during the spring equinox, as during Easter, when the sun rises toward its apogee.
Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra (rock), he carried the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter is said to have the keys to the gates of Heaven (H. Smith 129). Before returning to heaven, Mithra had his Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian seven sacraments (James 250). It was called mized and in Latin missa and in English mass.
Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (J. Smith 146). Christian bishops in Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope (H. Smith 252). Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years (Cumont, Oriental 154)). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. (Brewster 55).
It is fairly probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in a similar way. However, differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy, although zodiac beliefs were too common by then to be removed. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian demonized Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil.
|
How is it possible for Mithraism to pre-date Christianity by about 700 years, yet have so many similarities with the real-life Jesus?
The only answer is that the Christians plagiarized Mithraism, and several other similar cults in order to obtain all of the "supernatural" elements of the Jesus tale. But that still leaves you to wonder where all of Jesus' sayings came from. What i see as most likely is that there was a person named Jesus (or somebody like him), who spoke in parables, and who was killed by the authorities. Then, his death became entwined with these other Pagan myths, and eventually resulted in the story we have today. Alternately, it's possible that Jesus never existed, and the story was concocted by Jews who were familiar with these other myths. The parables and teachings were added by the original creators, or were added later by somebody else (perhaps even taking the words of some other real-life prophet and attributing them to this Jesus character).
But the one thing that is for certain is that just about every supernatural element of the Jesus tale came from these prior myths. And it seems that Paul really did not know anything about Jesus besides the myths. And the fact that the Jewish Apostles don't seem to know anything else besides these myths leads me to believe that they were only familiar with the "spirit Jesus", just the same as Paul.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Let me quote Young's literal translation for Hebrews 8:1-8:4
| From Hebrews |
4for if, indeed, he were upon earth [RIGHT NOW], he would not be a priest...6and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned,
|
This is saying that Jesus is no mere human intermediary. He is not here with us for a reason, for his resurrection in spirit guarantees us a new covenant. |
I think that is one of the only versions I have seen which adds the words "right now". I wonder where they came up with that translation?
| From Hebrews 8:4 (KJV) |
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
|
| From Hebrews 8:4 (NKJV) |
For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;
|
| From Hebrews 8:4 (NIV) |
If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Again, the Gospel of Mark no more confirms the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus any more than the myth of Dionysus confirms his existence. The fact remains that none of the writings of Jesus survive, nor do the writings of anybody who claims to have known him personally. The story has "myth" written all over it. |
Not entirely, but I am following you. We do have evidence that there was earlier writings or traditions of Jesus' supposed quotations by the time of Paul's writings. That is relatively fast for someone who never existed. Indeed, these men seem to be reacting specifically to the fact that such a person existed.
|
A book of fiction could circulate just as quickly as a book of non-fiction. But the level of disagreement which occurred so early on seems to indicate that the Jesus myth was initially an oral phenomenon, which gave birth to all of the disagreements.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Idea's of Paul's do seem paraphrased from Q, which Paul might have done purposely to give his theology some backing. Specifically, he quotes Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24 only because the quote (last supper stuff) is incredibly important! Otherwise, he paraphrases instead.
|
But was he quoting Jesus, or Mithras?
| sorianofan wrote: |
Yes, it sounds like Jesus had many things made up about him, if he wasn't entirely made up. However, are we to discount all crazy magical stories? Yes, be very very critical, but we cannot discount absolutely everything.
For example, my dad has a new age friend who thinks she can talk to rocks and heal people. She really cannot. However, she did pull off a major feat. My brother used to have inflammation on his hard palette all the time that was uncomfortable. She offered to heal him and she did. My brother never had that problem again. Now, don't take my story as certifiable scientific evidence. However, the probability exists that there are human abilities and capacities we do not understand...a lot like those CIA psychics that happened to guess right what that Russian weapons facility looked like...(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19081)
|
Yes, the CIA's program worked so well that they cancelled it in 1995 after blowing $20 million on research.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I didn't bother quoting what you wrote just before this segment of your post, because I had no disagreements.
|
That's what I've been doing as well. No need to make these things any longer than they already are. I have the feeling that we're the only people reading these anyway.
| sorianofan wrote: |
This question can be answered when I get some cross references up Give me a day.
|
No prob. I know how time-consuming all of this can be.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| What did he quote? I've made the last few biblical verse lists... it's your turn. |
James 5:12 with Matthew 5:37...does not look like a coincidence.
|
| From Matthew 5:37 |
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
|
| From James 5:12 |
5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
|
But is Matthew quoting James, or is James quoting Matthew. Or are the both from a common oral tradition (or Q)? If James is pseudepigraphical as many scholars believe, it really doesn't matter.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Oh yeah, its no fun when it's legal (http://www.herbspro.com/search/products.asp?txtSearch=Wormwood&vid=&gclid=CPLEkMPYnoQCFSdyGgodOUvqhw.) I don’t see why people don’t mix it themselves and get that lovely thujone high.
|
Some people do.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #21806
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-04-11 15:29
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Most scholars agree that the General Epistles are for the most part pseudepigraphical. This page gives a nice list of all of the arguments concerning the authorship of James (although that is a Christian site and is slightly biased in favor of traditional view). But even if you believe that James’ letter was penned by the apostles James of which Paul spoke of, that doesn't change the fact that the letter really does nothing to settle the question of whether or not this James knew a flesh-and-bone Jesus. The purpose of the letter seems to be to argue against some of Paul's ideas. But the letter does not discus James’s relationship to Jesus, nor does it mention any other historical evidence that would suggest that the author knew Jesus. |
The website was very interesting and I pretty much agree with its conclusion, though it seems a bit biased. It is hard take a letter and say, "Look, flesh and blood Jesus!" Nonetheless, as James in particular is an example of, it reflects Q doctrine possibly before it was written. This means that the letters, Q, and Mark stem from some common source before Paul. It could be James and Peter making it up, or more likely as you later concede, there was some guy named Jesus.
| Quote: |
Then what is up with this verse?...
From Gospel of Thomas
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." |
Jesus is the image of God, of truth. Thus, you can see him everywhere, but not obviously see him see him. Paul makes the argument in Romans about God:
| Quote: |
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. |
You can see God everywhere, Jesus is the reflection of God, thus you can see the essence of Jesus everywhere. That does not necessarily mean Jesus is just an essence.
| Quote: |
| It doesn’t sound like the sort of thing a living person would say. And then there's that bit in verse 55 about carrying a cross. Did Jesus say that before his crucifixion? |
It sounds more like a type of metaphor that is only relevant if Jesus did indeed get crucified, as a living person.
| Quote: |
| But yes, it sounds like Jesus was hanging with his disciples when he saw this guy walking down the road. But were they hanging around with a mortal Jesus, or with his ghost? It's hard to tell. |
True, but their is an implied literal lifeness to it.
| Quote: |
| I wonder who these "24 prophets" were. I'm not sure if there would have been this many prophets talking about Jesus before he was crucified. It seems more like Jesus is telling them to listen to the living spirit which is talking to them now, instead of listening to the apostles. |
It was probably a random number of significance, just like there are 12 disciples to represent God's new 12 tribes of Israel.
| Quote: |
That verse is interesting. It differs from all of the other gospels in that in the others all say that Jesus will rebuild the temple in 3 days, but in Thomas Jesus says that nobody will be able to rebuild it.
Mark 14:58 - We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'
If you look at the original Coptic text of this verse, it isn't exactly clear what Jesus is talking about here. It seems that the translation of this verse comes in part from the translators knowledge of similar gospel passages.
But this goes back to the old question -- Was Jesus talking about the literal destruction of the Jewish temple here?... And if he was, did he say it before the event occurred. Or was this part of the document added later? It's interesting that the wording here differs from the other gospels. It doesn't seem like Thomas copied the saying from Mark. So in order to believe that Thomas was written early in the 1st century, you have to believe that Jesus said something similar to this before the destruction of the temple occurred in 70CE.
The line in Thomas is a little obscure. It says that Jesus will destroy "this house" and nobody will be able to rebuild it. In Mark 13:1-2, Jesus specifically says that the Jewish Temple will be utterly destroyed -- "there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down". And in Mark (14:57-58) he specifically says that HE will destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. Could it be that the line in Thomas predated the destruction of the Temple, but later gospel writers took the line to be a literal prophecy? Could it be that the Gospel writers expanded it in order to make it appear as though Jesus was predicting the events in 70CE? Mark repeats the bit about the temple being destroyed 4 times (Before Jesus’ arrest, during the trial, while he's on the cross, and after his death). It seems that the reason Mark is displaying this prophecy so prominently is that he wants to make it clear that Jesus was correct. And the only way he could have known that Jesus was correct would be if Mark wrote after the events had occurred.
The years surrounding 70CE were a chaotic time for Christians and Jews. All of the early Christian leaders were dead, and Jerusalem had been flattened by the Romans. To me, it seems that Mark is implying that now that the Temple has been destroyed, people should forget about he old Jewish ways and Jesus should be the their new Temple. |
You bring up a good point. Jesus was trying to make a point about how he would shed his human flesh and spiritually resurrect, while Mark and company changed the quote so people can be wowed by a temple prediction (that might have already happened.) Because Jesus said something like it, it seems like Jesus was right, even if he was talking about himself.
Nonetheless, "I will destroy and rebuild the temple in 3 days" is very Thomas like in its meaning: Jesus' body is the foot stool of God, and it will be destroyed and resurrected in 3 days time.
| Quote: |
| The Pharisees existed before 70CE. |
Yes, but as I stated, people use their existence as a cut off point for the dating of the gospels. This may be inaccurate.
| Quote: |
Thomas appears to be quoting directly from Isaiah 64:4
From Isaiah 64:4
For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
The literal translation of the Coptic text of Thomas yields...
From Coptic Thomas
Said-YS this; I-will-give to-you(pl) he-who-did-not-eye look upon-him, and he-who-did-not-ear hear-him, and he-who-did-not-hand touch-him, and did-not-he\come up on-the-mind of-man.
And Paul seems to be quoting from Isaiah as well:
[quote="sorianofan"]www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/2.html#9]1 Cor 2:9[/url]But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.[/equote]
It is strange that both Paul and Thomas quote the same passage from Isaiah. Not necessarily. Thomas doesn't include Paul’s bit about "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him". Thomas is pretty much a verbatim copy of Isaiah, and could have came directly from there without Paul's help. |
Good point. We cannot put it past Jesus to quote scripture. You are right.
| Quote: |
lthough it is possible that Paul had a copy of Thomas (or rather, some form of proto-Thomas). But, given the fact that this exact wording is used in Isaiah, it really isn't necessary to believe that Paul needed another secondary source. BTW... 1 John 1:1 references that passage as well. (Although that really doesn't help this debate since we know John was written later)
|
Outside of Isaiah, there was some impetus to find the quote relevant to Jesus in 2 entirely different sources.
John, as a source written for a different community, shows that the tradition lived on.
| Quote: |
| That similarity between Matthew and Thomas is interesting, but it seems like they are interpreting that saying in two different ways. (Thomas seems to be talking about the gods of other religions, whereas Matthew is talking a gathering of Christians) |
Likely, Thomas garbled the quote, because Matthew's is so much easier to understand and the theology of that quote is also found in Thomas.
| Quote: |
| I wonder if this saying came from Paul, because Paul really did blaspheme against Jesus' followers. It seems like something he would say -- that Paul thinks he will be forgiven for persecuting Christians (because he had not yet "met" Jesus' spirit), but believes that people who deny his teachings (blaspheme the spirit) will roast in hell. He never gives that quote exactly as it appears in Gospels, but he does say a couple things which are along the same lines. In 1 Cor 2, the entire chapter seems to be saying that Paul has received the word of God via Christ's spirit, and that it is wrong to doubt his word. |
Nice conspiracy theory, but it appears Thomas was written without knowledge of Paul during the same period.
| Quote: |
| It hard for me to imagine why Christians would have a saying which stated that it was OK to blaspheme against Jesus, but not the "holy spirit". But if this saying stems from Paul's belief that he will be forgiven or punish Christians, what is it doing in Thomas? |
Not exactly. Look at Romans 2:14-15
| Quote: |
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) |
The unsaid law that exists in the fabric of existence is even above knowing about biblical laws or Jesus himself. Thus, the spirit (or the essence of the message that comes from God) above all cannot be mocked or shunned...unless you want to be a sinner.
Passages like these are why guys like Thomas Merton believed that Buddhists would go to heaven.
| Quote: |
| It certainly is difficult to try to date any of these writings. It would have been nice if any one of these authors had dated their works, or would have at least created a bibliography to cite their sources. And it also would have been nice for these guys to be a little more specific about who the author was. |
I believe the lack of specificness, with a really obviously added on gnostic first sentence, increase the probability that proto-thomas was most definitely not a gnostic work.
| Quote: |
| But that is thanks to the efforts of a single person -- Paul. If he hadn't existed, the myth of Christ probably would have died off with the destruction of the Jewish Christians. |
There was James and Peter too...and the stories they were all paraphrasing that are now found in the gospels. Hey, it might be a runaway myth like scientology, invented by 1 guy, and spread as truth. However, the common list of sayings and implications in the writings point to that some person said them...even if that person was making up who said them first. But, there was 1 source of concurrent opinions paraphrased by someone we can assume to be Jesus.
| Quote: |
| The fact is that just about every element of the Jesus myth of which Paul seems to be aware can be found in other Pagan myths of the time. There were several cults which believed that their god died, and that his death was man's salvation, just like Paul. There were several cults which practiced a Eucharist, just like Paul. It would truly be amazing if Paul's Christianity did not come from these earlier pagan religions. It seems almost impossible for the Jesus myth to describe real events, while these other cults had been celebrating similar events for centuries beforehand. |
Jesus' sayings also have a lot in common with buddhism (which is 500 years older too, and I am teaching a class on tommorrow ). Things (like embellishments) could have been adjusted to be more pagan for the gentiles. Greek culture permeated where Jesus lived, so this cultural diffusion could have led to him making a eucharist of his own to symbolize the new covenant.
| Quote: |
| Both religions purified themselves through baptism, |
This can easily also be a jewish practice which concerns itself with ritual cleanliness.
| Quote: |
| Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day. |
Those stories were added afterwards. The gospels disagree with the day of the crucifiction for example. Luke puts it on passover, if I rememver right.
| Quote: |
| Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. |
These are also found all over judaism.
| Quote: |
| Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. |
Christianity still has disagreements on this! So it is not as close as it seems!
| Quote: |
| Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, including a great and final battle at the end of times. |
I forget the prophet, but revelations is largely copied by a jewish prophet.
| Quote: |
| They venerated Jesus in Mithraic sun-god fashion, calling him Light of the World or Son (Sun) of Righteousness. |
This is also foubd in Isaiah:
| Quote: |
Isaiah 60:20
20 Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end. |
| Quote: |
| Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. |
Again, this is not mentioned in early christian sources and they are literary metaphors.
| Quote: |
| In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). |
The literal greek word for "cross" is found no where in the NT. The Romans crucified Jesus on a pole.
| Quote: |
| The Greek word "staurós", rendered "cross" in most other translations, is rendered "torture stake" in the NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "staurós" refers to a single piece of timber or pole, as it did in other ancient Greek literature such as the writings of Homer, and that there is nothing in the New Testament itself that says that two pieces of wood were used to crucify Jesus Christ. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
| Quote: |
| It is fairly probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. |
All about 4 decades after the fact. They are perversions of the original message.
| Quote: |
| How is it possible for Mithraism to pre-date Christianity by about 700 years, yet have so many similarities with the real-life Jesus? |
Those similarities were developed later. The similarities with buddhism and judaism are much more apparent in early writings, and suprise, they predate christianity too!
| Quote: |
| Alternately, it's possible that Jesus never existed, and the story was concocted by Jews who were familiar with these other myths. The parables and teachings were added by the original creators, or were added later by somebody else (perhaps even taking the words of some other real-life prophet and attributing them to this Jesus character). |
Bingo. Real prophet first. Exaggerations (sp?), traditions, and new theologies afterwards.
| Quote: |
| But the one thing that is for certain is that just about every supernatural element of the Jesus tale came from these prior myths. And it seems that Paul really did not know anything about Jesus besides the myths. And the fact that the Jewish Apostles don't seem to know anything else besides these myths leads me to believe that they were only familiar with the "spirit Jesus", just the same as Paul. |
Not quite. They often paraphrase teachings and think nothing of it. This means a common list of quotations and ideas existed first and that they were so generally accepted, no one sought to immediately directly quote them. The very fact that there was a common list of quotes and ideas greatly increases the probability that a real person started them.
| Quote: |
| I think that is one of the only versions I have seen which adds the words "right now". I wonder where they came up with that translation? |
I added right now, in the brackets to show it was not in the translation. It was implied.
| Quote: |
| A book of fiction could circulate just as quickly as a book of non-fiction. But the level of disagreement which occurred so early on seems to indicate that the Jesus myth was initially an oral phenomenon, which gave birth to all of the disagreements. |
True, but I would switch phenomenon with event. A real Jesus said stuff and was probably killed. As time passes from that event, people exaggerated about him...kind of like how the more years passed since Washington or Lincoln were in office, the more mythical they become...then stories and nicknames of their supposed honesty and other god like attributes are invented. In the same way, as years pass, hitler is seen as more and more of a mythical evil character. That does not mean that washington wasn't good and hitler wasn't bad, but people were a lot dumber back then...stories can easily get carried away and grow in time.
| Quote: |
| But was he quoting Jesus, or Mithras? |
What's the specific mithras quote?
| Quote: |
| Yes, the CIA's program worked so well that they cancelled it in 1995 after blowing $20 million on research. |
It existed that long though. I am not vouching if there is bona fida psychics or healers, but there are things that we cannot fully understand...even Sir Isaac Newton was corrected by Einstein and in time, Einstein will be corrected.
| Quote: |
| But is Matthew quoting James, or is James quoting Matthew. Or are the both from a common oral tradition (or Q)? If James is pseudepigraphical as many scholars believe, it really doesn't matter. |
There are too many paraphrases in james for it to be added later without "Jesus said, "____" added.
| Quote: |
| Some people do [mix their own absinthe.] |
How do you do that without poisoning yourself? I cannot do it, because I doubt they make a gluten free wormwood solution, but I am curious...PM if you want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #22838
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-04-29 00:36
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Jesus vs. Mithra... Round 2... is this getting old yet? :) |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I wonder who these "24 prophets" were. I'm not sure if there would have been this many prophets talking about Jesus before he was crucified. It seems more like Jesus is telling them to listen to the living spirit which is talking to them now, instead of listening to the apostles. |
It was probably a random number of significance, just like there are 12 disciples to represent God's new 12 tribes of Israel. |
Yes, but it seems odd for these prophets to be speaking of a real living person. And in any case, there is no historical evidence to show that anybody gave a crap about Jesus while he was alive (If he ever even was alive, that is.) This means that this statement in Thomas is either patently false, or that it refers to "prophets" such as Paul, Peter, and James who only saw spirit-Jesus, and not a flesh-and-blood guy.
BTW... Wikipedia has a pretty good page on the Jesus-Myth which sums up all the arguments against the historicity of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Check it out. I'm not quite ready to say with any certainty that there was never a living prophet named Jesus, but I do find the arguments quite compelling. The Notable omissions in extant contemporary records section is particularly interesting. It makes you wonder how the existence of this great prophet could have been missed by so many people. It seems that the first historical record of Jesus were written by people who saw Jesus' "ghost", or by the followers of those people.
It really makes you go, Hmmmmmm....
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| That similarity between Matthew and Thomas is interesting, but it seems like they are interpreting that saying in two different ways. (Thomas seems to be talking about the gods of other religions, whereas Matthew is talking a gathering of Christians) |
Likely, Thomas garbled the quote, because Matthew's is so much easier to understand and the theology of that quote is also found in Thomas.
|
Not necessarily. The passage in Thomas seems to suggest that the gods of all other religions are actually just incarnations of Jesus. Christian missionaries did something similar years later when the moved into pagan areas -- they turned all the pagan gods into Christian saints, and they turned all the old pagan holidays into Christian ones. It's easier to convert people to your faith when you make them believe that they've actually been worshipping your god all along.
But the passage in Matthew just seems to mean that when Christians gather together, the spirit of Jesus is with them. Personally, it seems like Mathew misinterpreted the original meaning rather than Thomas.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I wonder if this saying came from Paul, because Paul really did blaspheme against Jesus' followers. It seems like something he would say -- that Paul thinks he will be forgiven for persecuting Christians (because he had not yet "met" Jesus' spirit), but believes that people who deny his teachings (blaspheme the spirit) will roast in hell. He never gives that quote exactly as it appears in Gospels, but he does say a couple things which are along the same lines. In 1 Cor 2, the entire chapter seems to be saying that Paul has received the word of God via Christ's spirit, and that it is wrong to doubt his word. |
Nice conspiracy theory, but it appears Thomas was written without knowledge of Paul during the same period.
|
Yes, but we are not 100% sure that Thomas was written during this period (or that the 2nd century copy we have today is a faithful representation of the original document). I agree that it would be nice if Thomas was written during that period, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. There are a few parts which seem to indicate a later date of authorship, but it is possible that these parts were added later. Most scholars are fairly certain the passage 114 was added later, so it is likely that other parts may be a corruption as well. And until additional copies of Thomas can be found, there is really no way to tell for certain which parts are original.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But that is thanks to the efforts of a single person -- Paul. If he hadn't existed, the myth of Christ probably would have died off with the destruction of the Jewish Christians. |
There was James and Peter too...and the stories they were all paraphrasing that are now found in the gospels.
|
Yeah, but James and Peter weren't very concerned about spreading their Jewish splinter-group's religion to the gentiles. Without the work of Paul, nobody outside the Middle East would have really cared what the gospels had to say. It's possible that a few remote pockets of Christianity might have survived the destruction of Jerusalem, but these probably wouldn’t have exerted much influence in Rome. And with Roman Christianity, you don't have a Roman Catholic Church. And without a Roman Catholic Church.... well... history would have been a lot different.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Hey, it might be a runaway myth like scientology, invented by 1 guy, and spread as truth. However, the common list of sayings and implications in the writings point to that some person said them...even if that person was making up who said them first. But, there was 1 source of concurrent opinions paraphrased by someone we can assume to be Jesus.
|
It's just as likely that the common source could have been a piece of fiction. Remember The War of the Worlds? Just because a lot of people all believe the same piece of fiction does not mean that the story is true.
Back in those days, all copies of books were hand written. it's possible that somebody originally wrote a piece of fiction, that piece of fiction spread around through oral tradition for a few decades, and then the story was re-written by others. A common oral tradition does not imply truth. (especially when the oral tradition contains so many contradictory enlivenments.)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day. |
Those stories were added afterwards. The gospels disagree with the day of the crucifixion for example. Luke puts it on passover, if I remember right.
|
Yes, they were added later. And they were plagiarized from Mithraism. Really, the whole thing was taken from other cults. About the only unique element are some of he parables, but there really is no way to tell where those came from. Paul didn't seem to be aware of these, so it's possible that these were added later as well. My guess would be that there was a collection of sayings floating around, and these sayings were later attributed to a mythological Jesus.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. |
Again, this is not mentioned in early christian sources and they are literary metaphors.
|
The problem with keeping these sort of tall tales in a book that is said to represent historical fact is that some people will believe that this shit actually happened. But of course, if you removed all the bullshit from the bible, you really couldn’t have very much left. All you would have are a few Aesop-like fables that were written by an unknown author.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). |
The literal greek word for "cross" is found no where in the NT. The Romans crucified Jesus on a pole.
| From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures |
| The Greek word "staurós", rendered "cross" in most other translations, is rendered "torture stake" in the NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "staurós" refers to a single piece of timber or pole, as it did in other ancient Greek literature such as the writings of Homer, and that there is nothing in the New Testament itself that says that two pieces of wood were used to crucify Jesus Christ. |
|
That's an interesting piece of information. But a stick doesn't make for a very good symbol, which is probably why Christians took the cross from Mithraism.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is fairly probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. |
All about 4 decades after the fact. They are perversions of the original message.
|
But Paul didn't seem to be aware of what this "original message" was. His "message" appeared to be that people should believe in some sort of Mithraism. All the cool sayings appear to have been added some time later.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How is it possible for Mithraism to pre-date Christianity by about 700 years, yet have so many similarities with the real-life Jesus? |
Those similarities were developed later. The similarities with buddhism and judaism are much more apparent in early writings, and surprise, they predate Christianity too!
|
When you say "later" what do you mean? From what I've seen the resurrection story of Mithra and his Eucharist pre-date the Christian one by several centuries. Even early church fathers (such as Origen) did not dispute this. If he believed that Mithras followers copied their ideas from Christians, Origen would have stated this position. But even none of these 2nd century Christians disputed the fact that these pagan tales stories pre-dated Jesus' tales.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Alternately, it's possible that Jesus never existed, and the story was concocted by Jews who were familiar with these other myths. The parables and teachings were added by the original creators, or were added later by somebody else (perhaps even taking the words of some other real-life prophet and attributing them to this Jesus character). |
Bingo. Real prophet first. Exaggerations (sp?), traditions, and new theologies afterwards.
|
I'm not going to say that it is impossible for a real-life Jesus to have existed... just that it is unlikely. And even if a real-life Jesus did exist, he probably bore little resemblance to the fictional character we see in the bible.
So even if he was real, I'm still not sure we have enough knowledge of him to base a major religion on him.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Not quite. They often paraphrase teachings and think nothing of it. This means a common list of quotations and ideas existed first and that they were so generally accepted, no one sought to immediately directly quote them. The very fact that there was a common list of quotes and ideas greatly increases the probability that a real person started them.
|
I don't dispute that somebody came up with lthis list of sayings. But I jsut have some doubts that this person was the Jesus character from the gospel stories.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| I think that is one of the only versions I have seen which adds the words "right now". I wonder where they came up with that translation? |
I added right now, in the brackets to show it was not in the translation. It was implied.
|
Ahh.
I don't think your allowed to do that.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But was he quoting Jesus, or Mithras? |
What's the specific mithras quote?
|
None in particular. It just seems like the type a thing a follower of Mithras (and other gods)would have said. They had a Eucharist too, and Paul could have gotten this idea from them. If a flesh-and-blood Jesus did say this, he plagiarized it from Mithras as well.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, the CIA's program worked so well that they cancelled it in 1995 after blowing $20 million on research. |
It existed that long though. I am not vouching if there is bona fida psychics or healers, but there are things that we cannot fully understand...even Sir Isaac Newton was corrected by Einstein and in time, Einstein will be corrected.
|
Yes, but they were corrected by better theories... not whimsical figments of somebody's imagination. Einstein's theories were tested, and were shown to be more valid than Newton's, which is why they were accepted. Theories about ESP and other paranormal powers have existed for much longer, and have been tested as well... and have no merit. Therein the difference lies, and it is unlikely that any further tests of psychic powers will yield any better results.
Proving that somebody has some sort of mental powers isn’t very difficult to do … you just test their claims in a control environment, make sure they aren’t cheating, and make sure their results fall outside the realm of statistical probability. And thus far, nobody has passed this test.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| But is Matthew quoting James, or is James quoting Matthew. Or are the both from a common oral tradition (or Q)? If James is pseudepigraphical as many scholars believe, it really doesn't matter. |
There are too many paraphrases in james for it to be added later without "Jesus said, "____" added.
|
What do you mean? I read through James once before and I didn't really see anything to indicate that this guy really knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Did I miss something?
And in any case, the point becomes somewhat moot if James is pseudepigraphical as most scholars suspect.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Some people do [mix their own absinthe.] |
How do you do that without poisoning yourself? I cannot do it, because I doubt they make a gluten free wormwood solution, but I am curious...PM if you want. |
I'm not hip on gluton intolerance. Absinthe is similar to a herbal tea.... So, are you allowed to drink regular teas?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #22858
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-04-29 02:31
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Jesus vs. Mithra... Round 2... is this getting old yet? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, but it seems odd for these prophets to be speaking of a real living person. And in any case, there is no historical evidence to show that anybody gave a crap about Jesus while he was alive (If he ever even was alive, that is.) This means that this statement in Thomas is either patently false, or that it refers to "prophets" such as Paul, Peter, and James who only saw spirit-Jesus, and not a flesh-and-blood guy. |
The 24 prophets could have also symbolized the 24 books of the old testement (by an early count that they did.) As I discussed previously about the historical Jesus, his existence to me is confirmed by the probability for an origin of sayings and beliefs that several different sources attribute to him.
| Quote: |
BTW... Wikipedia has a pretty good page on the Jesus-Myth which sums up all the arguments against the historicity of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Check it out. I'm not quite ready to say with any certainty that there was never a living prophet named Jesus, but I do find the arguments quite compelling. The Notable omissions in extant contemporary records section is particularly interesting. It makes you wonder how the existence of this great prophet could have been missed by so many people. It seems that the first historical record of Jesus were written by people who saw Jesus' "ghost", or by the followers of those people.
It really makes you go, Hmmmmmm.... |
I'll check it out after reading that universe theory thingy...
| Quote: |
Not necessarily. The passage in Thomas seems to suggest that the gods of all other religions are actually just incarnations of Jesus. Christian missionaries did something similar years later when the moved into pagan areas -- they turned all the pagan gods into Christian saints, and they turned all the old pagan holidays into Christian ones. It's easier to convert people to your faith when you make them believe that they've actually been worshipping your god all along.
But the passage in Matthew just seems to mean that when Christians gather together, the spirit of Jesus is with them. Personally, it seems like Mathew misinterpreted the original meaning rather than Thomas. |
Possibly, but the passage seems to borrow from numerology-- which is more of a Jewish than gentile thing. Furthermore, it might be refering to the 24 books of the old testament.
| Quote: |
| The number of Old Testament books (not counting the Apocrypha) stands at 39; in the Hebrew Bible they are usually counted as 24. The discrepancy occurs because Ezra and Nehemiah are counted as one book, as are each of the following—First and Second Kings; First and Second Chronicles; and the 12 Prophets (Hosea through Malachi). Sometimes Judges and Ruth are also conflated, as are Jeremiah and Lamentations, making for 22 books, the number attested by Josephus (c.A.D. 36–A.D. 96). |
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Old+Testement
Thus the 24 prophets could mean the 24 prophetic books.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but we are not 100% sure that Thomas was written during this period (or that the 2nd century copy we have today is a faithful representation of the original document). I agree that it would be nice if Thomas was written during that period, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. There are a few parts which seem to indicate a later date of authorship, but it is possible that these parts were added later. Most scholars are fairly certain the passage 114 was added later, so it is likely that other parts may be a corruption as well. And until additional copies of Thomas can be found, there is really no way to tell for certain which parts are original. |
True, but something tells me that its strange order and paraphrases and matching quote with paul leads me to believe there was indeed a proto-Thomas.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, but James and Peter weren't very concerned about spreading their Jewish splinter-group's religion to the gentiles. |
They were famous enough that Paul wrote about them to people no where close to them, which leads me to believe that they had a change of heart and started warming up to the gentiles. Otherwise, Paul would not mention them.
| Quote: |
| Without the work of Paul, nobody outside the Middle East would have really cared what the gospels had to say. It's possible that a few remote pockets of Christianity might have survived the destruction of Jerusalem, but these probably wouldn’t have exerted much influence in Rome. And with Roman Christianity, you don't have a Roman Catholic Church. And without a Roman Catholic Church.... well... history would have been a lot different. |
True. I do wonder how the Hebrew cult effectively controls global religion. History is strange like that...just like at one point where Greek religion and its cousins controlled everywhere west of india.
| Quote: |
It's just as likely that the common source could have been a piece of fiction. Remember The War of the Worlds? Just because a lot of people all believe the same piece of fiction does not mean that the story is true.
Back in those days, all copies of books were hand written. it's possible that somebody originally wrote a piece of fiction, that piece of fiction spread around through oral tradition for a few decades, and then the story was re-written by others. A common oral tradition does not imply truth. (especially when the oral tradition contains so many contradictory enlivenments.) |
Then, that 1 source, the author, is essentially Jesus. He might have really been called "jim bob." We might disagree on this, but I believe the teachings from "Jesus" are in my opinion a better version of buddhism, which stresses the need for being humble more and the belief in searching for truth without negating God. However, now we agree there is a source.
| Quote: |
| Yes, they were added later. And they were plagiarized from Mithraism. Really, the whole thing was taken from other cults. About the only unique element are some of he parables, but there really is no way to tell where those came from. Paul didn't seem to be aware of these, so it's possible that these were added later as well. |
Based upon all the things I listed, I do not agree with this.
| Quote: |
| My guess would be that there was a collection of sayings floating around, and these sayings were later attributed to a mythological Jesus. |
Based upon the several angles we have for the Jesus sayings, I do not believe it is entirely mythological.
| Quote: |
| The problem with keeping these sort of tall tales in a book that is said to represent historical fact is that some people will believe that this shit actually happened. But of course, if you removed all the bullshit from the bible, you really couldn’t have very much left. All you would have are a few Aesop-like fables that were written by an unknown author. |
Yeah, but you are left with a story with a lot of meaning. Storioes without metaphors, especially religious ones, can be dry. Unless you are a leviticus kind of guy...
| Quote: |
| That's an interesting piece of information. But a stick doesn't make for a very good symbol, which is probably why Christians took the cross from Mithraism. |
This can be true. So this is more an indictment upon Christianity after Paul or Paul really selling out. However, this is not Jesus' problem.
| Quote: |
| But Paul didn't seem to be aware of what this "original message" was. His "message" appeared to be that people should believe in some sort of Mithraism. All the cool sayings appear to have been added some time later. |
Yet, his beliefgs seem to match very closely with those purported sayings, which match with peter and james too.
| Quote: |
| When you say "later" what do you mean? From what I've seen the resurrection story of Mithra and his Eucharist pre-date the Christian one by several centuries. Even early church fathers (such as Origen) did not dispute this. If he believed that Mithras followers copied their ideas from Christians, Origen would have stated this position. But even none of these 2nd century Christians disputed the fact that these pagan tales stories pre-dated Jesus' tales. |
What I am saying is that ideas from totally different beliefs are often found in others, merely because they existed before hand. I am not discounting the influence of other belief systems on Christianity.
| Quote: |
| I'm not going to say that it is impossible for a real-life Jesus to have existed... just that it is unlikely. |
I believe it is more likely, based upon the evidence I presented, that Jesus existed like many other historical figures.
| Quote: |
And even if a real-life Jesus did exist, he probably bore little resemblance to the fictional character we see in the bible.
So even if he was real, I'm still not sure we have enough knowledge of him to base a major religion on him. |
You are quite possibly right on both counts, but truly, religion should not really exist. Religion is never based upon clear perceptions and evidence. It is always vague, it gets us to think about certain unsearchable truths. All I know is that I can only live my life as well as I can and I am going to do my best to honor the God that gave me this gift of existence. The only way, and selfish way, to do this is to live a good life. I do not pretend to know what the secret to that is. However, through personal experience
I have seen marked improvements in my life by following Jesus' sayings in a logical manner after considerable thought.
| Quote: |
| None in particular. It just seems like the type a thing a follower of Mithras (and other gods)would have said. They had a Eucharist too, and Paul could have gotten this idea from them. If a flesh-and-blood Jesus did say this, he plagiarized it from Mithras as well. |
I am wondering what the practice was particularly like. Does it have shades of Christianity or is it full blown?
| Quote: |
Yes, but they were corrected by better theories... not whimsical figments of somebody's imagination. Einstein's theories were tested, and were shown to be more valid than Newton's, which is why they were accepted. Theories about ESP and other paranormal powers have existed for much longer, and have been tested as well... and have no merit. Therein the difference lies, and it is unlikely that any further tests of psychic powers will yield any better results.
Proving that somebody has some sort of mental powers isn’t very difficult to do … you just test their claims in a control environment, make sure they aren’t cheating, and make sure their results fall outside the realm of statistical probability. And thus far, nobody has passed this test. |
Yeah, you're probably right. I really don't believe in psychics either. I just think there are certain things about nature we do not fully understand, which can manifest themselves in phenomena we perceive such as that.
| Quote: |
| What do you mean? I read through James once before and I didn't really see anything to indicate that this guy really knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Did I miss something? |
Yeah, the fact he pretty heavily paraphrases and once quotes Jesus.
| Quote: |
| And in any case, the point becomes somewhat moot if James is pseudepigraphical as most scholars suspect. |
If it were, would it not be a lot more obvious about James chilling with Jesus and quoting Jesus? That's why I don't think it is fake.
| Quote: |
| I'm not hip on gluton intolerance. Absinthe is similar to a herbal tea.... So, are you allowed to drink regular teas? |
Not if they are spiced. The wormwood is likely in a grain alcohol solution. Of course, if I was a nut, I can always buy it in wood form... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #23045
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-05-01 00:22
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
The 24 prophets could have also symbolized the 24 books of the old testament (by an early count that they did.) As I discussed previously about the historical Jesus, his existence to me is confirmed by the probability for an origin of sayings and beliefs that several different sources attribute to him.
|
If that were true, that would also place the book of Tomas as being written at a later date.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| BTW... Wikipedia has a pretty good page on the Jesus-Myth which sums up all the arguments against the historicity of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Check it out. |
I'll check it out after reading that universe theory thingy...
|
There's a 3-part documentary from Nova titled The Elegant Universe. It's probably the best introduction to string theory you can find. (And if you don’t know where to find it, I can give you some hints)
But it also helps if you have some understanding of "quantum weirdness". I've often spoken about the series of lectures at Caltech by Richard Feynman, and have offered one of his lectures for download before. I tried to compress his lecture on "Quantum Behavior" in order to offer it for download, but the best I could do was squeeze the lecture down to 13mb. Since the upload bandwidth on my server is somewhat restricted, it would probably be faster if you go and look for this lecture yourself. (or PM me if you want me to e-mail it) This lecture includes Feynman's famous explanation of the Double Slit Experiment (The explanation of the Wave-particle duality.), and will give you a good idea of just how fucked up the quantum world really is.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, but we are not 100% sure that Thomas was written during this period (or that the 2nd century copy we have today is a faithful representation of the original document). I agree that it would be nice if Thomas was written during that period, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. |
True, but something tells me that its strange order and paraphrases and matching quote with paul leads me to believe there was indeed a proto-Thomas.
|
I agree. But I am not absolutely sure about it. Therefore, I just wanted to point out that we need to be careful making assumptions based on the early dating of Thomas, because if the dating is wrong, all assumptions based on that prior assumption will be wrong as well. And there are are few things in Thomas which suggest a later date (Such as the possible mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple, and as you just pointed out, a possible reference to the new testament).
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yeah, but James and Peter weren't very concerned about spreading their Jewish splinter-group's religion to the gentiles. |
They were famous enough that Paul wrote about them to people no where close to them, which leads me to believe that they had a change of heart and started warming up to the gentiles. Otherwise, Paul would not mention them.
|
He mentioned them because Christianity was pretty much their own personal cult. Paul was a bit of an outsider. And although Paul mention other Christian missionaries coming to cities under his control, these other guys apparently weren't very effective. So without Paul, Christianity would have remained a primarily Jewish phenomenon and would have probably died out shortly after Jerusalem's destruction. James' followers pretty much died out at this time... only Paul's remained to carry the movement forward.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
It's just as likely that the common source could have been a piece of fiction. Remember The War of the Worlds? Just because a lot of people all believe the same piece of fiction does not mean that the story is true.
Back in those days, all copies of books were hand written. it's possible that somebody originally wrote a piece of fiction, that piece of fiction spread around through oral tradition for a few decades, and then the story was re-written by others. A common oral tradition does not imply truth. (especially when the oral tradition contains so many contradictory enlivenments.) |
Then, that 1 source, the author, is essentially Jesus. He might have really been called "jim bob." We might disagree on this, but I believe the teachings from "Jesus" are in my opinion a better version of Buddhism, which stresses the need for being humble more and the belief in searching for truth without negating God. However, now we agree there is a source.
|
Well, there has to be a source. But I still think we differ on what that nature of that source might have been.
And since you brought up the subject of Jesus' name, check this out...
| From Wilipedia: Yeshua |
Yeshua (ישוע) is believed by many to be the Hebrew or Aramaic name for Jesus. It is extensively used by followers of Messianic Judaism, as well as by others who wish to use what they believe to be the original pronunciation of Jesus' name.
Etymology
The name was common - the Hebrew Bible mentions ten individuals with this name. It is derived from the three-letter root yod-shin-`ayin which has the meaning of "to save", but the name is not identical to the word "salvation" (y'shu`ah) or to any verb form such as "he will save" (yoshia`). It does not contain part of the name of God YHWH as the name Yehoshua` (Joshua) appears to do, although this name (yod-he-vav-shin-`ayin) could be considered a third person imperfect hiph`il verbal form of the same yod-shin-`ayin root.
|
So Jesus' name literally means "to save". What a coincidence that this "savior god" would have a name that literally means "to save".
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, they were added later. And they were plagiarized from Mithraism. Really, the whole thing was taken from other cults. About the only unique element are some of he parables, but there really is no way to tell where those came from. Paul didn't seem to be aware of these, so it's possible that these were added later as well. |
Based upon all the things I listed, I do not agree with this.
|
Do you mean this list? I never really replied to that post, did I?... let me look through it real quick.
Now, the question here is whether or not Paul has some knowledge of Jesus beyond the simple crucifixion/resurrection myth.
1) Resurrection Myth / 2 Peter is most likely pseudepigraphical
2) Not a very good paraphrase, but i see your point.
3) James is likely pseudepigraphical.
4) 1 Peter is... well... ALL of the General Epistles are most likely pseudepigraphical. Perhaps we need a separate discussion on this.
5) This "secret" thing sounds a bit Gnostic to me.
6) Pseudepigraphical. "Timothy" could have been quoting Matthew.
7) Yes. That seems to show that this idea of "not passing judgment" was an early feature of the church.
8) James again.
9) James again.
10) Yes. It appears an early concept of Christian missionaries is that they shouldn't have to wok for a living. (But Matthew may have gotten this idea from Paul)
11) Yes. Early Christian apostles believed that they had spoken with Jesus' ghost.
12) Eucharist. Part of the resurrection myth. Plagiarized.
13) These are all basic Jewish laws. And again, Matthew could have copied Paul.
14) Ok. (Matthew/Paul)
15) Good one (Matthew/Thomas). I won't debate that Thomas and Mathew had some knowledge of "Q"
16) James/Peter again
17) That seems to show that Matthew definitely had some knowledge of Paul's teachings.
18) Timothy again (pseudepigraphical)
19) Ok. (Paul/Matthew)
20) Peter again (pseudepigraphical)
21) Caesar's Coin. Probably came from Q. Does not appear in Paul's writings.
22) "End of the world" type of stuff. Very common back then. (Plus pseudepigraphical)
23) Ok. (Matthew/Paul)
24) Matthew/pseudepigraphical works
So, to sum up my complaints with that list (so you don't have to respond individually to each)....
1) The work is Pseudepigraphical (Some of Paul’s letters, all of the General Epistles)
2) It is a general theological similarity, which may not have necessarily been derived from "Q". What I would like to see is Paul quoting a couple of Jesus' parables directly. That would show that the parables were part of the original religion. Without that, it appears at though the original Christian cult was only concerned about the mythology they had plagiarized from the Pagans.
3) That the similarity comes from Paul’s' knowledge of the crucifixion / resurrection / Eucharist myth, which was plagiarized from earlier pagan cults. And since my theory is that this early plagiarism formed the entire basis of Christianity, it is not surprising to find these similarities.
4) Minor point ... Matthew was written after Paul lived, and therefore he could have gotten some of his ideas from Paul. Connections with Mark would be more interesting, since Mark was written sooner after Paul's death. (although there is still a strong possibility that mark was familiar with Paul's teachings). But these connections between the Gospels and Paul do not necessarily mean that they had to stem from Jesus’ “original” teachings. The gospels were written after Paul lived, and could have been directly influence by him.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| When you say "later" what do you mean? From what I've seen the resurrection story of Mithra and his Eucharist pre-date the Christian one by several centuries. Even early church fathers (such as Origen) did not dispute this. If he believed that Mithras followers copied their ideas from Christians, Origen would have stated this position. But even none of these 2nd century Christians disputed the fact that these pagan tales stories pre-dated Jesus' tales. |
What I am saying is that ideas from totally different beliefs are often found in others, merely because they existed before hand. I am not discounting the influence of other belief systems on Christianity.
|
But the thing is, just about every piece of Jesus' life can be found in prior myths. The only thing that is mostly unique is the parables, and they might have been added later. (And, given Paul's ignorance of them, it seems that they were)
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
And even if a real-life Jesus did exist, he probably bore little resemblance to the fictional character we see in the bible.
So even if he was real, I'm still not sure we have enough knowledge of him to base a major religion on him. |
You are quite possibly right on both counts, but truly, religion should not really exist. Religion is never based upon clear perceptions and evidence. It is always vague, it gets us to think about certain unreachable truths. All I know is that I can only live my life as well as I can and I am going to do my best to honor the God that gave me this gift of existence. The only way, and selfish way, to do this is to live a good life. I do not pretend to know what the secret to that is. However, through personal experience I have seen marked improvements in my life by following Jesus' sayings in a logical manner after considerable thought.
|
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a good person. But I think that a person is better off if his values come from his own personal experience, rather than from ancient "wise man" who pretended that he was the moth-piece for an all-powerful deity.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| None in particular. It just seems like the type a thing a follower of Mithras (and other gods)would have said. They had a Eucharist too, and Paul could have gotten this idea from them. If a flesh-and-blood Jesus did say this, he plagiarized it from Mithras as well. |
I am wondering what the practice was particularly like. Does it have shades of Christianity or is it full blown?
|
That is a difficult question to answer. Mithraism was a "mystery religion", and as such their religious documents (if any existed) were held by a select few, and have since been lost to history. All we know is from various paintings and pieces of pottery. And from these we can tell that they had some sort of ceremony witch involved drinking wine and eating a piece of bread with a cross carved on it. The followers of Dionysus had a similar practice as well. But their precise reasons for carrying out this ceremony are somewhat unknown.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Yes, but they were corrected by better theories... not whimsical figments of somebody's imagination. Einstein's theories were tested, and were shown to be more valid than Newton's, which is why they were accepted. Theories about ESP and other paranormal powers have existed for much longer, and have been tested as well... and have no merit. Therein the difference lies, and it is unlikely that any further tests of psychic powers will yield any better results.
Proving that somebody has some sort of mental powers isn’t very difficult to do … you just test their claims in a control environment, make sure they aren’t cheating, and make sure their results fall outside the realm of statistical probability. And thus far, nobody has passed this test. |
Yeah, you're probably right. I really don't believe in psychics either. I just think there are certain things about nature we do not fully understand, which can manifest themselves in phenomena we perceive such as that. |
Yes, there are many things in this universe that we don't understand. But people need to be weary of Arguments from Ignorance.
Just because somebody can concoct a theory of some unexplained phenomenon, doesn't mean that the theory is correct. As the great prophet Mencken has taught us, if we don't understand something, that probably means that most of the theories concerning this phenomenon are wrong.
"The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake." - H.L. Mencken
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What do you mean? I read through James once before and I didn't really see anything to indicate that this guy really knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Did I miss something? |
Yeah, the fact he pretty heavily paraphrases and once quotes Jesus.
|
Ahem... citations, please.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm not hip on gluton intolerance. Absinthe is similar to a herbal tea.... So, are you allowed to drink regular teas? |
Not if they are spiced. The wormwood is likely in a grain alcohol solution. Of course, if I was a nut, I can always buy it in wood form... |
Absinthe is pretty much an alcoholic green tea made from Wormwood, Hyssop, Calamus Root, Fennel Seed, Mint, cloves, coriander, Nutmeg, and Anise. If any of these things are on the no-no list, then you're probably out of luck. Although, many of those ingredients are optional. Wormwood and Alcohol are the only real necessities. The rest are for additional flavor or additional "herbal effects".
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #23262
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-02 19:57
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
If that were true, that would also place the book of Tomas
as being written at a later date. |
Possibly, but the "24 books" was accepted in 90 CE, and it might have been
de facto fore quite some time earlier.
| Quote: |
There's a 3-part documentary from Nova titled
The Elegant Universe.
It's probably the best introduction to string theory you can find. (And if
you don’t know where to find it, I can give you some hints)
But it also helps if you have some understanding of "quantum weirdness".
I've often spoken about the series of lectures at Caltech by Richard
Feynman, and have
offered
one of his lectures for download before. I tried to compress his lecture
on "Quantum Behavior" in order to offer it for download, but the best I
could do was squeeze the lecture down to 13mb. Since the upload bandwidth
on my server is somewhat restricted, it would probably be faster if you go
and look for this lecture yourself. (or PM me if you want me to e-mail it)
This lecture includes Feynman's famous explanation of the [w]Double Slit
Experiment[/w] (The explanation of the Wave-particle duality.), and
will give you a good idea of just how fucked up the quantum world really
is. |
Perhaps I'll email you soon for the file, but I read up on wikipedia about
this stuff and I did not see how these things take out the need for God
if we are to use my logical argument as a measure. But, that's a
separate thread.
| Quote: |
I agree. But I am not absolutely sure about it. Therefore, I
just wanted to point out that we need to be careful making assumptions
based on the early dating of Thomas, because if the dating is wrong, all
assumptions based on that prior assumption will be wrong as well. And
there are are few things in Thomas which suggest a later date (Such
as the possible mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple, and as
you just pointed out, a possible reference to the new testament). |
Totally true, I cannot disagree with you.
| Quote: |
He mentioned them because Christianity was pretty much their own
personal cult. Paul was a bit of an outsider. |
We're speculating now. Paul ate with these guys at dinner (2 Corinthians,
right?)
| Quote: |
Well, there has to be a source. But I still think we differ
on what that nature of that source might have been.
And since you brought up the subject of Jesus' name, check this out...
So Jesus' name literally means "to save". What a coincidence that
this "savior god" would have a name that literally means "to
save". |
Yeah, but Jesus was a popular name and most hebrew names have "profound"
meanings...they could have called Jesus Elijah and tie up a lot of loose
ends.
| Quote: |
Do you mean
this
list? I never really replied to that post, did I?... let me look
through it real quick.
Now, the question here is whether or not Paul has some knowledge of Jesus
beyond the simple crucifixion/resurrection myth.
1) Resurrection Myth / 2 Peter is most likely
pseudepigraphical |
You ignore that Paul essentially says that Jesus was annointed by God...a
similarity dealing with before the resurrection, though now I reread it,
Paul might be saying Jesus was declared Son of God because of the
crucifiction. This supports your theory.
I read up on 2 Peter and agree it is probably fake, but I do not believe
that there is reason to suspect many others.
| Quote: |
| 3) James is likely pseudepigraphical. |
There is also very good reasons why it is believed that it is not, even
from the very link you posted here. If it was fake, like 2 Peter, "James"
would have done a more obvious quote. Instead, he paraphrases in passing.
| Quote: |
4) 1 Peter is... well... ALL of the [w]General
Epistles[/w] are most likely pseudepigraphical. Perhaps we need a separate
discussion on this. |
That is not a general consensus among scholars and it is too easy to write
everything off as fake. I say you substantiate that claim.
| Quote: |
| 5) This "secret" thing sounds a bit Gnostic to me. |
It is too early to be gnostic, but obviously gnosticism had some basis.
The equal theme is what is important.
| Quote: |
6) Pseudepigraphical. "Timothy" could have been quoting
Matthew. |
Again, if fake, they would have done more obvious quoting. Furthermore,
Timothy also gives a callout to the parable to the man who built his house
on a rock.
| Quote: |
8) James again.
9) James again. |
James is paraphrasing and as the head of the Jerusalem Church, he was
probably quite familiar with the teachings. More so than Paul.
| Quote: |
10) Yes. It appears an early concept of Christian missionaries is
that they shouldn't have to wok for a living. (But Matthew may have gotten
this idea from Paul) |
Would Paul's letters get out that fast? I need to double check, but if
that is a known Q quote, it makes the window even less.
| Quote: |
11) Yes. Early Christian apostles believed that they had spoken
with Jesus' ghost. |
And so did Q.
| Quote: |
| 12) Eucharist. Part of the resurrection myth. Plagiarized. |
In idea, but not words. you yourself claim that the mithras kept this
stuff hush hush and hidden.
| Quote: |
13) These are all basic Jewish laws. And again, Matthew could have
copied Paul. |
The style of the sin list is what creates the parallel.
| Quote: |
15) Good one (Matthew/Thomas). I won't debate that Thomas and
Mathew had some knowledge of "Q" |
There's an even closer passage in Mark...I'll link you to it soon, I am
working on a list from Mark, Luke, John, and known Q (matthew-luke
positive correlating passages.)
| Quote: |
| 16) James/Peter again |
Actually, what are the chances that two "phoney" Epistles only plagiarize...each other? And not directly plagiarize the Gospels? It is more likely that both of these letters are real and the connection between the Gospels is too.
| Quote: |
17) That seems to show that Matthew definitely had some knowledge
of Paul's teachings. |
Or Paul had knowledge of Jesus' teachings I would think, but point taken. However, how likely is it that the letter would be in circulation so fast? It took about 40 years for anyone to even mention Matthew before someone recorded its existence. The space of time and size of the Church might not have permitted such a transfer.
| Quote: |
| 18) Timothy again (pseudepigraphical) |
Possibly not, though I need to reread timothy. Again, without outright plagiarism, it is hard to believe. Furthermore, many other Epistles complain about rich people.
| Quote: |
| 20) Peter again (pseudepigraphical) |
If so, I would believe that "redeemed" would have been made "ransomed" (separate Greek words). Thus, I do not think it was forged.
| Quote: |
| 21) Caesar's Coin. Probably came from Q. Does not appear in Paul's writings. |
But the same ideas do.
| Quote: |
22) "End of the world" type of stuff. Very common back then. (Plus
pseudepigraphical) |
Maybe with 2 Peter, but not 1 Thes. The use of the word "thief" is what we are concerned about.
| Quote: |
| 24) Matthew/pseudepigraphical works |
Romans is fake?
To deduce from your arguments the following, I must say that outside of 2 Peter you are using the "pseudepigraphical cop-out." No one believes that Romans is fake. In fact, it appears rather convenient to discount a religion, you discount all of its historical documents. Granted, there is need for suspicion, but it appears there are different standards you are applying to the history of early Christianity and the rest of history. If we are to argue that Jesus never existed, then how about arguing that Cleon, Homer, Nebuchenezzar, Justus, and etc don't exist? After all, all documentation of them is lacking or potentially forgable.
Granted, Jesus is a religious figure who supposedly done magical things, but with the evidence presented, it is far more likely that Jesus was a man people embellished about than he just simpily didn't exist.
| Quote: |
So, to sum up my complaints with that list (so you don't have to respond
individually to each).... |
Oh well!
| Quote: |
4) Minor point ... Matthew was written after Paul lived, and therefore he
could have gotten some of his ideas from Paul. |
I don't think time would have allowed it, unless it was word of mouth. Again, matthew plagiarized earlier sources, so this decreases that possibility.
| Quote: |
Connections with Mark would be more interesting, since Mark was written sooner after Paul's death.
(although there is still a strong possibility that mark was familiar with
Paul's teachings). |
I am working on that, Luke, John, and even Matthew-Luke matches (Q.) I'm coming up with a list for each.
| Quote: |
But these connections between the Gospels and Paul do
not necessarily mean that they had to stem from Jesus’ “original”
teachings. The gospels were written after Paul lived, and could have been
directly influence by him. |
Well they don't if...
1. Even Romans is fake
2. You don't consider the fact that the sources for Matthew are at least as early as the 60s CE
and
3. Don't consider the fact that so many parallels, as opposed to contradictions, in theology exist.
In my opinion, you bar is inconsistent. I hope mine is not.
| Quote: |
But the thing is, just about every piece of Jesus' life can be
found in prior myths. |
Besides the meat of his teachings...which are found in the Epistles and not mythology.
| Quote: |
The only thing that is mostly unique is the
parables, and they might have been added later. (And, given Paul's
ignorance of them, it seems that they were) |
The parables were long, why would he quote them? Paper wasn't cheap back then and I am sure it is hard to get a huge supply of it in prison.
| Quote: |
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a good person. But I think that a
person is better off if his values come from his own personal experience,
rather than from ancient "wise man" who pretended that he was the
moth-piece for an all-powerful deity. |
My values do come from experience, but that does not mean I should ignore things that make sense.
| Quote: |
Yes, there are many things in this universe that we don't understand. But
people need to be weary of
Arguments from
Ignorance.
Just because somebody can concoct a theory of some unexplained phenomenon,
doesn't mean that the theory is correct. As the great prophet Mencken has
taught us, if we don't understand something, that probably means that most
of the theories concerning this phenomenon are wrong. |
I am fully aware of a saying I made up when I was 17:
"God is the answer to every question we cannot answer."
Though my mindset has changed, I do believe it is important to realize that there are limitations to our understanding. This is outside the logical necessity of God, from the other thread.
| Quote: |
| Ahem... citations, please. |
Look at the list!
| Quote: |
Absinthe is pretty much an alcoholic green tea made from Wormwood, Hyssop,
Calamus Root, Fennel Seed, Mint, cloves, coriander, Nutmeg, and Anise. If
any of these things are on the no-no list, then you're probably out of
luck. Although, many of those ingredients are optional. Wormwood and
Alcohol are the only real necessities. The rest are for additional flavor
or additional "herbal effects". |
Wormwood on its own sold online is in an alcohol solution, not in absinthe form.
By the way, how do you mix your own? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23268
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-05-02 21:52
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Big Brother in this thread is the perfect example of the devil using scripture to his own ends. I'll bet he can even assign the correct book, chapter and verse to that quote.
Sorianofan, I've had dinner with a wide variety of people over my short life, but most of which I'd regard myself as an outsider to.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #23330
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 15:29
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I am not quite sure what you are saying in your response to BB's and mine conversation, so let me apologize in advance for any misunderstandings.
| Quote: |
| Big Brother in this thread is the perfect example of the devil using scripture to his own ends. I'll bet he can even assign the correct book, chapter and verse to that quote. |
From what it sounds like, you are calling me a devil. If I read between the lines, it appears what you truly mean is that I am beng disingenuous. In other words, you are accusing me of being a sophist.
Let me say that is not my intent. I believe I have been fairly level headed and open minded in this thread, and so has BB. For this reason, the conversation has lasted so long without a Lokiesque insult (yes Drhzen, you are an adjective now.) Now, if either of us were being disingenuous instead of honest in the portrayals of our positions, I believe the course of the conversation would have soured.
I cannot speak for BB outside of assumptions, so let me speak for myself: I am being honest and forthright (though I want to work on being simpler with my words) in my position that I am basing on everything I have learned during my short study of history, philosophy, and the Bible. It is not my intent to use word trckery to deceive people into my position (though I do admit, I am trying to be convincing, especially in my response to you.)
So to answer to your chare concerning whether or not I can quote that verse from the Bible, I must honestly say that I cannot. It sounds familiar to sayings that might reflect upon condemnations of "the heretics" or "he casts out demons by the work of demons." Otherwise, I am unsure if you a specifically referring to something.
| Quote: |
| Sorianofan, I've had dinner with a wide variety of people over my short life, but most of which I'd regard myself as an outsider to. |
I am entirely unsure what this means and because it is adressed to me, perhaps yu can elaborate on this so I can respond! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #23348
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 18:18
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
From what it sounds like, you are calling me a devil. If I read between the lines, it appears what you truly mean is that I am beng disingenuous. In other words, you are accusing me of being a sophist.
Let me say that is not my intent. I believe I have been fairly level headed and open minded in this thread, and so has BB. For this reason, the conversation has lasted so long without a Lokiesque insult (yes Drhzen, you are an adjective now.) Now, if either of us were being disingenuous instead of honest in the portrayals of our positions, I believe the course of the conversation would have soured.
I cannot speak for BB outside of assumptions, so let me speak for myself: I am being honest and forthright (though I want to work on being simpler with my words) in my position that I am basing on everything I have learned during my short study of history, philosophy, and the Bible. It is not my intent to use word trckery to deceive people into my position (though I do admit, I am trying to be convincing, especially in my response to you.)
So to answer to your chare concerning whether or not I can quote that verse from the Bible, I must honestly say that I cannot. It sounds familiar to sayings that might reflect upon condemnations of "the heretics" or "he casts out demons by the work of demons." Otherwise, I am unsure if you a specifically referring to something. |
As interesting as that all was, I was indeed not referring to you.
| Sorianofan wrote: |
| I am entirely unsure what this means and because it is adressed to me, perhaps yu can elaborate on this so I can respond! |
| BB wrote: |
He mentioned them because Christianity was pretty much their own
personal cult. Paul was a bit of an outsider. |
| Sorianofan wrote: |
| We're speculating now. Paul ate with these guys at dinner (2 Corinthians, right?) |
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #23396
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-05-03 21:37
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Oh, I suspected that you were speaking of BB, but you referred to me...so I assumed the worst! That's why I apologized in advance and I apologize again now for my mistake. I am pretty dense! Now, if I am still missing out on something, then I am really out to lunch and we need to pity my students!
Anyway, interesting websites:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
I found their chronology fairly convincing, though some of the arguments against early dating semmed to be along the lines of "the greek is too good" or "the septugient is being quoted instead of hebrew scripture." These arguments certainly have credence, but they do have their counter arguments (such as the flagrant use of scribes and the low probability that Paul or whomever can quote scripture without looking it up, and they probably had their scribes use the septugients they also used for preaching to Greeks.) However, this is a historical conundrum and I believe that the more sources we consider, the better.
I kind of doubt there was a "signs gospel" or "passion narrative." Mark could have been both these things based upon oral tradition (which would explain the exaggerations and such). The scholars disagree with me I suppose.
http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9e8fa890300af7ec021cb61925b51de3&board=17.0
Here's a forum with the discussion of these questions. Once I complete my "internal documentation of Jesus" list, I'll run it by here and maybe there. Furthermore, I'm going to discuss the hierarchy of the most credible and least credible letters when looking at internal evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #23504
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 10:33
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
If that were true, that would also place the book of Tomas
as being written at a later date. |
Possibly, but the "24 books" was accepted in 90 CE, and it might have been
de facto fore quite some time earlier.
|
Are you sure about that? I don't even think most of the New Testament had been written yet. Even the Gospel of John was not written until 90-120CE.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Perhaps I'll email you soon for the file, but I read up on wikipedia about
this stuff and I did not see how these things take out the need for God
if we are to use my logical argument as a measure. But, that's a
separate thread.
|
No, it doesn't disproved the existence of god (you can't prove a negative anyway). At best, it puts limits on how gods may interact with the universe. It just gives you a better understand of how the universe works. Probably the best part about the Feynman lectures is that you get a deep understanding of the scientific method -- it's crash course in baloney detection.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
He mentioned them because Christianity was pretty much their own
personal cult. Paul was a bit of an outsider. |
We're speculating now. Paul ate with these guys at dinner (2 Corinthians,
right?)
|
Yes, he knew them... but he wasn't really one of them. He pretty much "found Christ" on his own, and made up his own version of the religion which didn't mesh together well with the views of the Jewish Christians.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
So Jesus' name literally means "to save". What a coincidence that
this "savior god" would have a name that literally means "to
save". |
Yeah, but Jesus was a popular name and most Hebrew names have "profound"
meanings...they could have called Jesus Elijah and tie up a lot of loose
ends.
|
Yes, "Joshua" was a fairly common name. But it is still interesting none-the-less.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
Now, the question here is whether or not Paul has some knowledge of Jesus
beyond the simple crucifixion/resurrection myth.
1) Resurrection Myth / 2 Peter is most likely
pseudepigraphical |
You ignore that Paul essentially says that Jesus was anointed by God...a
similarity dealing with before the resurrection, though now I reread it,
Paul might be saying Jesus was declared Son of God because of the
crucifixion. This supports your theory.
|
I have no doubt that Paul was thoroughly familiar with the crucifixion story. The question here is whether or not anybody claimed to know a living flesh-and-blood Jesus before the crucifixion took place. The crucifixion story doesn't really prove this for me, because I could sit here and list of at least 20 other mythological figures from antiquity who had resurrection (death/rebirth) stories, and none of them ever existed either. And the fact is that Paul seems to believe in crucifixion story only because of his "vision", and not due to any first-person accounts.
I'm looking for the first person accounts ... or even some credible second person accounts ... or any sort of secular accounts -- Anything that would give us the slightest clue that the Jesus myth is based on a true story.
| sorianofan wrote: |
I read up on 2 Peter and agree it is probably fake, but I do not believe
that there is reason to suspect many others.
|
Here's a list of the epistles, with a short description of how most modern scholars view the authorship...
Pauline Epistles :
General epistles :
- James - Supposedly "James the Just", but most scholars doubt this.
- 1 Peter - Supposedly Peter the fisherman, but not likely.
- 2 Peter - Supposedly Peter the fisherman as well, but even less likely.
- 1 John - Written by John, but which John?
- 2 John - Written by the same person who wrote 3 John.
- 3 John - Written by the same person who wrote 2 John.
- Jude - Supposedly written by James's brother, but even many 2nd century Christians has their doubts.
So there's the modern scholarly view. For Paul's letter, 7 out of 13 are almost certainly authentic. But for the General Epistles, they are all either of unknown authorship or are outright forgeries. Is there any General Epistle that you’d like to make a case for being genuine?
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
4) 1 Peter is... well... ALL of the [w]General
Epistles[/w] are most likely pseudepigraphical. Perhaps we need a separate
discussion on this. |
That is not a general consensus among scholars and it is too easy to write
everything off as fake. I say you substantiate that claim.
|
Ok.
| From Wikipedia: First Epistle of Peter |
[/b]Authorship and date[/b]
The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", but modern scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote it, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. It contains about thirty-five references to the Old Testament, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle. The Septuagint was a Greek translation created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh. The historical Simon Peter in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form. Peter's own amanuensis was the evangelist Mark, according to Clement of Alexandria and other early Christian writers.
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
11) Yes. Early Christian apostles believed that they had spoken
with Jesus' ghost. |
And so did Q.
|
Not necessarily. Q was just a collection of sayings. There could have been a "proto-q" - a collection of sayings that weren't attributed to anybody (or were attributed to some other real-life wise man), and then "Q" may have taken these saying and attributed them to Jesus. I really don't think there was anything in Q that talked much about the physical nature of Jesus. It may not have even included any of the crucifixion story -- Mathew and Luke probably got that part from Mark.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| 12) Eucharist. Part of the resurrection myth. Plagiarized. |
In idea, but not words. you yourself claim that the mithras kept this
stuff hush hush and hidden.
|
Yes, but Paul's description of the resurrection was pretty vague. If you were to take Paul's words and substitute "Jesus" with "Mithras" or "Dionysos", I doubt the followers of these other gods would have really noticed any difference from their own beliefs. Paul never gives an account of these event, he just mentions that he believed they occurred. There really may not have been much of a crucifixion narrative until Mark came along.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| 24) Matthew/pseudepigraphical works |
Romans is fake?
|
Sorry... I was on a roll.
No.. the problem with that one was that it is a little vague, and has nothing to do with a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why you find it significant that Matthew, Romans, and Colossians (and probably others) all used the phrase "seated at the right hand of God". That was just part of the crucifixion myth. There were other ancient myths which spoke of their god resurrecting and sitting at the right hand of another god in judgment of mankind (but I don't remember which one right off the top of my head. I can try to find it again if you like).
| sorianofan wrote: |
If we are to argue that Jesus never existed, then how about arguing that Cleon, Homer, Nebuchenezzar, Justus, and etc don't exist? After all, all documentation of them is lacking or potentially forgable. |
This is true (to some extent). But the difference is that nobody worships any of those other guys, and nobody basis their lives on their teachings. And when it comes to Jesus, we have no direct evidence of his existence (i.e. his own writings, archeological evidence). Nor do we have any first person accounts of him (There are no believable accounts of anybody claiming to have known the guy). And beyond that, no contemporary authors ever even wrote about his existence. To make things worse, Paul (who met he Jewish apostles) never says anything to indicate that they knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus either. Al we have are a few ancient religious nutters who claimed to have seen his ghost, and pieces of fiction written by their followers (or followers of the followers) that claim that these apostles knew the guy in real-life (even though there is no evidence that they ever made such a claim).
The evidence for a historical Jesus really isn’t much better than the historical evidence for Mithras, Dionysus, Hercules, or Romulus. And given the fact that their stories are very similar, I don’t see why Jesus should be placed in a different category.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Granted, Jesus is a religious figure who supposedly done magical things, but with the evidence presented, it is far more likely that Jesus was a man people embellished about than he just simpily didn't exist.
|
It's really hard to tell the difference. When you really get down to it, you have to admit that even if the bible was based on a real-life wise man named Jesus, the biblical Jesus probably had little in common with the real-life Jesus, so the point is mostly moot. The point is that the bible is almost entirely fiction, and should be treated as such.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
4) Minor point ... Matthew was written after Paul lived, and therefore he
could have gotten some of his ideas from Paul. |
I don't think time would have allowed it, unless it was word of mouth. Again, Matthew plagiarized earlier sources, so this decreases that possibility.
|
Depending on which epistle we are talking about, somewhere around 1-3 decades passed between when Paul wrote the letter and the time Matthew was penned. This seems like enough time for Paul's words to spread (especially since the authors of the gospels and Paul hung around in similar circles)
| sorianofan wrote: |
1. Even Romans is fake
|
Romans need not be fake. (My comment earlier was a mistake).
| sorianofan wrote: |
2. You don't consider the fact that the sources for Matthew are at least as early as the 60s CE
|
Yes, Q probably came before then. But almost everything Matthew knows about the life of Jesus came from Mark, which was not written until several years after Paul's death.
| sorianofan wrote: |
3. Don't consider the fact that so many parallels, as opposed to contradictions, in theology exist.
|
Theology need not be based on the teachings of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Some of the similarities may have come from Paul, or from Judaism itself. Other similarities may have come from the original Jewish Christians (Who existed for at least a decade before Paul came along).
Early Christianity mythology probably did come from a common source -- the jewish christians, and probably from James and Peter themselves (Or possibly from whomever told them about it.
The scene from Life of Brian comes to mind when Brian stands up on a pedestal and preaches his "gospel". Perhaps that's how Christianity got its start -- some nut bag converted the Mithras myth into a Jewish one... He stood up on a pedestal and preached the myth to people like James and Peter... James and Peter started a cult based on this Myth... Paul heard about the myth from them and started spreading it to the Gentiles... and the rest is history.
An historical Jesus need not ever had existed. The Jesus myth that Paul preach was real no better than the Mithras myth, and could have been equally fictitious.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
But the thing is, just about every piece of Jesus' life can be
found in prior myths. |
Besides the meat of his teachings...which are found in the Epistles and not mythology.
|
See above.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
The only thing that is mostly unique is the
parables, and they might have been added later. (And, given Paul's
ignorance of them, it seems that they were) |
The parables were long, why would he quote them? Paper wasn't cheap back then and I am sure it is hard to get a huge supply of it in prison.
|
Paul mention the crucifixion several times, so why did he stop there? There are many places in his letters where he could have made a good point by quoting one of Jesus' parables, but he NEVER does. This means that he either didn't like Jesus' little tales, or that he didn't know them. The later seems a little more likely than believing that Paul would have completely ignored the most instrumental pieces of Jesus' teachings.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a good person. But I think that a
person is better off if his values come from his own personal experience,
rather than from ancient "wise man" who pretended that he was the
moth-piece for an all-powerful deity. |
My values do come from experience, but that does not mean I should ignore things that make sense. |
If the bible makes sense to you, then you are seeing something that I have completely missed. It's all Greek mythology to me.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ahem... citations, please. |
Look at the list!
[/list]
That list sucks.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Wormwood on its own sold online is in an alcohol solution, not in absinthe form.
|
Yes. You can buy Wormwood extract by itself and add it to just about anything you like. (Although, 190 proof booze is the most common mixer)
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
By the way, how do you mix your own?
|
Haven't you been here yet?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #23519
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-05-04 15:17
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I see that there is not all that much in your post that I disagree with, so perhaps there is an end in site! It is a shame though, I got so used to writing posts here. To be honest, I need to do more research on dating of the Epistles and reread parts of the New Testament itself. The last time I read the Epistles, it was a scholarly book with dating, but for whatever reason my memory went by the wayside concerning which ones were questionable. Thus, when I complete mt "list," I will add assessments concerning dating and take a look at whether there are any similarities between the "Johns."
| Quote: |
| Are you sure about that? I don't even think most of the New Testament had been written yet. Even the Gospel of John was not written until 90-120CE. |
I was referring to 24 "books" of commonly accepted Jewish Scripture.
| Quote: |
| No, it doesn't disproved the existence of god (you can't prove a negative anyway). At best, it puts limits on how gods may interact with the universe. It just gives you a better understand of how the universe works. Probably the best part about the Feynman lectures is that you get a deep understanding of the scientific method -- it's crash course in baloney detection. |
I know a bit about the scientific method, but expect a raincheck on your offer until next weekend.
| Quote: |
| Yes, he knew them... but he wasn't really one of them. He pretty much "found Christ" on his own, and made up his own version of the religion which didn't mesh together well with the views of the Jewish Christians. |
Not precisely. Paul himself says that they ultimately improved of what he was doing (I have it earmarked at home and I cannot quote it now.) This means that even if they thought this guy went around doing his own thing, at least he was "close enough" not to be branded a heretic. Paul recorded his disagreements with these people, and if they had true disagreements, he would have condemned them openly, so I tend to believe the story is true.
Furthermore, if we assess that there's only a 10 to 20 percent chance that the non-pauline epistles are true, that means at least one is and we don't see any stark disagreement in theology (even the faith versus good works thing.)
| Quote: |
| Yes, "Joshua" was a fairly common name. But it is still interesting none-the-less. |
True.
| Quote: |
| I have no doubt that Paul was thoroughly familiar with the crucifixion story. The question here is whether or not anybody claimed to know a living flesh-and-blood Jesus before the crucifixion took place. The crucifixion story doesn't really prove this for me, because I could sit here and list of at least 20 other mythological figures from antiquity who had resurrection (death/rebirth) stories, and none of them ever existed either. And the fact is that Paul seems to believe in crucifixion story only because of his "vision", and not due to any first-person accounts. |
We cannot to expect anything first person from paul, but instead, thw markings of a man who heard abouyt jesus and converted. So, the best "first hand" sources we have of Jesus are non pauline epistles (if we could trust any are true) and things like Q and Thomas (and a few other gospels that exist theoretically or in shreds, see Earlychristianity.com). We have not found one shred of evikdence that any of these sayings were NOT attributed to Jesus. This fact, in addition with parallels with the Epistles and Mark and Q, show that there was a likely early source that was not mythical, but rather a person.
You might argue, "Fine, that is not worth having a religion about."
Yes, that might be true, but that is not a historical argument and a whole seperate argument.
| Quote: |
| I'm looking for the first person accounts ... or even some credible second person accounts ... or any sort of secular accounts -- Anything that would give us the slightest clue that the Jesus myth is based on a true story. |
Yeah, we don't really have that. All we know is that there was some guy, probably named Jesus, and a bunch of stuff was said about him and it became a religion. That's my argument.
| Quote: |
Here's a list of the epistles, with a short description of how most modern scholars view the authorship...
Pauline Epistles :
Romans - Certainly Paul
1 Corinthians - Certainly Paul
2 Corinthians - Almost Certainly Paul
Galatians - Almost Certainly Paul
Ephesians - Most likely Paul
Philippians - Certainly Paul (With perhaps one exception)
Colossians - Uncertain (60% favor Paul)
1 Thessalonians - Almost Certainly Paul
2 Thessalonians - Possibly Paul
1 Timothy - Uncertain (Pastoral Epistle)
2 Timothy - Uncertain (Pastoral Epistle)
Titus - Uncertain (Pastoral Epistle)
Philemon - Certainly Paul
Hebrews - Traditionally Paul, but most likely somebody else.
General epistles :
James - Supposedly "James the Just", but most scholars doubt this.
1 Peter - Supposedly Peter the fisherman, but not likely.
2 Peter - Supposedly Peter the fisherman as well, but even less likely.
1 John - Written by John, but which John?
2 John - Written by the same person who wrote 3 John.
3 John - Written by the same person who wrote 2 John.
Jude - Supposedly written by James's brother, but even many 2nd century Christians has their doubts.
|
The funny thing is when Paul writes "unpaul like," it has to be fake. However, has anyone considered that personal letters and theological discourses will take on different forms than the other letters? The quality of the greek and Septugient quotations, again, can be explained while the lack of blatant plagiarism from Mark, Matthew, Q or etcetera is much harder to explain (if fake.)
| Quote: |
| So there's the modern scholarly view. For Paul's letter, 7 out of 13 are almost certainly authentic. But for the General Epistles, they are all either of unknown authorship or are outright forgeries. Is there any General Epistle that you’d like to make a case for being genuine? |
The scholarly arguments are good, but I need more time to fully assess whether I fully or partially agree or disagree with them. I do not doubt there are forgeries out there. However, I need to consider the sources more closely before I do that, which I am in the process of.
| Quote: |
Ok.
From Wikipedia: First Epistle of Peter
[/b]Authorship and date[/b]
The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", but modern scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote it, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek |
That's what scribes are for. We have speech writers (and ghost writers) today that do the same thing.
| Quote: |
| and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. |
I believe the parallels I present show that this is not so. Yet, with classic "doublethink" as we like to accuse people here, far too many lay the claim that "there is no detail of Jesus" as evidence of the Epistle being fake, yet they also say "those parallels are proof that it is fake."
These letters are not made to retell people what Jesus was about. They probably heard the relatively short list of spiffy Jesus sayings and in the other hand have scrolls of the Setugiant for religious guidance.
| Quote: |
It contains about thirty-five references to the Old Testament, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle. The Septuagint was a Greek translation created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh. The historical Simon Peter in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form. Peter's own amanuensis was the evangelist Mark, according to Clement of Alexandria and other early Christian writers.
|
I need to look at the bible when I quote obscure passages (or invent odd mixtures like the apostles do). Peter did not memorize Jewish scripture and he probably remembers parts of it and dictated his scribe to look them up in his septugient and quote them. Furthermore, in hellenistic Judea, greek was the language of scholarship and so Peter chose to get educated in not a strictly religious sense (face it, the gospel details of anyone concerning context are poor in a historical sense, we really don't know whether peter was poor or rich), he could have also found it easier to thumb through a septugient when writing something for Greeks.
| Quote: |
| Not necessarily. Q was just a collection of sayings. There could have been a "proto-q" - a collection of sayings that weren't attributed to anybody (or were attributed to some other real-life wise man), and then "Q" may have taken these saying and attributed them to Jesus. I really don't think there was anything in Q that talked much about the physical nature of Jesus. It may not have even included any of the crucifixion story -- Mathew and Luke probably got that part from Mark. |
However, there might have been no proto Q and just a Q. If there was an oral proto-Q, it was never written down in another form to quote anyone else, but Jesus.
Examples:
-The Oxyrhnchus 1224
http://www.gospels.net/translations/poxy1224translation.html
-The Gospel of Thomas
Theoretical:
-Q
-Signs Gospel (I don't believe it exists, but scholars do)
-Passion Narrative (same as above)
Out of all of the above, let's say only 2 are actually early dated. There is no third that attributes the sayings to anyone else, but Jesus. Thus, you have no evidence to go by.
| Quote: |
| Yes, but Paul's description of the resurrection was pretty vague. If you were to take Paul's words and substitute "Jesus" with "Mithras" or "Dionysos", I doubt the followers of these other gods would have really noticed any difference from their own beliefs. |
Aside from 2 things.
1. Jesus supposedly died and resurrect in the real world and as a real person, and born as a real person, unlike Dionysus and etcetra. Paul never indicates the Virgin birth or anything, but he does make the "son of a king" claim. However, this is in the physical realm, thus making his religion literally a world of difference from Mithraism.
| Quote: |
| Paul never gives an account of these event, he just mentions that he believed they occurred. There really may not have been much of a crucifixion narrative until Mark came along. |
Point taken. Likely, Jesus was executed and that was that. There was not much to talk about unless you are to turn his demise into a sort of triumph.
| Quote: |
Sorry... I was on a roll.
No.. the problem with that one was that it is a little vague, and has nothing to do with a historical Jesus. I'm not sure why you find it significant that Matthew, Romans, and Colossians (and probably others) all used the phrase "seated at the right hand of God". That was just part of the crucifixion myth. There were other ancient myths which spoke of their god resurrecting and sitting at the right hand of another god in judgment of mankind (but I don't remember which one right off the top of my head. I can try to find it again if you like). |
Find it. What I see is a new idea, seperated from that of old Judaism. The new idea had to come from somewhere, and if it is in both Q and Paul, we are probably looking at something.
| Quote: |
| This is true (to some extent). But the difference is that nobody worships any of those other guys, and nobody basis their lives on their teachings. |
But we are chiefly arguing history. The existence of Jesus historically is not played up, nor should it be. It is the religion that became historically important. However, this being said, with the evidence at hand, we at least can see that the religion had some sort of basis in a real person and not entirely myth.
| Quote: |
| And when it comes to Jesus, we have no direct evidence of his existence (i.e. his own writings, archeological evidence). Nor do we have any first person accounts of him (There are no believable accounts of anybody claiming to have known the guy). And beyond that, no contemporary authors ever even wrote about his existence. |
Q, Paul, possibly Peter, etc. are such sources. Jesus was alive when Jesus was...sure, he might have made all the personal knowledge up, but it is a primary source. We have this same problem with many other ancient historical figures.
| Quote: |
| To make things worse, Paul (who met he Jewish apostles) never says anything to indicate that they knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus either. Al we have are a few ancient religious nutters who claimed to have seen his ghost, and pieces of fiction written by their followers (or followers of the followers) that claim that these apostles knew the guy in real-life (even though there is no evidence that they ever made such a claim). |
Or more likely, nutters who wrote about stuff that probably did originate in some guy.
| Quote: |
| The evidence for a historical Jesus really isn’t much better than the historical evidence for Mithras, Dionysus, Hercules, or Romulus. And given the fact that their stories are very similar, I don’t see why Jesus should be placed in a different category. |
It is infinitely better, because we actually have sources. Based upon the bar we hold other ancient historical figures compared to that of mythical romulus like characters, Jesus belongs with the former. Quite simpily, we have more primary sources on the matter.
| Quote: |
| It's really hard to tell the difference. When you really get down to it, you have to admit that even if the bible was based on a real-life wise man named Jesus, the biblical Jesus probably had little in common with the real-life Jesus, so the point is mostly moot. The point is that the bible is almost entirely fiction, and should be treated as such. |
I am not going to entirely disagree with you. But historically, the point is not moot. Second, the worth of the story can mean different things to different people. If the story was inspired from real sayings that people like, then there is some likable truth among the likable BS.
The worth of the bible or religion is a seperate discussion.
| Quote: |
| Depending on which epistle we are talking about, somewhere around 1-3 decades passed between when Paul wrote the letter and the time Matthew was penned. This seems like enough time for Paul's words to spread (especially since the authors of the gospels and Paul hung around in similar circles) |
Letters could take longer or shorter, but point taken. However, Matthew was working with sources that appeared to be quoting things that were not directly regarding Paul. Furthermore, if they did, I do not see why not a fictional paul conversion story was not added if he was already so popular in your mind among the supposed writers of Q, Mark, and whatever earlier sources led to Matthew.
| Quote: |
| Yes, Q probably came before then. But almost everything Matthew knows about the life of Jesus came from Mark, which was not written until several years after Paul's death. |
True.
| Quote: |
| Theology need not be based on the teachings of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Some of the similarities may have come from Paul, |
I wrote above why this may not be so.
| Quote: |
or from Judaism itself. Other similarities may have come from the original Jewish Christians (Who existed for at least a decade before Paul came along).
Early Christianity mythology probably did come from a common source -- the jewish christians, and probably from James and Peter themselves (Or possibly from whomever told them about it.
The scene from Life of Brian comes to mind when Brian stands up on a pedestal and preaches his "gospel". Perhaps that's how Christianity got its start -- some nut bag converted the Mithras myth into a Jewish one... He stood up on a pedestal and preached the myth to people like James and Peter... James and Peter started a cult based on this Myth... Paul heard about the myth from them and started spreading it to the Gentiles... and the rest is history.
An historical Jesus need not ever had existed. The Jesus myth that Paul preach was real no better than the Mithras myth, and could have been equally fictitious. |
We need that "nutbag" to give his speech to finish the equation. So the historical Jesus probably did exist and thus is infinitely less fictitious than the Mithras myth.
| Quote: |
| Paul mention the crucifixion several times, so why did he stop there? There are many places in his letters where he could have made a good point by quoting one of Jesus' parables, but he NEVER does. This means that he either didn't like Jesus' little tales, or that he didn't know them. The later seems a little more likely than believing that Paul would have completely ignored the most instrumental pieces of Jesus' teachings. |
However, there are parallels between what Paul said and parables and such. He never quotes them and assumes that people already know them. He is much more obsessed with reaffirming the resurrection theology (which was probably word of mouth, but not written down.) I also doubt thatthe historical Jesus was a supposed miracle worker, because none of the Epistles mention this.
| Quote: |
| If the bible makes sense to you, then you are seeing something that I have completely missed. It's all Greek mythology to me. |
We could have a discussion on this. Things like non-violence and being humble are more important or at least, overwhelming than the "boy who cried wolf."
[sarcasm]Aesop was a work of satan anyway. It is impossible that matthew plagiarized him.[/sarcasm]
No, it's totally awesome. It will soon be more complete.
___________________________________________________
| Quote: |
| Yes. You can buy Wormwood extract by itself and add it to just about anything you like. (Although, 190 proof booze is the most common mixer) |
Your recipe calls for the wood being grinded down and having it "brew" into the solution, right? You are not putting in liquid wormwood (though you can), you could do it with the solid wood stuff...
| Quote: |
Haven't you been here yet?
|
Yes, and I noticed you used McCormick spices and extracts, which are gluten free. Furthermore, everclear is a grain alcohol, so I would have to use a non-spiced rum. I might start making this, as a gift to my degenerate friends and family members of course!
Good job! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #25596
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-06 01:08
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I am yet to make the absinthe, but I did find this while thumbing through the bible that you might find interesting:
Galatians 4:4 (a nice, uncontested pauline epistle) states:
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law..."
I guess that kind of settles that question! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #26967
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-06-18 23:01
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| I wrote this to be a wiki, but... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I don't think it will meet their standards, because it is too large. However, I hope I have settled the question of Jesus' historiocity between the two of us.
| External site |
Internal Biblical Evidence of Jesus' Historicity
The Epistles in the New Testament are accepted by scholars to be the earliest written sources that speak of the existence of Jesus. However, due to their mostly theological nature, these early sources do not list many quotes from Jesus nor talk about his life. Instead, they concern themselves strictly to proper religious practice. Many scholars who believe in the Jesus Myth cite this as evidence that there was never a flesh and blood Jesus who said anything.
They assert that Jesus was more myth than man because, most of what is known about Jesus is from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All of these Gospels are likely dated past the year 70 CE aside from possibly Mark. These Gospels are the main source of quotations attributed to Jesus and are the only sources that describe the events of Jesus' life. Their late date of creation lead many to believe that much of what is written in these Gospels has no historic basis.
==== Internal Biblical Evidence That Points To a Historical Jesus ====
Within the passages found in the Gospels are many parallels, paraphrases, and even quotations that are shared with the Epistles. This means that the material found in the Gospels, though written after 70 CE, has an earlier recorded basis. This is because it is commonly believed that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, were a mix of the Gospel of Mark and a theoretical source named “Q”. Q, which is supposedly a written record of Jesus' quotations, was probably written before Mark. However, because Q has never been found, it will probably never be dated. Nevertheless, many Q sayings have parallels in the Epistles. This means that wherever Q derived itself from had specific beliefs that existed during the time of the Apostles' letters, if not before. Thus, this increases the probability there was a historical Jesus, because it shows that the sources of the Gospels shared common origins in belief with that of the writers of the Epistles. This is opposed to the idea that the sayings of Jesus were some sort of later concoction (see Jesus Myth).
As a general note, scholars debate whether some of the Epistles were real or pseudographical. Thus, this must be considered when verifying early knowledge of Jesus’ sayings. For a general synopsis and dating of the Epistles, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com is recommended. It is important to remember that though several works are likely pseudographical, that does not mean that all or any are.
===Parallels Found in Matthew===
Matthew was likely based upon two written sources, Mark and Q. In particular, there are many examples of close parallels between this later written source and the Epistles. This demonstrates that the material found in Matthew does have an early historical basis equivalent to that of the Epistles.
====Example 1:====
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
1 Peter 3:14
But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.
Peter pretty much paraphrases a spiffy comment, “blessed are the peacemakers.” Some scholars consider 1 Peter to be pseudographical.
====Example 2:====
Matthew 5:37
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
James 5:12
Above all, my brothers, do not swear— not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your Yes be yes, and your No, no, or you will be condemned.
This appears to be evidence that the Apostle James was aware of Q sayings or that Q sayings preceded James. The theological point and language in the above two quotations are extremely similar. However, some scholars consider James to be pseudographical, though likely early dated.
====Example 3:====
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
1 Peter 3:9
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
If one reads past Matthew 5:39, it pretty much makes the same theological point as 1 Peter 3:9. Some scholars consider believe 1 Peter is pseudographical.
However, Lamentations 3:30 is probably the bona fida origin of this saying in the Jewish tradition:
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace.
====Example 4====
Matthew 6:4
...so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The language is different, but the theology is exactly the same. Notice the use of the word “secret” in the same context.
====Example 5:====
Matthew 6:20-21
But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also
2 Corinthians 4:6-10
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"amade his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
Here, the word “treasure” is being used in the same context, but the theology is more precise and specific. People store up treasure by having faith in Jesus. HThere are two more Epistles quotes that mirror Jesus’ words more closely:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
This has the same idea as the Matthew quote. James gets it even closer in James 5:1-3:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
The mentioning of both rust (corrosion) and moths makes this parallel likely not a coincidence in theology or language. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy and James to be pseudographical.
====Example 6:====
Matthew 7:1-2
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbour?
One can observe that there are parallels in theology and language in the above sources. James might be pseudographical, but Romans, as are many of Paul’s letters’ authenticity, are uncontested.
====Example 7:====
Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
James 3:12
My brothers, can a fig-tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
There appears to be an identical idea purported by both of the above, but with a slight difference in delivery. However, James might be pseudographical.
====Example 8:====
Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven
James 2:14
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
The theology of the above is identical. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical.
====Example 9:====
Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
1 Corinthians 13:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
An identical idea is being expressed in the above passages. One is told to listen to Jesus' words and practice them, because only this would give foundation to one’s faith. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical. Nonetheless, Corinthians (definitely written by the Apostle Paul) and Hebrews (which is possibly also written by Paul), get even more specific and mention the word “foundation” in the same context.
====Example 10:====
Matthew 8:5-13
As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him 8.6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." 8.7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8.8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8.9 For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 8.10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." 8.13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
Romans 9:30-31
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
The parallel here is that the gentiles have more faith inn accordance with Jesus’ Way than the Israelites.
====Example 11:====
Matthew 10:9-10
Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
1 Corinthians 9:14
In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
Both passages are the same in meaning. They are both commands from the Lord, who here is Jesus. The author of Matthew appears to have created a new context for this Q saying.
====Example 12:====
Matthew 10:20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
1 Corinthians 2:4-5
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
Theologically these are the same: the words one utters in God’s ministry are from his spirit.
====Example 13:====
Matthew 10:26
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Paul’s quote seems to be a paraphrase of the Gospel quote.
====Example 14:====
Matthew 10:27
What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.
Gospel of Thomas
33 Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops. After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."
2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The quote from Peter seems to have more in common with the Gospel of Thomas: what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. Then again, this passage might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to the Gospel of Thomas or Matthew at all. Furthermore, 2 Peter is likely pseudographical.
==== Example 15:====
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;
1 Corinthians 1:26-30
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
1 Corinthians 3:1
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ
The parallels here are that Christians are referred to as babies and are given great amounts of understanding when compared to those high and wise by “human standards.”
====Example 16:====
Matthew 13:11
He answered, “To you has been given to know the secrets (some ancient authorities say “mysteries”) of the kingdom of heaven…”
1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, having come unto you, brethren, came -- not in superiority of discourse or wisdom -- declaring to you the testimony (some ancient authorities say “mystery”) of God…
If the correct ancient sources said “mystery,” then this is a striking parallel, because no where in the old testament is there a mention of the “mystery of God.”
====Example 17:====
Matthew 15:11
not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
Romans 14:14
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.
The sentence structure and theology in these two passages is a striking parallel.
====Example 18:====
Matthew 15:14
Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
Romans 2:19-21
if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
The above parallel each other in language and theology. Paul was using the analogy to condemn those who taught Christians to follow Jewish law, when they without a doubt break the law. Matthew uses the Q quote to justify Jesus’ opposition to strict adherence to the law, while in Luke, Jesus urges his disciples to accept his religious guidance and not judge others. The Gospel of Thomas leaves the parable unexplained.
====Example 19:====
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
This is called a sin list. It was popular at the time and found in 2 of Paul’s letters.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
There are many identical sins are found in both passages. See Galatians 5:19-21 for another such list.
====Example 20:====
Matthew 16:6
…beware of the leaven of the Pharisees…
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast— as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Galatians 5:9
A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.
The parallel here is that the idea of ceremonial impurity of Passover is being used as an allegory of moral impurity.
====Example 21:====
Matthew 16:27
For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.
Romans 2:6
6who God shall render to each according to his works;
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
The above passages have the same idea, and though 2 Corinthians 5:10 has different language, Romans 2:6 is remarkably close when read in its original Greek.
Matthew 16:27
…apodwsei ekastw| kata thn pracin autou.
Romans 2:6
…apodwsei ekastw| kata ta erga autou,
…
It is often postulated that Paul is quoting Psalms 62:12:
And with Thee, O Lord, is kindness, For Thou dost recompense to each, According to his work!
…apodwseiv ekastw kata ta erga autou (Septuagint translation)
Each have very minor differences in wording, and Paul might have just been quoting Psalms 62:12. However, it is possible that Paul was quoting Jesus, who was in turn quoting Psalms 62:12.
====Example 22:====
Matthew 17:20
He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."
1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Both passages have the exact same idea: faith can move mountains, thus accomplish great things.
====Example 23:====
Matthew 18:1-5 (The importance of being humble)
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.
There are two close to identical quotes from James and Peter that refer to the importance of being humble:
1 Peter 5:5-6
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
James 4:6, 10
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble....Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
Due to the fact that Peter and James use identical language, particularly the use of "lift you up," it is likely they are referencing an earlier source. Furthermore, the fact that Peter speaks of "young men" appears to show a connection between the importance of being humble in both Matthew and Peter. However, both sources might be pseudographical.
====Example 24:====
Matthew 19:10-12
The disciples said to him, If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry. 11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
1 Corinthians 7:1-11 includes Paul’s exact same opinion concerning marriage and sexual relations:
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
====Example 25:====
Matthew 19:23
Then Jesus said to his disciples, I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
1 Timothy 6:9-10
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Both passages share the same idea. However, passages in the Old Testament attest to the same idea, but they do not condemn wealth altogether. Furthermore, 1 Timothy might be pseudographical.
====Example 26:====
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
1 Corinthians 6:1-2
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
While Paul often talks about God or Jesus judging, here he adds the idea of “saints” judging. This idea is much alike that of the disciples judging found in Luke. However, Paul might be referring to the men and women of the Old Testament.
====Example 27:====
Matthew 20:26-27
It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 20.27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave
1 Corinthians 9:19
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
The theology and the use of the word “slave” parallel each other.
====Example 28:====
Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1 Peter 1:18-19 (Young’s Literal Translation)
having known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's –
Both passages speak of the idea of Jesus redeeming humanity as if paying a ransom. Thus, the parallel Matthew has with Peter’s letter, if not a coincidence, can be evidence of an earlier origin of Jesus’ recorded sayings. However, 1 Peter might be pseudographical.
====Example 29:====
Matthew 21:42-43
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? 21.43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."
Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:7
7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone”
Only in the New Testament is Jesus the “cornerstone” from Psalms 118:22. However, due to an apparent alteration in parts of Paul’s theology in Ephesians, and doubts of 1 Peter’s authenticity, it is possible that the Epistles presented here are pseudographical.
====Example 30:====
Matthew 22:21
…Then he said to them, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.
This famous line sums up ideas from Paul and Peter nicely:
Romans 13:7
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
1 Peter 2:15-17
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king.
Peter’s especially sums up the meaning behind Matthew 22:21. Furthermore, the sentence structure found in Romans 13:7 is reminiscent of Matthew 22:21.
====Example 31:====
Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:35-50
35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"a; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall web bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Both passages confirm that the resurrection is not physical, but spiritual.
====Example 32:====
Matthew 22:39
And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
Though the quote Jesus is referring to is Leviticus 19:18, John agrees with Matthew (and the Gospels of Mark and Luke) that Jesus said this. However, some scholars consider John and James to be pseudographical. Nonetheless, it is quoted in four Epistles, and so it is very likely that a Historical Jesus did say this and put great emphasis on it.
====Example 33:====
Matthew 24:7-8, 43-44’s idea of the world coming to an end:
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth-pains…But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
As we see above, the parallel is quire clear, because both passages speak of thievery and birth pains in the same context. Furthermore, Peter appears to be referencing the same saying attributed to Jesus. However, many scholars believe 2 Peter is pseudographical.
====Example 34:====
Similarity in use of theological language:
Matthew 24:22
22And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened.
Romans 8:33
33Who shall lay a charge against the choice ones of God? God is He that is declaring righteous,
Col 3:12
Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,
Paul purports that there is an “elect” or “chosen” among the people who are lucky to have God’s grace. This idea, if it was only Paul’s, some how found its way in Q, or Matthew made a lucky guess of a profound theological idea that is the basis of Christianity.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites as a whole are the only ones ever called the “chosen ones” (see http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22chosen+ones%22&searchtype=all&version1=15&spanbegin=1&spanend=73), but Matthew (and a similar passage in Mark 13:18-20 and Luke 18:7) talk of the chosen ones as an elect of God’s grace. This is specifically a New Testament idea and so whatever Paul is referring to is apparently the same as what Mark is originally referring to—the historical Jesus.
====Example 35:====
Matthew 26:26-30
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take and eat; this is my body. 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom. 30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
The same exact ceremony is quoted here, though it does have early connections with Mithraism.
====Example 36:====
Matthew 26:64
64Jesus saith to him, `Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven.'
The idea of the right hand is found all over Paul’s writings. The following are two examples of Paul’s idea of the right hand directly paralleling that found in Matthew:
Romans 8:34
who is he that is condemning? Christ is He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
Colossians 3:1
1If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated,
In the Old Testament, the “right hand” exclusively refers to God’s ability to act through humans or assist humans. For a list of every time this term has been used in the Bible, see the following link (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search="right%20hand"&version1=31&searchtype=all). The idea of being on or helped by God’s right hand is all over the Old Testament. However, the idea of having a particular individual, that being Jesus himself, on God’s right hand is mentioned several times by both Paul and Peter. Because of this, the passage in Matthew derives itself from origins at least as early as the Epistles.
====Example 37:====
Matthew 27:51
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split;
Hebrews 10:19-20
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
The parallel here deals with the curtain. It covered the entrance of the “Most Holy Place” inside the Temple, and with it torn, everyone was given access to God through Jesus’ death. Hebrews is often attributed to the Apostle Paul, but he no where signs it. However, this letter was quoted by Clement in 95 C.E. Therefore, it is likely that it was written decades earlier.
===Parallels Found in Mark===
The Gospel of Mark is perhaps the earliest written narrative concerning Jesus, and Matthew and Luke owe much of their structure and theology to this Gospel. Thus, parallels found here are especially important, because it shows that Mark too has an earlier historical basis much like Q.
====Example 1:====
Mark 3:29
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.
1 John 5:16
If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
The parallel here is in the theological belief that there are two kinds of sins: sins that specifically cause death (“etetnal sin”) and sins that do not. This separation is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament or New Testament. However, many scholars believe 1 John is pseudographical.
====Example 2====
Mark 4:11
And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret (some ancient authorities say “mystery) of the kingdom of God, but for purposes of those outside, everything comes in parables…”
1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, having come unto you, brethren, came -- not in superiority of discourse or wisdom -- declaring to you the testimony (some ancient authorities say “mystery”) of God…
If the correct ancient sources said “mystery,” then this is a striking parallel, because no where in the old testament is there a mention of the “mystery of God.”
====Example 3:====
Mark 4:21-23
He said to them, Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 22 For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.
Gospel of Thomas
33 Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops. After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."
1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Paul’s quote seems to be a paraphrase of the Gospel quote.
2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The quote from Peter has the same implication as that of Mark: what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. Then again, this passage might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to the Gospels of Thomas or Mark at all. Furthermore, 2 Peter is considered by many scholars to be pseudographical.
====Example 4====
Mark 7:15
there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.
Romans 14:14
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.
The sentence structure and theology in these two passages is a striking parallel.
====Example 5====
Mark 7:21-22
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 7.22coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
This is called a sin list. It was popular at the time and found in 2 of Paul’s letters.
Galatians 5:19-21
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
There are many identical sins are found in both passages. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 for another such list. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark have different sin lists which correspond loosely with separate Paul passages. Perhaps the writers of the separate Gospels had their hands on separate letters from Paul, or Paul, having heard or read what Jesus said in two separate occasions, invoked Jesus’ lists in two separate occasions.
====Example 6====
Mark 8:15
…beware of the leaven of the Pharisees…
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast— as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Galatians 5:9
A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.
The parallel here is that the idea of ceremonial impurity of Passover is being used as an allegory of moral impurity.
====Example 7:====
Mark 8:38
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
The parallel here is the use of the word “ashamed” in the context of it not being wise to be ashamed of “me and my words”—the Gospel.
====Example 8:====
Mark 9:34-37
But they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest. 9.35And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." 9.36And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 9.37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."
There are two close to identical quotes from James and Peter that refer to the importance of being humble:
1 Peter 5:5-6
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
James 4:6, 10
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble....Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
Due to the fact that Peter and James use identical language, particularly the use of "lift you up," it is likely they are referencing an earlier source. Furthermore, the fact that Peter speaks of "young men" appears to show a connection between the importance of being humble in both Matthew and Peter. However, both sources might be pseudographical.
====Example 9:====
Mark 10:11
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 10.12and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
1 Corinthians 7:10
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Paul invokes a command about marriage just like Mark purports to. The idea being conveyed is identical as well. Matthew 5:31-32 and Luke 16:18 also have likewise passages.
====Example 10:====
Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
Both passages speak of “treasures in heaven” and have identical theology. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy to be pseudographical.
====Example 11:====
Mark 10:23
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!"
1 Timothy 6:9-10
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Both passages share the same idea. However, passages in the Old Testament attest to the same idea, but they do not condemn wealth altogether. Furthermore, 1 Timothy might be pseudographical.
====Example 12:====
Mark 10:43-44
But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 10.44and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.
1 Corinthians 9:19
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
The parallel here is in not only theology, but the use of the word “slave” in the same context.
====Example 13:====
Mark 10:45
28 For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
1 Peter 1:18-19 (Young’s Literal Translation)
having known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, 19but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted -- Christ's –
Both passages speak of the idea of Jesus redeeming humanity as if paying a ransom. Thus, the parallel Matthew has with Peter’s letter, if not a coincidence, can be evidence of an earlier origin of Jesus’ recorded sayings. However, 1 Peter might be pseudographical.
====Example 14:====
Mark 11:23
Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.
1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Both passages have the exact same idea: faith can move mountains, thus accomplish great things.
====Example 15:====
Mark 12:10-11
Have you not read this scripture: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; 12.11this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?"
Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:7
7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone”
Only in the New Testament is Jesus the “cornerstone” from Psalms 118:22. However, due to an apparent alteration in parts of Paul’s theology in Ephesians, and doubts of 1 Peter’s authenticity, it is possible that the Epistles presented here are pseudographical.
====Example 16:====
Mark 12:17
Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
This famous line sums up ideas from Paul and Peter nicely:
Romans 13:7
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
1 Peter 2:15-17
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king.
Peter’s especially sums up the meaning behind Matthew 22:21. Furthermore, the sentence structure found in Romans 13:7 is reminiscent of Matthew 22:21.
====Example 17:====
Mark 12:25
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
1 Corinthians 15:35-50
35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"a; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall web bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Both passages confirm that the resurrection is not physical, but spiritual.
====Example 18:====
Mark 12:31
The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
Though the quote Jesus is referring to is Leviticus 19:18, John agrees with Matthew (and the Gospels of Mark and Luke) that Jesus said this. However, some scholars consider John and James to be pseudographical. Nonetheless, it is quoted in four Epistles, and so it is very likely that a Historical Jesus did say this and put great emphasis on it.
====Example 19:====
Mark 13:8
For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
As we see above, the parallel is quire clear, because both passages speak of birth pains in the same context.
====Example 20:====
Similarity in use of theological language:
Mark 13:22
22 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Romans 8:33
33Who shall lay a charge against the choice ones of God? God is He that is declaring righteous,
Col 3:12
Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,
Paul purports that there is an “elect” or “chosen” among the people who are lucky to have God’s grace. This idea, if it was only Paul’s, some how found its way in Q, or Matthew made a lucky guess of a profound theological idea that is the basis of Christianity.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites as a whole are the only ones ever called the “chosen ones” (see http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22chosen+ones%22&searchtype=all&version1=15&spanbegin=1&spanend=73), but Mark talks of the chosen ones as an elect of God’s grace. This is specifically a New Testament idea and so whatever Paul is referring to is apparently the same as what Mark is originally referring to—the historical Jesus.
====Example 21:====
Mark 14:22-25
And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 14.23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 14.24And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 14.25Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 11:23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
The same exact ceremony is quoted here, though it does have early connections with Mithraism.
====Example 22:====
Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
The idea of the right hand is found all over Paul’s writings. The following are two examples of Paul’s idea of the right hand directly paralleling that found in Mark:
Romans 8:34
who is he that is condemning? Christ is He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
Col 3:1
1If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated,
In the Old Testament, the “right hand” exclusively refers to God’s ability to act through humans or assist humans. For a list of every time this term has been used in the Bible, see the following link (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search="right%20hand"&version1=31&searchtype=all). The idea of being on or helped by God’s right hand is all over the Old Testament. However, the idea of having a particular individual, that being Jesus himself, on God’s right hand is mentioned several times by both Paul and Peter. Because of this, the passage in Matthew derives itself from origins at least as early as the Epistles.
====Example 23:====
Mark 15:38
And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.
Hebrews 10:19-20
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
The parallel here deals with the curtain. It covered the entrance of the “Most Holy Place” inside the Temple, and with it torn, everyone was given access to God through Jesus’ death. Hebrews is often attributed to the Apostle Paul, but he no where signs it. However, this letter was quoted by Clement in 95 C.E. Therefore, it is likely that it was written decades earlier.
===Parallels Found in Luke===
The author of Luke himself claims that "many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events" that were based on sources "handed on to us by eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1-2). This means that there could have been several sources, possibly Matthew, Mark, Thomas, Q, or even more that were considered to be fairly accurate portrayals of Jesus' life and sayings. The author clearly states that he is basing his Gospel after "investigating everything" from the several sources available to him (Luke 1:3). However, one should note that the author is far more loose with his use of Mark, the earliest Gospel, than Matthew.. Whether this makes his Gospel more or less accurate cannot be known. The following are parallels between what is written in Luke and the Epistles.
====Example 1:====
Luke 6:29
To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
1 Peter 3:9
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
If one reads past Matthew 5:39, it pretty much makes the same theological point as 1 Peter 3:9. Some scholars consider believe 1 Peter is pseudographical.
However, Lamentations 3:30 is probably the bona fida origin of this saying in the Jewish tradition:
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace.
====Example 2:====
Luke 6:37
Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven
Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbour?
One can observe that there are parallels in theology and language in the above sources. James might be pseudographical, but Romans, as are many of Paul’s letters’ authenticity, are uncontested.
====Example 3:====
Luke 6:39
He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?
Romans 2:19-21
if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
The above parallel each other in language and theology. Paul was using the analogy to condemn those who taught Christians to follow Jewish law, when they without a doubt break the law. Matthew uses the Q quote to justify Jesus’ opposition to strict adherence to the law, while in Luke, Jesus urges his disciples to accept his religious guidance and not judge others. The Gospel of Thomas leaves the parable unexplained.
====Example 4:====
Luke 6:43-44
For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 6.44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
James 3:12
My brothers, can a fig-tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
There appears to be an identical idea purported by both of the above, but with a slight difference in delivery. However, James might be pseudographical.
====Example 5:====
Luke 6:46
Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?
James 2:14
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
The theology of the above is identical. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical.
====Example 6:====
Luke 6:47-48
Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: 6.48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built
James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
1 Corinthians 13:10-15
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
An identical idea is being expressed in the above passages. One is told to listen to Jesus' words and practice them, because only this would give foundation to one’s faith. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical. Nonetheless, Corinthians (definitely written by the Apostle Paul) and Hebrews (which is possibly also written by Paul), get even more specific and mention the word “foundation” in the same context.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #26968
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-06-18 23:04
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| External site |
====Example 7:====
Luke 7:1-10
After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Caper'na-um. 7.2 Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. 7.3 When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7.4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." 7.6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7.7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 7.8 For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 7.9 When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 7.10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Romans 9:30-31
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
The parallel here is that the gentiles have more faith inn accordance with Jesus’ Way than the Israelites.
====Example 8:====
Luke 8:10
he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets (some ancient authorities say “mysteries) of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”
1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, having come unto you, brethren, came -- not in superiority of discourse or wisdom -- declaring to you the testimony (some ancient authorities say “mystery”) of God…
If the correct ancient sources said “mystery,” then this is a striking parallel, because no where in the old testament is there a mention of the “mystery of God.”
====Example 9:====
Luke 8:16
No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light. 8.17 For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.
Gospel of Thomas
33 Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops. After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."
2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The quote from Peter also has a lot in common with the Gospel of Thomas: what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. Then again, this passage might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to the Gospels of Thomas or Luke at all. Furthermore, 2 Peter is likely pseudographical.
====Example 10:====
Luke 9:26
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels
Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
The parallel here is the use of the word “ashamed” in the context of it not being wise to be ashamed of “me and my words”—the Gospel.
====Example 11:====
Luke 9:46-48
And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 9.47 But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, 9.48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."
There are two close to identical quotes from James and Peter that refer to the importance of being humble:
1 Peter 5:5-6
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
James 4:6, 10
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble....Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
Due to the fact that Peter and James use identical language, particularly the use of "lift you up," it is likely they are referencing an earlier source. Furthermore, the fact that Peter speaks of "young men" appears to show a connection between the importance of being humble in both Matthew and Peter. However, both sources might be pseudographical.
====Example 12:====
Luke 10:3-7
Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 10.4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road. 10.5 Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' 10.6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
The message here is a Q message, also found in Matthew 10:19-20 and has the same message that Paul says Jesus himself had spoken.
==== Example 13:====
Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will
1 Corinthians 1:26-30
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
1 Corinthians 3:1
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ
The parallels here are that Christians are referred to as babies and are given great amounts of understanding when compared to those high and wise by “human standards.”
====Example 14:====
Luke 10:27
And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
1 John 4:21
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
Though the quote Jesus is referring to is Leviticus 19:18, John agrees with Matthew (and the Gospels of Mark and Luke) that Jesus said this. However, some scholars consider John to be pseudographical. Nonetheless, it is quoted in four Epistles, and so it is very likely that a Historical Jesus did say this and put great emphasis on it.
====Example 15:====
Luke 11:43
Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the market places.
James 2:2-5
Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
The parallels here are the condemnation of judging people by status and doing this at even a religious meeting.
====Example 16:====
Luke 11:49
Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'
The “Wisdom of God” is a very rarely used term in the Bible. It is used once in the Old Testament:
1 kings 3:28
fronhsiv qeou
understanding, knowledge of God’s
However, the Greek used for “wisdom of God” in the New Testament does not follow that of the Septuagint.
Luke 11:49
sofia tou qeou
wisdom of God
1 Corinthians 1:21
sofiav ton qeon
wisdom of God
1 Corinthians 1:24
qeou sofian
wisdom of God
1 Corinthians 2:7
qeou sofian
wisdom of God
Ephesians 3:10
sofia tou qeou
wisdom of God
The term “wisdom of God” is a New Testament idea regarding God’s spirit imparting knowledge. Due to the parallel found only in Paul’s letters, Luke is referring to an idea at least as old as 1 Corinthians and probably originates with Jesus.
====Example 17:====
Luke 12:1
…beware of the leaven of the Pharisees…
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast— as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Galatians 5:9
A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.
The parallel here is that the idea of ceremonial impurity of Passover is being used as an allegory of moral impurity.
====Example 18:====
Luke 12:2-3
Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 12.3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Paul’s quote seems to be a paraphrase of the Gospel quote.
2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The quote from Peter has the same implication as that of Mark: what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. Then again, this passage might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to the Gospels of Thomas or Mark at all. Furthermore, 2 Peter is considered by many scholars to be pseudographical.
====Example 19:====
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
2 Corinthians 4:6-10
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"amade his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
Here, the word “treasure” is being used in the same context, but the theology is more precise and specific. People store up treasure by having faith in Jesus. HThere are two more Epistles quotes that mirror Jesus’ words more closely:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
This has the same idea as the Luke quote. James gets it even closer in James 5:1-3:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
The mentioning of both rust (corrosion) and moths makes this parallel likely not a coincidence in theology or language. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy and James to be pseudographical.
====Example 20:====
Luke 12:39-40
But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 12.40 You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour."
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
As we see above, the parallel is quire clear, because both passages speak of thievery in the same context. Furthermore, Peter appears to be referencing the same saying attributed to Jesus. However, many scholars believe 2 Peter is pseudographical.
====Example 21:====
Luke 16:8
The master commended the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; for the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.
Ephesians 5:8
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
1 Thessalonians 5:5
5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
The parallel is the use of the term “sons of light” for Christians.
====Example 22:====
Similarity in use of theological language:
Luke 18:7
And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?
Romans 8:33
33Who shall lay a charge against the choice ones of God? God is He that is declaring righteous,
Col 3:12
Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,
Paul purports that there is an “elect” or “chosen” among the people who are lucky to have God’s grace. This idea, if it was only Paul’s, some how found its way in Q, or Matthew made a lucky guess of a profound theological idea that is the basis of Christianity.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites as a whole are the only ones ever called the “chosen ones” (see http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22chosen+ones%22&searchtype=all&version1=15&spanbegin=1&spanend=73), but Mark talks of the chosen ones as an elect of God’s grace. This is specifically a New Testament idea and so whatever Paul is referring to is apparently the same as what Mark is originally referring to—the historical Jesus.
====Example 23:====
Luke 18:9-14
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 18.10 " Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 18.11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 18.12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' 18.13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 18.14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Romans 3:21-28
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,a through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
The parallel here is the use of the word “boasting” to show misdirected holiness towards Jewish law instead of humbling oneself and having faith in Jesus. Thus, the theology here is exactly the same.
====Example 24:====
Luke 18:22
And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
Both passages speak of “treasures in heaven” and have identical theology. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy to be pseudographical.
====Example 25:====
Luke 18:24-25
Jesus looking at him said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 18.25 For 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."
1 Timothy 6:9-10
People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Both passages share the same idea. However, passages in the Old Testament attest to the same idea, but they do not condemn wealth altogether. Furthermore, 1 Timothy might be pseudographical.
====Example 26:====
Luke 20:17
But he looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?
Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:7
7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone”
Only in the New Testament is Jesus the “cornerstone” from Psalms 118:22. However, due to an apparent alteration in parts of Paul’s theology in Ephesians, and doubts of 1 Peter’s authenticity, it is possible that the Epistles presented here are pseudographical.
====Example 27:====
Luke 20:25
He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
This famous line sums up ideas from Paul and Peter nicely:
Romans 13:7
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
1 Peter 2:15-17
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king.
Peter’s especially sums up the meaning behind Matthew 22:21. Furthermore, the sentence structure found in Romans 13:7 is reminiscent of Matthew 22:21.
====Example 28:====
Luke 20:35-36
but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 20.36 for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:35-50
35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"a; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall web bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Both passages confirm that the resurrection is not physical, but spiritual.
====Example 29:====
Luke 21:24
they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Romans 11:15
For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Paul appears to be paraphrasing what Luke purports what Jesus said.
====Example 30:====
Luke 21:34-36
" But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; 21.35 for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. 21.36 But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man."
1 Thessalonians 5:6-11
6So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
The parallel here is the warning for Christians to be alert and avoid dissipation, which would take away the alertness. Also see Romans 13:11-14.
====Example 31:====
Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 22.20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
The same exact ceremony is quoted here, though it does have early connections with Mithraism.
====Example 32:====
Luke 22:28-30
You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 22.29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 22.30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
1 Corinthians 6:1-2
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
While Paul often talks about God or Jesus judging, here he adds the idea of “saints” judging. This idea is much alike that of the disciples judging found in Luke. However, Paul might be referring to the men and women of the Old Testament.
====Example 33:====
Luke 22:37-38
For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." 22.38 And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."
Romans 13:12
The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Ephesians 6:11-13
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
The marked difference in the Epistles is that one is urged to arm oneself with defensive armor (the Gospel), while in Luke, Jesus says the same, but refers to an offensive weapon.
====Example 34:====
Luke 22:69
But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
The idea of the right hand is found all over Paul’s writings. The following are two examples of Paul’s idea of the right hand directly paralleling that found in Luke:
Romans 8:34
who is he that is condemning? Christ is He that died, yea, rather also, was raised up; who is also on the right hand of God -- who also doth intercede for us.
Colossians 3:1
1If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated,
In the Old Testament, the “right hand” exclusively refers to God’s ability to act through humans or assist humans. For a list of every time this term has been used in the Bible, see the following link (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search="right%20hand"&version1=31&searchtype=all). The idea of being on or helped by God’s right hand is all over the Old Testament. However, the idea of having a particular individual, that being Jesus himself, on God’s right hand is mentioned several times by both Paul and Peter. Because of this, the passage in Matthew derives itself from origins at least as early as the Epistles.
====Example 35:====
Luke 23:45
while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two.
Hebrews 10:19-20
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,
The parallel here deals with the curtain. It covered the entrance of the “Most Holy Place” inside the Temple, and with it torn, everyone was given access to God through Jesus’ death. Hebrews is often attributed to the Apostle Paul, but he no where signs it. However, this letter was quoted by Clement in 95 C.E. Therefore, it is likely that it was written decades earlier.
===Parallels Found in John===
John is the least like the other Gospels, but is probably from a tradition starting with or attributed to the Apostle John (See John 21:24.) Furthermore, there are strong connections between the Gospel of John and the first letter of John. However, it is unknown if the first letter of John is pseudographical or not, and whether it came before of after the Gospel of John. Nonetheless, if the Epistles that the Gospel of John has strong connections with are not pseudographical, it does indeed show that John was based upon an earlier source, possibly John himself.
====Example 1:====
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 12:13
F or we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
The parallel here is that the baptism of water is theologically associated with the Holy Spirit and birth.
====Example 2:====
John 3:29
He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.
2 Corinthians 11:2
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
In the Old Testament, the people of Israel were brides of God. The parallel here is that Christians are brides of Jesus.
====Example 3:====
John 5:24-25
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 5.25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Ephesians 2:5-8
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
1 John 3:4
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.
The parallel here is that those who hear and follow the Gospel have eternal life during their mortal life—a different concept than gaining life after literal death. However, it is possible that both Ephesians and the first letter of John are pseudographical.
====Example 4:====
John 5:28-29
an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment
Romans 2:6
6who God shall render to each according to his works;
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
The same idea is found in both passages, but the language is much different.
====Example 5:====
John 5:36-37
But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen;
1 John 5:9
We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
The parallel here is that it is said that God testifies for Jesus’ importance over that of the testimony of a “mere” mortal such as John the Baptist.
The same idea is also seen here:
John 8:18
I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me
1 John 5:10
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
The parallel here is that God testifies on Jesus’ behalf.
====Example 6:====
John 6:46-48
Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 6.48 I am the bread of life.
1 John 4:12-13
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
The parallel here is the idea that no one has seen God (though Moses, Adam, and other Biblical figures supposedly had done this) and that one can get new life through Jesus.
====Example 7:====
John 8:12
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
1 John 1:5-7
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
The parallel here is that Jesus (or his teachings) is light, he’s a guiding force for one towards God.
====Example 8:====
John 8:12
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Romans 6:16
Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
2 Peter 2:19
They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
Those who sin are slaves to it, an idea first recorded by Paul, because 2 Peter is likely pseudographical.
====Example 9:====
John 9:31
We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
1 John 4:12-13
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
See also John 14:13-14. The idea is identical, but it probably originates from Proverbs 15:29:
The LORD is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.
====Example 10:====
John 12:36
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.
Ephesians 5:8
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
1 Thessalonians 5:5
5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
The parallel is the use of the term “sons of light” for Christians.
====Example 11:====
John 15:13
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
1 John 3:16
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
The idea of love equaling sacrificing oneself for her/his friends is found no where else in the Bible.
====Example 12:====
John 17:5
and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him
1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
The claim that Jesus existed before creation is substantiated in the Epistles, though 1 Peter might be pseudographical.
===Parallels Found Strictly in "Q"===
Even though it can never be known whether the material found not in Luke, but in Matthew or visa versa was from Q or yet other sources we do not know of, it is known that the material they do share probably is. The following is a listing of such passages found both in Matthew and Luke that parallel with the Epistles. Perhaps, this material is the earliest and thus most accurate recordings of Jesus' sayings.
====Example 1:====
Matthew 10:9-10
Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, 10.10 no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food.
Luke 10:3-7
Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 10.4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road. 10.5 Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' 10.6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
This is the same message that Paul says Jesus himself had spoken.
====Example 2:====
Matthew 6:19-20
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, 6.20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
2 Corinthians 4:6-10
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"amade his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
Here, the word “treasure” is being used in the same context, but the theology is more precise and specific. People store up treasure by having faith in Jesus. HThere are two more Epistles quotes that mirror Jesus’ words more closely:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
This has the same idea as the Q quote. James gets it even closer in James 5:1-3:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
The mentioning of both rust (corrosion) and moths makes this parallel likely not a coincidence in theology or language. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy and James to be pseudographical.
====Example 3====
Matthew 15:14
Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
Luke 6:39
He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?
Romans 2:19-21
if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
The above parallel each other in language and theology. Paul was using the analogy to condemn those who taught Christians to follow Jewish law, when they without a doubt break the law. Matthew uses the Q quote to justify Jesus’ opposition to strict adherence to the law, while in Luke, Jesus urges his disciples to accept his religious guidance and not judge others. The Gospel of Thomas leaves the parable unexplained.
====Example 4====
Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven
Luke 6:46
Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?
James 2:14
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
The theology of the above is identical. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical.
====Example 5:====
Matthew 7:20
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Luke 6:47-48
Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: 6.48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built
James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
1 Corinthians 13:10-15
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
An identical idea is being expressed in the above passages. One is told to listen to Jesus' words and practice them, because only this would give foundation to one’s faith. However, some scholars believe James is pseudographical. Nonetheless, Corinthians (definitely written by the Apostle Paul) and Hebrews (which is possibly also written by Paul), get even more specific and mention the word “foundation” in the same context.
====Example 6:====
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 6:29
To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
1 Peter 3:9
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
If one reads past Matthew 5:39, it pretty much makes the same theological point as 1 Peter 3:9. Some scholars consider believe 1 Peter is pseudographical.
However, Lamentations 3:30 is probably the bona fida origin of this saying in the Jewish tradition:
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace.
====Example 7:====
Matthew 7:1-2
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Luke 6:37
Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven
Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbour?
One can observe that there are parallels in theology and language in the above sources. James might be pseudographical, but Romans, as are many of Paul’s letters’ authenticity, are uncontested.
====Example 8:====
Matthew 7:18
A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luke 6:43-44
For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 6.44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
James 3:12
My brothers, can a fig-tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
There appears to be an identical idea purported by both of the above, but with a slight difference in delivery. However, James might be pseudographical.
====Example 9:====
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:28-30
You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 22.29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 22.30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
1 Corinthians 6:1-2
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
While Paul often talks about God or Jesus judging, here he adds the idea of “saints” judging. This idea is much alike that of the disciples judging found in Luke. However, Paul might be referring to the men and women of the Old Testament.
====Example 10:====
Matthew 43-44
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Luke 12:39-40
But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 12.40 You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour."
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
As we see above, the parallel is quire clear, because both passages speak of thievery in the same context. Furthermore, Peter appears to be referencing the same saying attributed to Jesus. However, many scholars believe 2 Peter is pseudographical.
====Example 11:====
Matthew 8:5-13
As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him 8.6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." 8.7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8.8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8.9 For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 8.10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." 8.13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
Luke 7:1-10
After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Caper'na-um. 7.2 Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. 7.3 When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7.4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." 7.6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7.7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 7.8 For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 7.9 When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 7.10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Romans 9:30-31
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
The parallel here is that the gentiles have more faith inn accordance with Jesus’ Way than the Israelites.
==== Example 12:====
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;
Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will
1 Corinthians 1:26-30
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
1 Corinthians 3:1
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ
The parallels here are that Christians are referred to as babies and are given great amounts of understanding when compared to those high and wise by “human standards.”
===Parallels In The Gospel of Thomas===
The dating of the Gospel of Thomas cannot be known. Some scholars speculate it is a Gnostic work of the second century, while others believe it might be the earliest of the Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas lacks Gnostic terminology, has strong parallels to the Epistles, and even contains a quote attributed to Jesus from an authentic Pauline Epistle found in no other Gospel. Furthermore, its structure lacks any resemblance to the other Gospels, thus the probability that the Gospel of Thomas was made independently from the other Gospels is quite possible. For these reasons, one can assume that the Gospel of Thomas, or some earlier form of it, was a mid first century Gospel.
====Example 1:====
Gospel of Thomas 5
Jesus said: "Recognize what is before your face and that which is hidden from the you will be revealed to you. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which shall not be raised."
1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
Paul’s quote seems to be a paraphrase of the Gospel quote.
====Example 2:====
Gospel of Thomas 14
When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them.
The parallel is more apparent when the context is clearer:
Luke 10:3-7
Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 10.4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road. 10.5 Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' 10.6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. 10.7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house.
1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
The message here is a Q message, also found in Matthew 10:19-20 and has the same message that Paul says Jesus himself had spoken.
====Example 2:====
Gospel of Thomas 14
For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you.
Romans 14:14
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.
The sentence structure and theology in these two passages is a striking parallel.
====Example 3:====
Gospel of Thomas 17
Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."
1 Corinthians 2:8
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
There is no passage in the Bible that parallels what Paul says was written, besides the Gospel of Thomas quote and possibly Isaiah 64:4. It is likely that the Thomas quote existed in written form during Paul’s time, because he attributes the quote to the “Holy Spirit,” an idea that arose after Jesus. The fact that Paul says that this quote was written, and that the Thomas quote shares 3 parallels (1. God giving what no eye has seen, 2. God giving what no ear has heard, and 3. God giving something inconceivable to the mind) while the Isaiah 64:4 only shares two increases the probability that the Gospel of Thomas existed in some form as an early source.
====Example 4:====
Gospel of Thomas 21
Therefore I say to you, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming, he will begin his vigil before he comes and will not let him into his house of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on your guard against the world.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
3 While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
As we see above, the parallel is quire clear, because both passages speak of thievery in the same context. Furthermore, Peter appears to be referencing the same saying attributed to Jesus. However, many scholars believe 2 Peter is pseudographical.
====Example :====
Gospel of Thomas 21
Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize.
Romans 13:12
The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Ephesians 6:11-13
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.
The marked difference in the Epistles is that one is urged to arm oneself with defensive armor (the Gospel), while in Thomas, Jesus says the same, but refers to an offensive weapon.
====Example 5:====
Gospel of Thomas 22
Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom."
There are two close to identical quotes from James and Peter that refer to the importance of being humble:
1 Peter 5:5-6
Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
James 4:6, 10
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble....Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.
Due to the fact that Peter and James use identical language, particularly the use of "lift you up," it is likely they are referencing an earlier source. Furthermore, the fact that Peter speaks of "young men" appears to show a connection between the importance of being humble in both Thomas and Peter. However, both sources might be pseudographical.
====Example 6:====
Gospel of Thomas 33
Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops. After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."
2 Peter 1:19-21
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The message is that what was hidden is revealed by the prophets’ foreknowledge of Jesus. Then again, this passage might be referring to Numbers 24:17 and not to the Gospel of Thomas at all. Furthermore, 2 Peter is likely pseudographical.
====Example 7:====
Gospel of Thomas 34
Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."
Romans 2:19-21
if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
The above parallel each other in language and theology. Paul was using the analogy to condemn those who taught Christians to follow Jewish law, when they without a doubt break the law. Matthew uses the Q quote to justify Jesus’ opposition to strict adherence to the law, while in Luke, Jesus urges his disciples to accept his religious guidance and not judge others. The Gospel of Thomas leaves the parable unexplained.
====Example 8:====
Gospel of Thomas 45
Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit. A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things."
James 3:12
My brothers, can a fig-tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
There appears to be an identical idea purported by both of the above, but with a slight difference in delivery. However, James might be pseudographical.
====Example 9:====
Gospel of Thomas 48
Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move Away,' and it will move away."
Gospel of Thomas 106
Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."
1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Both passages have the exact same idea: faith can move mountains, thus accomplish great things.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #26969
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-06-18 23:05
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| External site |
====Example :====
Gospel of Thomas 49
Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return."
Gospel of Thomas 50
….“If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the Living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"
Romans 8:33
33Who shall lay a charge against the choice ones of God? God is He that is declaring righteous,
Col 3:12
Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,
Paul purports that there is an “elect” or “chosen” among the people who are lucky to have God’s grace. This idea, if it was only Paul’s, some how found its way in Q, or Matthew made a lucky guess of a profound theological idea that is the basis of Christianity.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites as a whole are the only ones ever called the “chosen ones” (see http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=%22chosen+ones%22&searchtype=all&version1=15&spanbegin=1&spanend=73), but Thomas talks of the chosen ones as an elect of God’s grace. This is specifically a New Testament idea and so whatever Paul is referring to is apparently the same as what Thomas is originally referring to—the historical Jesus.
====Example :====
Gospel of Thomas 50
Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its the light’s children…"
Ephesians 5:8
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light
1 Thessalonians 5:5
5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
The parallel is the use of the term “children of light” for Christians.
====Example 10:====
Gospel of Thomas 62
Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of My mysteries that I tell My mysteries.
1 Corinthians 2:1
And I, having come unto you, brethren, came -- not in superiority of discourse or wisdom -- declaring to you the testimony (some ancient authorities say “mystery”) of God…
If the correct ancient sources said “mystery,” then this is a striking parallel, because no where in the old testament is there a mention of the “mystery of God.”
====Example 11:====
Gospel of Thomas 66
Jesus said, "Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone."
Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
1 Peter 2:7
7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone”
Only in the New Testament is Jesus the “cornerstone” from Psalms 118:22. However, due to an apparent alteration in parts of Paul’s theology in Ephesians, and doubts of 1 Peter’s authenticity, it is possible that the Epistles presented here are pseudographical.
====Example 12:====
Gospel of Thomas 76
You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys.
2 Corinthians 4:6-10
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"amade his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 7But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.
Here, the word “treasure” is being used in the same context, but the theology is more precise and specific. People store up treasure by having faith in Jesus. HThere are two more Epistles quotes that mirror Jesus’ words more closely:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
This has the same idea as the Thomas quote, which also mentions the “treasure in heaven.” James gets it even closer in James 5:1-3:
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
The mentioning of both rust (corrosion) and moths makes this parallel likely not a coincidence in theology or language. However, some scholars consider 1 Timothy and James to be pseudographical.
====Example 13:====
Gospel of Thomas 100
They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to Him, "Caesar's men demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give God what belongs to God, and give Me what is Mine."
This famous line sums up ideas from Paul and Peter nicely:
Romans 13:7
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.
1 Peter 2:15-17
For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the king.
Peter’s especially sums up the meaning behind Matthew 22:21. Furthermore, the sentence structure found in Romans 13:7 is reminiscent of Matthew 22:21.
=== Sources ===
*Society of Biblical Literature. The Harper Collins Study Bible. New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1993.
*http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-6gv.htm
*http://www.biblegateway.com
*http://www.gospelthomas.com
*http://www.searchgodsword.org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #27438
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-06-23 09:15
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: I wrote this to be a wiki, but... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
I don't think it will meet their standards, because it is too large. However, I hope I have settled the question of Jesus' historiocity between the two of us.
|
The problem is that even if you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark, Paul, and Q all used a common source, that in no way answers the question as to whether this single source was fiction or non-fiction.
In fact, if the Jesus story did derive from a single written source, that would actually increase the likelihood that the story is fiction. This is because, if Jesus were a real person, the best thing to prove his existence would be several independent eyewitness accounts. Instead, we have Paul (who doesn't know squat about the flesh-and-blood Jesus), Mark (who stole his whole Jesus tale from previous Pagan & Jewish stories), Matthew & Luke (who mixed Mark's tale with a bunch of witty sayings), the apostles (who didn't write anything at all), and a bunch of other writings based on the writings of these other people. The common source of this whole tale seems to center on the early Jewish Christians (the "apostles") -- Paul met these people ... and he never claims that they knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. And if the founders of Christianity never met the guy, then who did?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #28508
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-06-30 20:05
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
The problem is that even if you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark, Paul, and Q all used a common source, that in no way answers the question as to whether this single source was fiction or non-fiction.
In fact, if the Jesus story did derive from a single written source, that would actually increase the likelihood that the story is fiction. |
I will have to disagree with you there. I think your bar is faulty. For ancient history, we go by on as few as one sketchy single source. The Christian religion has plenty of those, certainly. But it also has some sure-fire early sources, and sources from around that one with similar theology, but different phrasing, and sometimes exact phrasing but different takes on theology-- but still more the same.
Lacking any single source that argues Jesus was an idea and does not exist, we are led to believe by pure liklihood that such a guy really existed, yet still doubt the scientifically impossible elements of the story. Furthermore, due to about 3 or so early sources of the guy's sayings that can sometimes be very different, but more of the same in idea, this further leads us to believe that the single source was likely not one book of fiction, but a bunch of different people scrapping together whatever was attributed to a relatively unpopular guy at the time.
Now, you can argue that these stories all arisen after paul, but date-wise, this cannot be known for certain, and the lack of copy-cat phrases shows a great deal of independence in terms of authorship, if not the fact that Paul took for granted that people already knew what Jesus said. After all, he talks about what a great guy Jesus is and why his theology is meaningful, but never seems to bother teling people to refer to any list of sayings. The probable reason in my mind is that he was preaching to the converted, who were already told a lot of the stuff Jesus said, and Paul was worried about people carrying out such beliefs that were not in accordance with his theology. Everything is consistant in this, while he have zero evidence to go by the contradictory.
As I told you before, if you doubt Jesus' existence, you might as well throw Thucydides out the window. The individual almost certainly exist, unless I am to doubt that almost every recorded individual does not exist. Like I said, I could be wrong, but the odds seem to be against that after honest research and consideration.
| Quote: |
| This is because, if Jesus were a real person, the best thing to prove his existence would be several independent eyewitness accounts. Instead, we have Paul (who doesn't know squat about the flesh-and-blood Jesus), Mark (who stole his whole Jesus tale from previous Pagan & Jewish stories), Matthew & Luke (who mixed Mark's tale with a bunch of witty sayings), the apostles (who didn't write anything at all), and a bunch of other writings based on the writings of these other people. The common source of this whole tale seems to center on the early Jewish Christians (the "apostles") -- Paul met these people ... and he never claims that they knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. And if the founders of Christianity never met the guy, then who did? |
Well, as you say, if these guys seemed to be the initial ones to fabricate the stories, record and pass along the sayings, and develop theological off-shoots like Paul, isn't it more than likely that they have a common source in an individual? By historical standards, yes.
We can disprove Jesus' existence by saying the epistles do not show evidence of Jesus' supposed theology, or we can disprove by saying there is way too much of it.
This seems akin to the logic that if antarctic ice is melting, then it must be global warming, and if it is increasing, then it must also be global warming.
It cannot be both ways. It more likely is thaty if ice is decreasing, then it is warmer and if it is not, it is more likely colder. We can add justification to either side of the argument, but we still have common sense to go buy.
Without heady, if not sophistic, arguments to the contrary, what we are left with is a pile (though not overwhelming, but solid by ancient standards) of evidence that a certain individual like Jesus did exist, because the lack of such evidence would prove the contrary. Furthermore, we have decades old evidence, pretty good by ancient standards, by people who lived at the time, in the area.
Granted, those people are somewhat questionable, but all historical sources, especially ancient ones, are very very questionable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #29420
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-07-08 05:09
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
The problem is that even if you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark, Paul, and Q all used a common source, that in no way answers the question as to whether this single source was fiction or non-fiction.
In fact, if the Jesus story did derive from a single written source, that would actually increase the likelihood that the story is fiction. |
I will have to disagree with you there. I think your bar is faulty. For ancient history, we go by on as few as one sketchy single source. The Christian religion has plenty of those, certainly. But it also has some sure-fire early sources, and sources from around that one with similar theology, but different phrasing, and sometimes exact phrasing but different takes on theology-- but still more the same.
|
It isn't that the first sources are merely "sketchy" ... it is that they don't exist at all. The initial sources of the Jesus tale (i.e Paul, James, Peter, et al) only claim to have seen Jesus' ghost ... not Jesus.
I think Paul summed it up nicely in 1st Corinthians...
| From 1 Corinthians 15:4-8 |
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
|
Let's take these in order --
- Jesus' ghost first appeared to the twelve disciples. The "twelve disciples" were taken directly from "last supper" story of Mithraism, and represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
- There is no historical record of a flying ghost of Jesus appearing to 500 Jews. Neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, nor John mention this event. You have to wonder where Paul got this strange idea.
- Next come the Apostles ... which Paul knew ... and which for some reason Paul differentiates from the 12 disciples. In other words, the apostles were not the twelve disciples.
- And finally comes Paul, who met up with Jesus on the side of the road. And the strange thing about that visit is that Paul was traveling with several other people, yet nobody else could see him. (In other words, it was all in Paul's head)
| sorianofan wrote: |
Lacking any single source that argues Jesus was an idea and does not exist, we are led to believe by pure liklihood that such a guy really existed, yet still doubt the scientifically impossible elements of the story. Furthermore, due to about 3 or so early sources of the guy's sayings that can sometimes be very different, but more of the same in idea, this further leads us to believe that the single source was likely not one book of fiction, but a bunch of different people scrapping together whatever was attributed to a relatively unpopular guy at the time.
|
Pretty much the only thing left of the Jesus myth after the plagiarized mythology is stripped away is the parables. But there really isn't any reason to believe that these were anything more than generic sayings. Paul's letters (written in 50-58AD) made no mention of any of these sayings. A limited number of them appear in the writings of Mark, and then Mathew and Luke added a few more to their versions of the Jesus tale (7 by both Mathew and Luke, 11 by Matthew alone, and 12 by Luke alone).
To me, it seems that if these sayings were the genuine words of Jesus, Paul and the other early apostles would have been aware of them. Therefore, it appears that a list of sayings was compiled and distributed as the words of Jesus shortly after Paul wrote his letters. Mark got a hold on an earlier version of this Q document, and Matthew and Luke both used an expanded version. But this process seems to indicate that "Q" was not the actually words of a guy who died in 32AD, but rather a latter compilation which was expanded several times over the course of 2 or 3 decades.
When Paul wrote his letters, Jesus had already been (supposedly) dead for almost 20 years. Paul met with the apostles on several occasions, so it seems highly unlikely that Q could have existed at the time (50-58AD) and still could have been unknown to all of the early Christians. About the only explanation for this is that the parables were not part of Jesus original teaching, and were just a collection quotes which were falsely attributed to him 40-60 years after the time of his (supposed) death.
But if you remove the mythology and the parables from the Jesus myth, you end up with nothing at all. This goes beyond being a just a "sketchy" tale of a real-life messiah. It is an out-and-out fraud.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, you can argue that these stories all arisen after paul, but date-wise, this cannot be known for certain, and the lack of copy-cat phrases shows a great deal of independence in terms of authorship, if not the fact that Paul took for granted that people already knew what Jesus said.
|
Paul preached to the Gentiles. The only thing they knew of Jesus is what Paul told them. And Paul’s letters never mention a single reference to anything Jesus ever said, apart from bits such as the following which were stolen directly from Mithraism:
| From 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 |
11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
|
This goes back to what I was saying earlier about Christianity being stolen wholesale from prior myths. Notice how Paul has no problem recounting Jesus' words at the last supper, but is completely unaware of anything Jesus said before this time. This is because Paul was only familiar with the early version of Christianity, which was little more than a Judaized version of the Mithra myth. The reason that Paul is unaware of anything else Jesus ever said is because the rest of Jesus' story hadn't been made up yet.
| sorianofan wrote: |
After all, he talks about what a great guy Jesus is and why his theology is meaningful, but never seems to bother teling people to refer to any list of sayings. The probable reason in my mind is that he was preaching to the converted, who were already told a lot of the stuff Jesus said, and Paul was worried about people carrying out such beliefs that were not in accordance with his theology. Everything is consistant in this, while he have zero evidence to go by the contradictory.
|
So, it is just a coincidence that Paul never makes any reference to anything his Messiah ever said? Just look through Paul's letters and observe how many times Paul could have made a good point by referencing the words of his almighty spiritual leader. It is just inconceivable that Paul could have written 80,000 words about Jesus and his teachings, yet never reference any actual quotes from Jesus. Paul knew the words Jesus used at the last supper and included those in his letters, but no others.
If Paul really believed that Jesus was the son of his god, the words of this guy should have carried some importance with him -- assuming Paul was aware of them. This leads me to two conclusions; Either Paul did not know the words of Jesus, or he didn't care about them. And the latter doesn't really seem like a viable possibility. The entire purpose of those letters was to clarify Jesus' teaching to Paul's followers, and it doesn't seem possible that Paul would have excluded Jesus' words from his arguments on purpose.
| sorianofan wrote: |
As I told you before, if you doubt Jesus' existence, you might as well throw Thucydides out the window. The individual almost certainly exist, unless I am to doubt that almost every recorded individual does not exist. Like I said, I could be wrong, but the odds seem to be against that after honest research and consideration.
|
Thucydides was a regular person who wrote a regular history of a regular war. The historical accuracy of the war of which he writes is verified by several other sources. He doesn't claim to be a god. He doesn't tell people how to live their lives. He isn't trying to collect a legion of followers. And most importantly, his own writings survive to this day, even though they pre-date Jesus' times by almost 500 years.
It is wrong to compare Thucydides to Jesus because there is actually more evidence for the existence of this obscure Athenian general than there is for Jesus. A better comparison would be to compare Jesus to Mithra, Osiris or Hercules.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is because, if Jesus were a real person, the best thing to prove his existence would be several independent eyewitness accounts. Instead, we have Paul (who doesn't know squat about the flesh-and-blood Jesus), Mark (who stole his whole Jesus tale from previous Pagan & Jewish stories), Matthew & Luke (who mixed Mark's tale with a bunch of witty sayings), the apostles (who didn't write anything at all), and a bunch of other writings based on the writings of these other people. The common source of this whole tale seems to center on the early Jewish Christians (the "apostles") -- Paul met these people ... and he never claims that they knew a flesh-and-blood Jesus. And if the founders of Christianity never met the guy, then who did? |
Well, as you say, if these guys seemed to be the initial ones to fabricate the stories, record and pass along the sayings, and develop theological off-shoots like Paul, isn't it more than likely that they have a common source in an individual? By historical standards, yes.
We can disprove Jesus' existence by saying the epistles do not show evidence of Jesus' supposed theology, or we can disprove by saying there is way too much of it.
|
Not at all. Scientology started with one person, but is total bullshit. Raëlism started with one person, but is total bullshit. Mormonism started with one person (who also has a small group of followers), yet Mormonism is total bullshit. These are all stories for which we can absolutely attribute a single source, and all are bullshit. I don't understand why you seem to believe that a single source proves that it is non-fiction. (The story of George Washington derives from countless independent sources, and therefore we know the guy was real... with that silly little Cherry Tree myth added later.)
Basically, you are trying to say this...
1) The Jesus story was spread by the original apostles.
2) Therefore, the story is true.
But that logic is seriously flawed. For one, you are completely ignoring the fact that the version of the Jesus story originally spread by the apostles was stolen from previous myths. That makes them a terrible source for 2nd-hand information about an historical figure. They really didn't know anything about Jesus other than the Mithras tale. And that makes their story bullshit.
There rest of the Jesus tale was added decades later, and most of the historical information in the later tale doesn't even check out (Herod's "slaughter of the innocents", the sun being blotted out for 3 days, and earthquake destroying the Jewish temple, etc) ... and that makes their story bullshit as well.
The only thing about the Jesus story that cannot be called pure bullshit is his Parables. (But that is only because somebody must have written them.) But I've already gone through the reason that I thing the attributing those tales to an historical Jesus is bullshit, so I won't go through it again.
| sorianofan wrote: |
This seems akin to the logic that if antarctic ice is melting, then it must be global warming, and if it is increasing, then it must also be global warming.
It cannot be both ways. It more likely is thaty if ice is decreasing, then it is warmer and if it is not, it is more likely colder. We can add justification to either side of the argument, but we still have common sense to go buy.
|
I am saying that the question of whether or not the gospel tale derived from a single written source or from oral tradition is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that most (if not all) of the story is plagiarized fiction.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Without heady, if not sophistic, arguments to the contrary, what we are left with is a pile (though not overwhelming, but solid by ancient standards) of evidence that a certain individual like Jesus did exist, because the lack of such evidence would prove the contrary. Furthermore, we have decades old evidence, pretty good by ancient standards, by people who lived at the time, in the area.
Granted, those people are somewhat questionable, but all historical sources, especially ancient ones, are very very questionable. |
I'm not arguing against the idea that somebody like Jesus existed. History is replete with people who have claimed to be the messiah. Take a look at Apollonius of Tyana, Jacob Frank, or Shabtai Tzvi. They all claimed to be messiahs, but the thing that differentiates these nobodies from Jesus is that there is 1st-hand historical evidence for their existence. Again, Jesus has more in common with mythical character such as Osiris and Mithras than with any real-life false prophet.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #29567
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-07-09 01:14
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
It isn't that the first sources are merely "sketchy" ... it is that they don't exist at all. The initial sources of the Jesus tale (i.e Paul, James, Peter, et al) only claim to have seen Jesus' ghost ... not Jesus.
I think Paul summed it up nicely in 1st Corinthians...
From 1 Corinthians 15:4-8
15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Let's take these in order --
- Jesus' ghost first appeared to the twelve disciples. The "twelve disciples" were taken directly from "last supper" story of Mithraism, and represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
- There is no historical record of a flying ghost of Jesus appearing to 500 Jews. Neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, nor John mention this event. You have to wonder where Paul got this strange idea.
- Next come the Apostles ... which Paul knew ... and which for some reason Paul differentiates from the 12 disciples. In other words, the apostles were not the twelve disciples.
- And finally comes Paul, who met up with Jesus on the side of the road. And the strange thing about that visit is that Paul was traveling with several other people, yet nobody else could see him. (In other words, it was all in Paul's head) |
Well, only according to Acts, written way after the fact, do we know Paul was with anyone. He was likely alone and he does not pretend to be with others.
To be honest, it is my belief that a spirit Jesus did not appear to anyone. The idea that a spirit literally "appeared" and said nothing means to me that Paul is talking about something much more abstract than the modern idea of christianity-- that jesus rose in the flesh and so will all of us. In my opinion, Paul believed that Jesus, God, or something might return where all those who followed Jesus' way would return to the spiritual realm from total darkness, but I do not believe that it was meant that Jesus' rose from the dead and walked among people. They believed that Jesus' teaching was vindicated by some sort of spiritual experience that made them feel Jesus was back. For example, my mother once felt so lonely that she had a vision that some faceless humanoid comforted her in a semi-dream state.
This is what Paul was conveying in my opinion. Furthermore, his idea that we are justified by faith now appears very shakey at first hand. How can we literally believe some dream-like event is critical? I think the answers is in Hebrews, which might have not been written by Paul, but at least by one of his followers.
"1And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction"-Hebrews 11:1
Faith is believing in what we hope. Paul's religion of faith is the hope that we may live forever in some spiritual sense, thus believing that what Jesus promised--his precepts will lead to this state. Paul is not stressing the literal. He is not talking about Jesus' precepts. He implies them, he partaphrases them--he assumes you know them.
Granted, this is largely an argument from silence--thus not a very good one. However, we do have evidence from several people (supposedly). We have several early written gosels/sources that say different messages than Paul's like "Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." From Luke. If Paul started everything and people invented sayings from Paul, it would be strange that something like this would come out, unless there were rivaling proto-gospels and teachers.
Furthermore, outside of early-sounding quotes from any of the gospels or thomas, we have the arguable early Didache which speaks of Jesus as a living guy who said things.
Here is something I wrote on it summing up my argument:
| Quote: |
It is a relatively early Christian work, unless it was totally falsified by piecing together the Gospels and the Epistle of Barnabbas. It claims to be written by the 12 Apostles, but outside of this title, nothing there indicates that. I suspect that it was a brief testement of Jesus and Christian theology spread about relatively early during the Church's formation
I have several reasons:
-The content is highly Jewish in character. It calls gentiles "dogs" and it heavily relies upon a Jewish document called "The Two Ways." The Gospels appear to be written by greeks towards a gentile audience.
-The instructions for setting up churches asks people to elect members to lead it, probably out of merit. This means that there was not an established Church hierarchy at the time of its creation.
-Many of the sayings found in Matthew, but not Mark or Luke are found in the Didache. Mark does not share much at all. This means that when Matthew was written, Didache could have been a source along side of Q and Mark. If the Didache was based on Matthew, because both share the most Jesus sayings, how did iut by chance exclude parts of Matthew that are from Mark? This must mean the Didache was not based upon Matthew unless the writer carefully took Matthew, negated everything from Mark, and the compiled the sayings. Of course, this would not make any sense.
-The document's purpose appears to be for founding a Church. While the Epistles are on the most part silent about what Jesus has said, that is because they were letters concerning Paul's (or someone else's) theology, because it was assumed that whomever received the letter already knew of Jesus' teachings, perhaps from a source like the Didache
-The document does not have any gnostic tendencies, warn against docetism, speak of the destruction of the temple, or mention any element of Christianity proceeding 70 CE
a translation is here: http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm |
I think the largest argument from silenceis that Jesus did not exist at all...which is something that Paul argues in plain English. Another argument from silence is that Paul had no quotes from Jesus in mind.
We are essentially making the same type of arguments, but from different sides. However, as I said initially, the high degree of theological correlations, paraphrasing, and even subtleness on certain points found in the gospels and epistles shows ideas developed at equal time periods....not from generations changing ideas later. Of course, we can find plenty of evidence that suggests an evolution in religious belief--the recorded versions we have now were written many years after their original composition.
| Quote: |
| Pretty much the only thing left of the Jesus myth after the plagiarized mythology is stripped away is the parables. But there really isn't any reason to believe that these were anything more than generic sayings. Paul's letters (written in 50-58AD) made no mention of any of these sayings. |
Twice in 1 Corinthians, Paul makes assertions from what is "written" or a "writing" things not found in the Bible. Now, Paul does not say things attributed to scripture that are not found somewhere. One is 1 Cor 15:4 where he claims the "grafh" which is greek for writings say that Jesus will rise from the dead. No where in the old testament does it say the messiah will do this. He could have been making it up, or he could have been giving a shout out to writings like the Didache that were circulated in the early church. After all, he had to use the same greek word for writing when refering to scripture of things that weren't hebrew scripture, but considered holy. Less of a long shot is 1 Corinthians 2:9, where he quotes a Gospel of Thomas quote much more closely than Isaiah 64:4 (i believe, I am going by memory now).
These can be examples of Paul referencing other contemporary works on Jesus. This gives us reason not to doubt that such things existed, while the silence just gives us an argument from silence that such writings did not exist.
| Quote: |
A limited number of them appear in the writings of Mark, and then Mathew and Luke added a few more to their versions of the Jesus tale (7 by both Mathew and Luke, 11 by Matthew alone, and 12 by Luke alone).
To me, it seems that if these sayings were the genuine words of Jesus, Paul and the other early apostles would have been aware of them. Therefore, it appears that a list of sayings was compiled and distributed as the words of Jesus shortly after Paul wrote his letters. Mark got a hold on an earlier version of this Q document, and Matthew and Luke both used an expanded version. But this process seems to indicate that "Q" was not the actually words of a guy who died in 32AD, but rather a latter compilation which was expanded several times over the course of 2 or 3 decades.
When Paul wrote his letters, Jesus had already been (supposedly) dead for almost 20 years. Paul met with the apostles on several occasions, so it seems highly unlikely that Q could have existed at the time (50-58AD) and still could have been unknown to all of the early Christians. About the only explanation for this is that the parables were not part of Jesus original teaching, and were just a collection quotes which were falsely attributed to him 40-60 years after the time of his (supposed) death.
But if you remove the mythology and the parables from the Jesus myth, you end up with nothing at all. This goes beyond being a just a "sketchy" tale of a real-life messiah. It is an out-and-out fraud. |
Again, we get the date of Jesus' death surmised purely by the gospels. This is not very accurate. Thus, these events could have been much more current (by a decade) then we are led to believe.
Edit: Paul speaking in Galatians did not start preching to the gentiles far away for 17 years. He was preaching for nearly 20 years before anything went the gentiles' way.
-"nor did I go up to Jerusalem unto those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus, 18then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days, " Gal 1
-"1Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus; 2and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;"" Gal 2
So, Paul isn't some guy who was writing about something 20 years after it happened. He was actively spreading the religion throughout all of that time. The "lack of 'recentness'" isn't exactly the issue. Though the question you pose is still a good one-- were any Jesus sayings being transferred during this time?
Your argument has reason, I cannot totally discount what you say. I just believe that historically, for the reasons I am listing, it is less likely. I can easily pose the scnerio that Jesus died some time during the early 40s. Some lists of his sayings were made and it was a local cult around judea. Paul decided that he was a real dick for hating this stuff, and he would spread it to the hordes of gentiles that shared a lot of the same beliefs that hellenistic judaism and now christianity had. He was the most succesful, due to the larger group of people he was preaching to and the fact he arguably "dumbed down" though provoking theology to be more straight forward on the surface. Sayings gospels were probably around, or these people would have nothing to go by. There were stories about mithra. Mithra was known to represent something. How are non-jewish greeks going to "get it" if there is no story involved. Simply, there was some sort of story, and it became more and more exagerated over the years. If people got all their Jesus saying ideas from Paul, and paul implicitly taught them the Jesus was a mithra-like figure whose actions really are only spiritual, then Paul's followers would have not compiled list of sayings any more than such a list exists for mithra. Jesus was a human who talked, and this was always believed while mithra was always assigned to the spiritual realm. A passion narrative and signs gospel probably popped up witrh fake historical details. Lastly, written gospels we have in the canon were made from everything they had.
| Quote: |
| This goes back to what I was saying earlier about Christianity being stolen wholesale from prior myths. Notice how Paul has no problem recounting Jesus' words at the last supper, but is completely unaware of anything Jesus said before this time. This is because Paul was only familiar with the early version of Christianity, which was little more than a Judaized version of the Mithra myth. The reason that Paul is unaware of anything else Jesus ever said is because the rest of Jesus' story hadn't been made up yet. |
Like Didache, it appears Paul puts emphasis on quoting ritualistic exercises. Otherwise, their are a few "the lord commanded" sort of "quotations." Outside of that, everythig is paraphrases.
For the record, mithraism did not have the same ceeremony ad verbatim. Concoction of paul or not, the saying itself is independent.
| Quote: |
| So, it is just a coincidence that Paul never makes any reference to anything his Messiah ever said? Just look through Paul's letters and observe how many times Paul could have made a good point by referencing the words of his almighty spiritual leader. It is just inconceivable that Paul could have written 80,000 words about Jesus and his teachings, yet never reference any actual quotes from Jesus. Paul knew the words Jesus used at the last supper and included those in his letters, but no others. |
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-6gv.htm counts 6. Yes, that's ridiculously small, but otherwise Paul seems to paraphrase. Paul was not arguing with people who did not know what Jesus said. Knowing what Jesus said, it is easy to justify it either which way with many slight theological splits. Thus, I do not think Paul felt the need to quote Jesus word for word, though it is very interesting that he bothers quoting the old testament, but not jesus. Perhaps, many people had no bibles (too many scrolls), but they had scrolls of Jesus' sayings.
| Quote: |
Thucydides was a regular person who wrote a regular history of a regular war. The historical accuracy of the war of which he writes is verified by several other sources. He doesn't claim to be a god. He doesn't tell people how to live their lives. He isn't trying to collect a legion of followers. And most importantly, his own writings survive to this day, even though they pre-date Jesus' times by almost 500 years.
It is wrong to compare Thucydides to Jesus because there is actually more evidence for the existence of this obscure Athenian general than there is for Jesus. A better comparison would be to compare Jesus to Mithra, Osiris or Hercules. |
Not thucydides himself, but many of the people he mentions. Thucydides could have wrote the history to bash his enemies, to make himself look less inept, and etc. However, through internal evidence alone, we can judge that he is relatively reliable. Very reliable.
| Quote: |
| Not at all. Scientology started with one person, but is total bullshit. Raëlism started with one person, but is total bullshit. Mormonism started with one person (who also has a small group of followers), yet Mormonism is total bullshit. These are all stories for which we can absolutely attribute a single source, and all are bullshit. I don't understand why you seem to believe that a single source proves that it is non-fiction. (The story of George Washington derives from countless independent sources, and therefore we know the guy was real... with that silly little Cherry Tree myth added later.) |
Yeah, but hubbard really did exist. Mormon is losely based on Jesus, so he exists in a very indirect way (and unreal), 2 thousand years from the fact.
With Jesus, they are talking about (this is implied) a fairly recent person. Paul, including other sources, seem to lead to this character.
| Quote: |
Basically, you are trying to say this...
1) The Jesus story was spread by the original apostles.
2) Therefore, the story is true. |
No. Through further reading of the apostles, I no longer believe "the twelve" ever really existed. It was a reference to a close group that knew Jesus most probably or no one at all--remember, Paul was not part of the original group of christians and wouldn't know. Those who spread christianity were probably the most vocal and economically mobile of the "500 people" Jesus "appeared" to. The initial group of apostles are those random people. Probably none from "the twelve." "The twelve," probably a smaller group, could have been poor, illiterate, wandering bards with Jesus. Thus, they were not fit to spread the religion past the initial circle. Edit: The only one of "the twelve" I speculate we know by name is Cephas/Peter, because Jesus appeared to him first. Him, being literate and able to lead amongst the earliest disciples, took a position of authority amongst the early Church. Paul mentions Peter/Cephas more than anyone else. (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=cephas&searchtype=all&wholewordsonly=yes&version1=15&spanbegin=47&spanend=51) Peter, who Jesus appeared to three days after his death ("4and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,"-1 cor 15)
That means Peter knew Jesus. Jesus was a recent and human figure in Paul's mind. He obviously takes it for granted.
| Quote: |
| I'm not arguing against the idea that somebody like Jesus existed. History is replete with people who have claimed to be the messiah. Take a look at Apollonius of Tyana, Jacob Frank, or Shabtai Tzvi. They all claimed to be messiahs, but the thing that differentiates these nobodies from Jesus is that there is 1st-hand historical evidence for their existence. Again, Jesus has more in common with mythical character such as Osiris and Mithras than with any real-life false prophet. |
The main difference is that words and physical life are attributed to him. That's a huge difference by ancient standards.
Last edited by sorianofan on Sun 2006-07-09 20:01; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Properetiquette101
Junior Spy
Post #29655
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 32
Total Words: 9,163
Average words per post: 286.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-07-09 13:19
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I don't really plan on becoming a big part of this topic, seeing as how I'd have to read everything up to now to do so, but I would like to throw in a couple of notes.
First, the tree metaphors are very important, and to clarify (and simplify to the point of it being dumbed down) the tree is the person and the fruit are the works (you know a tree by it's fruit) meaning, you know a person by their works. The verse about loving the tree and hating the fruit is so true... people either love you but hate what you do (all the possessive Christians who try to convince people to act better) or hate you but love what you do (ungrateful little ***es who want your time and money).
You're right above apostles not being disciples; paul is referred to as "Apostle Paul" around here. =/ I'd like to throw in right here that it's funny how you guys debate the validity of the Bible yet you don't this stuff... at the least, the Catholic Church was there during the time all of these were written and approved certain ones that seemed legitimate. Most including me are inclined to believe that the Bible is wrong just because the Catholics, who are sh!ts, organized it, but there's reason to believe that they based their judgement off of fact for once; for example, they had the original copies of a few of Paul's writings, complete with his signature.
I'm not necessarily saying that any of it is right or wrong (the gnostic texts or the bible); just going by my conscience, some of the gnostic writings agree with what I know about Christianity and some disagree - and most of the time that's all you can have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30062
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-07-13 19:57
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're right above apostles not being disciples; paul is referred to as "Apostle Paul" around here. =/ |
As I editted my own post above, I do think that Cephas was an original disciple of special importance-- possibly he was not illiterate and we cannot totally discount one of his Epistles. BB has convinced me to question the validity of "the twelve." The fact that he ran operations in Judea for the early Christian church shows his prominence within the movement. However, Paul's Christianity won out and Peter's essentially failed after 130 CE. Thus, we have a relative plethora of sources of Pauline and neo-Pauline scholarship while we have practically none of Peter. That's how history is sometimes.
| Quote: |
| I'd like to throw in right here that it's funny how you guys debate the validity of the Bible yet you don't this stuff... at the least, the Catholic Church was there during the time all of these were written and approved certain ones that seemed legitimate. Most including me are inclined to believe that the Bible is wrong just because the Catholics, who are sh!ts, organized it, but there's reason to believe that they based their judgement off of fact for once; for example, they had the original copies of a few of Paul's writings, complete with his signature. |
Well, we have no originals of any copies. We have ancient copies of different men, with sometimes slightly different translations.
However, I do believe in the validity of the Bible as a religious guide to life-- not a historical manuscript. However, as BB has correctly pointed out, the very guide is useless if what we perceive it to be is a lie. Therefore, I do think a study of biblical history is important so that one's faith not be misguided and untrue.
I do admit my own weaknesses. I am much closer to BB in regards to Christianity than an evangelical. My faith is weak. I am not proud of it, but it is true. As Romans 10:9 goes (I paraphrase) "Confess that Christ is Lord and that he rose from the dead, and you are saved."
However, knowing what I do know makes this a complicated proposition, which Paul did not mean it to be. Yet, Pauline view of Christianity is much different than our own.
1. Paul clearly states that Jesus did not rise from the dead as flesh--flesh is corruptable. Jesus was purely spiritual.
2. Paul also states that while Jesus had a vocal ministry (which I will get into later), Jesus merely appears to people after his death. Merely is not the right word, because Paul's religious visions (evidenced by his vision of the "second heaven (Venus)" in an epistle I cannot remember) are equally inimitable as they are inexplicable. There are no words and words cannot describe them. The essence of God derived truth and afterlife wouldn't be things easy to explain, as Paul was trying to get across. Perhaps this is why he simplified his faith command.
3. Paul in Romans states that "the father is God and Christ is lord." This clearly states that God was the creator, and Jesus is who we should be commanded by (and indirectly worship due to his divine association with God.) Yet, Paul states that Jesus existed before the creation of creation. In the old testament, only 1 force is noted to have existed before time that is not God--wisdom/knowledge. Paul is saying that Jesus is divine wisdom personified, and that Jesus revealed that through the hope of reconciliating one's bodily corruptions with God by repenting, one can believe that they can superscede weaknesses of the flesh and live eternally in the spiritual sense.
This is a mouthful, so when someone asks me, "So do you believe Jesus died for your sins/heaven/Jesus is God," I cannot say yes to any of these things. I have been accused of being an anti-christ because of it. However, through my undestanding, I would be acting opposed to what is commanded to me by my faith in God and Jesus' revelation of the Way that I made any such boasts. I cannot boast knowledge of God's and God's alone. I do not know it.
All I have is my reason and my hopes. When Paul commands be to believe Christ is Lord, I can believe that. I believe in Jesus' ministry. When Paul asks me to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, this I cannot believe without indirect justifications. Perhaps this is because Paul is equally indirect...Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. To be brutally honest, it is hard for me to believe fully in something I cannot see as justified through proof. It would be wrong of me and I argue anyone else to believe any other way. My hope is that my understanding of the Law's utility and the possibility of things greaters than the eyes can see due to God's active love in its existence would suffice. But that is not my decision. I can only try my best, but my doubts concerning what is true and what is not is something that continues my drive to search for it.
| Quote: |
| I'm not necessarily saying that any of it is right or wrong (the gnostic texts or the bible); just going by my conscience, some of the gnostic writings agree with what I know about Christianity and some disagree - and most of the time that's all you can have. |
My list for the most accurate portrayals are the following, generally in a descending order:
-Genuine Pauline apostles
-Didache
-Matthew
-Luke
-Mark
-Gospel of Thomas
-Epistal of James, Peter, Pastoral Epistles
These are accurate as that they have truths in them that trace back to Jesus. Obviously this list is not complete, because I wrote it fast.
EDIT: Lastly, I would like to add that I believe Paul implies that Jesus had a vocal teaching-- that it is generally accepted that those Paul is talking to are already familiar.
After all, if the gospels were made by people paraphrasing Paul and putting those words i n Jesus' mouth, it seems strange that the gospels incorporated so many elements (Judas, names of apostles, etc.) that clearly disregard Paul's letters. Paul clearly says that Jesus appeared to "the twelve" not "the twelve minus judas" and Paul clearly does not place John or James as part of "the twelve," but the gospels do.
Thus, the gospels appear to be formed without specific knowledge of Paul's writings. In fact, enough years passed that the writers of the gospels would confuse John and James as original disciples. With the evidence we have that leads us to believe that "Jesus sayings" were initially recorded outside of the gospel, the fact that they have so much in common, even paraphrase, the epistles shows that Paul was often invoking what Jesus was saying through paraphrases. It is possible he quoted the old testament at length, but not Jesus, because the scrolls of the old testament were lengthy and less accessible. Thus, Paul even freely cuts together bible passages and paraphrases them because he knows those he is talking to cannot reference it so fast and that he was probably quoting from memory. I doubt he carried 24 scrolls with him where ever he went.
Anyway, enough of this aside and back to the implications of Jesus' vocal ministry. I pulled these three out of Romans, which I am in the process of re-reading:
Romans 6:17
| Quote: |
| But, thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. |
Whose form of teaching? So far, Paul has been making theological arguments, particularly that one is either a slave to sin or righteousnes-- there's no middle ground. However, who instructed the romans on how to be a slave of righteousness?
-It could be Paul or an apostle, but he would have wrote "you...obeyed the form of teaching to which we/I entrusted you with" or something of the nature.
-It could be reading of the old testament, but judging from the bible quotations and the gentile audience--plus the fact that Paul makes an argument against law, it would be strange that "the law" was the form of teaching.
-Then we have Jesus. The teachings of Jesus were the new form of teaching, entrusted to the roman disciples, because many elements of the Christian religion were still secretive (much like Mithraism.)
The context of this quote is expanded upon later in Romans.
Romans 8:3-4
| Quote: |
| For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. |
-The bold clearly states that Jesus condemned sin on earth. So at the very least, he said something about why sin is bad. What was that something? Read the underlined above.
-The underlined is a pretty to the point synopsis of what Jesus taught in the Gospel portrayal of him-- the law is a guide, but not to be taken totally literally...to follow the law in spirit.
The preceding leads me to believe that Romans 8:4 was the specific "form of teaching" spoken about in Romans 6:17.
Lastly, let's take a look at Romans 10:11-17
| Quote: |
11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[g]
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. |
-Now, the "word of Christ," within this context is not Jesus' word, but "word about christ." Paul is speaking about missionaries spreading the word about justification by faith.
-the embolden is much of the same, but with one difference: "the one of we whom they have not heard" is Jesus.
-I believe that the context ISN'T saying "whom they have not heard of." Instead, I think it is saying "whom they have not heard speak." Paul is putting great emphasis upon proximity: Israelites versus gentiles. The Israelites heard what Jesus had to say and greatly ignored it. The gentiles, having not heard a word, are justified in their faith in those who bring the good news of Jesus' teaching.
Now, the majority of Jesus' teaching appears to be "teach yourself." If you read corinthians for example, worship is singing, speaking in toungues, saying your own inspired words...a lot more spontaneous than most present Churches, besides maybe the Quakers. At a Quaker meeting, people rarely quote Jesus or even mention a Jesus situation. They speak more of the overall message, and in Quaker correspondence, you do not see a bunch of citations to biblical passages (unlike Jehova's Whitnesses for example.) Unprogrammed worship just ends up that way. It also presupposes knowledge of what the meat of Jesus' teaching is to begin with. You speak to any Quaker after the meeting, like during coffee hour, and you'll hear all about it.
So, we have Paul, who is setting up all of these churches, teaching them about this religion that Jesus' devised (sp?). People are then told they are justified in their faith in Christ's teaching and spiritual resurrection, and to worship God in a loosely organized manner with a lot of give or take between people (1 Cor 14:26.) After all, if the Didache proves to be real, people were initially elected into Church positions. Paul might have not liked women to talk in Church, but that is a seperate and interesting matter.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #30204
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-07-19 10:20
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Properetiquette101 wrote: |
I don't really plan on becoming a big part of this topic, seeing as how I'd have to read everything up to now to do so, but I would like to throw in a couple of notes.
|
I understand that catching up with the conversation right now would be a difficult task. I did a quick word count of this thread and came up with a total of 144,222 words (but this may be a little high since I didn't filter out the user information on the left of each post)
| Properetiquette101 wrote: |
First, the tree metaphors are very important, and to clarify (and simplify to the point of it being dumbed down) the tree is the person and the fruit are the works (you know a tree by it's fruit) meaning, you know a person by their works. The verse about loving the tree and hating the fruit is so true... people either love you but hate what you do (all the possessive Christians who try to convince people to act better) or hate you but love what you do (ungrateful little ***es who want your time and money).
|
Which verse are you talking about specifically? There are a lot of references to fruits in the bible, so it's difficult to tell which one you're talking about.
(Hehehe... I said fruits... )
If you need a Bible search engine, try this one.
| Properetiquette101 wrote: |
You're right above apostles not being disciples; paul is referred to as "Apostle Paul" around here. =/ I'd like to throw in right here that it's funny how you guys debate the validity of the Bible yet you don't this stuff... at the least, the Catholic Church was there during the time all of these were written and approved certain ones that seemed legitimate. Most including me are inclined to believe that the Bible is wrong just because the Catholics, who are sh!ts, organized it, but there's reason to believe that they based their judgement off of fact for once; for example, they had the original copies of a few of Paul's writings, complete with his signature.
|
Paul wasn't a Catholic, and neither were the writers of the gospels. The idea of a "Catholic" (meaning: universal) church didn't really get started until the 2nd century. And both sorianofan and myself have pretty much ignored any texts written in the 2nd century during this discussion, since they really can't shed any light on the nature of the "historical jesus".
| Properetiquette101 wrote: |
I'm not necessarily saying that any of it is right or wrong (the gnostic texts or the bible); just going by my conscience, some of the gnostic writings agree with what I know about Christianity and some disagree - and most of the time that's all you can have. |
By that are you saying that you agree that the Jesus tale is a myth?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #30303
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-07-24 03:13
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Peter, Paul, and Mark |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| You're right above apostles not being disciples; paul is referred to as "Apostle Paul" around here. =/ |
As I edited my own post above, I do think that Cephas was an original disciple of special importance-- possibly he was not illiterate and we cannot totally discount one of his Epistles. BB has convinced me to question the validity of "the twelve." The fact that he ran operations in Judea for the early Christian church shows his prominence within the movement. However, Paul's Christianity won out and Peter's essentially failed after 130 CE. Thus, we have a relative plethora of sources of Pauline and neo-Pauline scholarship while we have practically none of Peter. That's how history is sometimes.
|
Actually... I was going to go back and edit my post too, because when Paul says Cephas, he is referring to a guy named Peter.... as in Saint Peter… one of the leaders of Christian cult in Jerusalem.
Now, one has to wonder why Paul makes this claim that Jesus first appeared to Peter, since NONE of the gospels repeat this version of the story. They all say that it was Mary... or two people named Mary ... or some dude named Cleopas. (You really have to wonder why nobody was able to get the story straight about this key event in Christian "history".)
So why did Paul make this claim? And why did the later gospel writers all reject Paul's words? I believe that at the time that Paul wrote this letter he had yet to meet with Peter, so I wonder what lead him to believe that Peter had been the first to see Jesus' ghost. He must have picked it up off of the grapevine.
And you also have to wonder why Paul did not include Peter among the 12 disciples. Is the fact that there is a disciple named peter and a apostle named Peter mere coincidence? Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think it's coincidence at all. One thing that needs to be remembered here is that "Saint" Peter's original name was Simon. Simon does not translate into "Peter"... it was merely a nickname. The name Peter (Petros, meaning "the rock") was chosen later in Simon's life, and was most likely chosen by Simon himself. And it is important to note that the phrase "the rock" has special importance in Mithraism (Mithras was born out of a rock, or cave).
But then again, the reason that we know that Peter changed his name was because the gospel writers said so. And they were talking about the disciple Peter, not the apostle. So did the apostle Peter name himself after the disciple, or was the disciple named after the apostle? It all gets so confusing.
In any case, Paul does not say that Peter was around to see a flesh and bone Jesus -- he just claims that this Jewish guy in Jerusalem was the first to see his ghost. And this claim is rather dubious since none of the gospel writers ever repeat it. Even the gospel of Luke doesn't make this claim, despite the fact that Luke later writes tons of fiction... er... uh... information about Peter in his "Act of the Apostles".
| sorianofan wrote: |
However, I do believe in the validity of the Bible as a religious guide to life-- not a historical manuscript. However, as BB has correctly pointed out, the very guide is useless if what we perceive it to be is a lie. Therefore, I do think a study of biblical history is important so that one's faith not be misguided and untrue.
I do admit my own weaknesses. I am much closer to BB in regards to Christianity than an evangelical. My faith is weak. I am not proud of it, but it is true. As Romans 10:9 goes (I paraphrase) "Confess that Christ is Lord and that he rose from the dead, and you are saved."
|
There's no reason to be ashamed. There are many "evangelicals" who don't personally believe in all this shit either, but pretend to in order to make a buck.... or just because they like telling people what to do with their lives.
Understanding the flaws in ancient dogma isn't a weakness. It's the only thing that separates (some) modern folk from medieval peasants. The primary problem with the modern Christian movement is that they think that the shit in the bible really happened. It didn't. But that fact shouldn't keep people from being a fan of this particular piece of fiction. Just look at all of the Trekkies and Star Wars fans out there. Only people with a clinical disorder could believe that these two mythologies reflect real events. Yet, that doesn't keep people from gathering to "worship" these stories, nor does it keep them from using the morals contained within these stories as a guide for their lives.
I agree that there are many fanboys that take this shit too seriously, but even the worst offenders pale in comparison to an average Christian. I mean, you're actually feeling guilty for recognizing that this collection of ancient mythology might be fictional. I don't even know how to respond to that. How would you respond to a person who really believed that Luke Skywalker once lived in a Galaxy far, far away?... and who thought that if he believed otherwise, he would be turning to the “dark side”?
| sorianofan wrote: |
However, knowing what I do know makes this a complicated proposition, which Paul did not mean it to be. Yet, Pauline view of Christianity is much different than our own.
1. Paul clearly states that Jesus did not rise from the dead as flesh--flesh is corruptible. Jesus was purely spiritual. |
I generally I agree, since Paul never talked about any of the actions or words of a flesh-and-bone Jesus (apart from the Eucharist ceremony at the last supper). But there are a couple of things in Paul's writings that seem to confuse the matter.
| From Romans 1:1-7 |
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ....
|
Here it states that Jesus was a descendant of King David "according to the flesh", which is supposed to imply that Joseph was his actual father (Although Paul never mentions the name Joseph). But it then goes on in the next line to state that Jesus is also the son of the Jewish god, because this god somehow anointed him with special powers.
But the thing about this passage that concerns me is that it doe not appear to have been written by Paul. It appears to be some sort of "introduction" to Paul's letter, probably written at some later time. (Notice how the first line refers to Paul in the 3rd person) It looks as though Paul's original letter started with verse 1:7. (But that’s just my amateur opinion)
Then there is this bit a few chapters later...
| From Romans 8 |
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
|
So was Paul saying that Jesus was human, or merely that he appeared in the "likeness" of a human? Considering that Paul states in this letter that flesh in inherently flawed and evil, I would tend to think that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was ever really a human. And this verse seems to confirm this:
| From http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/15.html#44 |
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
|
The first man sent to Earth by the Jewish god was Adam, who was a regular human being. The second man sent to Earth was Jesus, who was a spiritual entity. (A ghost, not a man)
| sorianofan wrote: |
2. Paul also states that while Jesus had a vocal ministry (which I will get into later), Jesus merely appears to people after his death. Merely is not the right word, because Paul's religious visions (evidenced by his vision of the "second heaven (Venus)" in an epistle I cannot remember) are equally inimitable as they are inexplicable. There are no words and words cannot describe them. The essence of God derived truth and afterlife wouldn't be things easy to explain, as Paul was trying to get across. Perhaps this is why he simplified his faith command.
|
Or Paul was just a nutbag who had nutty hallucinations.
| sorianofan wrote: |
3. Paul in Romans states that "the father is God and Christ is lord." This clearly states that God was the creator, and Jesus is who we should be commanded by (and indirectly worship due to his divine association with God.) Yet, Paul states that Jesus existed before the creation of creation. In the old testament, only 1 force is noted to have existed before time that is not God--wisdom/knowledge. Paul is saying that Jesus is divine wisdom personified, and that Jesus revealed that through the hope of reconciliating one's bodily corruptions with God by repenting, one can believe that they can superscede weaknesses of the flesh and live eternally in the spiritual sense.
|
The problem with the "holy trinity" is that it is polytheistic. And one of the commandments of the monotheistic god is that polytheism is evil. This caused a major crisis for the early church, and the only way to resolve the problem was with a heaping help of doublethink. Originally Christianity was polytheistic (a natural outcome since it plagiarized earlier "pagan" myths). You can’t say that god has children, ithout open the door to polytheism. So at a later time somebody tried to rectify this situation bay claiming that Jesus was god. And that is just silly. You can't believe that the son of a god is also the father of a god without receiving a great deal of brainwashing as a child. The idea of a "holy trinity" in completely nonsensical, but it is understandable why this nonsensical belief developed.
| sorianofan wrote: |
This is a mouthful, so when someone asks me, "So do you believe Jesus died for your sins/heaven/Jesus is God," I cannot say yes to any of these things. I have been accused of being an anti-christ because of it. However, through my understanding, I would be acting opposed to what is commanded to me by my faith in God and Jesus' revelation of the Way that I made any such boasts. I cannot boast knowledge of God's and God's alone. I do not know it. |
You have witnessed the inconsistencies of the Christian myth, yet think that the reason the story is so nonsensical is because that you think that you just aren't smart enough to understand it?
It is nonsense because it is nonsense. Don't read any more into the bullshit than you have to.
| sorianofan wrote: |
| the other guy wrote: |
| I'm not necessarily saying that any of it is right or wrong (the gnostic texts or the bible); just going by my conscience, some of the gnostic writings agree with what I know about Christianity and some disagree - and most of the time that's all you can have. |
My list for the most accurate portrayals are the following, generally in a descending order:
-Genuine Pauline apostles
-Didache
-Matthew
-Luke
-Mark
-Gospel of Thomas
-Epistal of James, Peter, Pastoral Epistles
These are accurate as that they have truths in them that trace back to Jesus. Obviously this list is not complete, because I wrote it fast.
|
I pretty much agree with that listing, except that I think that the accuracy declines greatly once you get past Paul. I really do think that Paul believed most of what he said, and the only errors in his writings were caused by misinformation (and possibly by later corruptions of his original texts). But I think Mark was pretty much aware that he was writing fiction. And I think that Mathew and Luke believed what Mark had written, but decided to add some fiction of their own.
| sorianofan wrote: |
EDIT: Lastly, I would like to add that I believe Paul implies that Jesus had a vocal teaching-- that it is generally accepted that those Paul is talking to are already familiar.
|
If they were already familiar with Jesus' teachings, why was it necessary for Paul to send these letters to his cult members in order to clarify Jesus' teachings? And how is it possible that Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' actual teachings while explaining Jesus' teachings?
For a comparison, look through this website and take a look at any discussion of Orwell's "teachings". Take this thread for example. It is a 7000 word discussion which attempts to clarify one aspect of Orwell's teachings (The question was whether or not O'brien was an actual member of the though police). In this thread, you will see at Orwell's words are quoted directly at least 10 times, and quoted indirectly in just about every post.
You'll see about the same thing in this thread, which is about ~10,000 words long, and contains about 15 direct quotes.
Yet, Paul's 7 genuine epistles total 32,464 words. And the only time he quotes Jesus' words directly is during the Eucharist ceremony, and that most likely was not a real event (since the Eucharist ceremony was stolen from several other previous cults)
Bear in mind, that nobody on this website considers Orwell to be a god. He is merely with whom many of us agree. Yet, we seem to have more reverence for the words of Orwell than Paul has for his lord and savior. He quotes the old testament on several occasions, but he never quotes his messiah, not does he mention anything that he messiah ever did while on Earth.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul talk about marriage. Why not include Jesus' thoughts on the subject?
In the next chapter, Paul discusses whether or not vegetarianism is a virtue. Again, why not mention the fact that Jesus was known to have eaten meat?
When reflecting on matters of Jewish law, Paul never stops to wonder what Jesus thought of these matters. If Paul had believed that Jesus lived in Jewish lands and was raised as a Jew, you would think that Paul would like to know which laws Jesus obeyed, and which Jewish customs Jesus ignored. The gospels portray Jesus as being at odds with Jewish law on several occasions, yet Paul seems to be unaware of ANY of these disagreements.
The only explanation that people have been able to come up with to explain why it is that Paul never quoted Jesus is that Paul never quoted him because he assumes that all of his followers were already thoroughly familiar with his words. But this seems like an unlikely cause for Paul's silence. It seems that by far, the most likely reason that Paul didn't quote Jesus is because Paul didn't have a collection of his quotes. And the only reason that I can think of o explain why the founders of the Christianity did not have this collection of quotes in 50-58CE is that the collection of quotes did not yet exist.
About the only other possibility is that if these details of Jesus’ life did exist in some sort of written form, Paul did not think they were genuine. But if that were the case, you would think that Paul would have spent a fair amount of time denouncing these false stories.
| sorianofan wrote: |
After all, if the gospels were made by people paraphrasing Paul and putting those words i n Jesus' mouth, it seems strange that the gospels incorporated so many elements (Judas, names of apostles, etc.) that clearly disregard Paul's letters. Paul clearly says that Jesus appeared to "the twelve" not "the twelve minus judas" and Paul clearly does not place John or James as part of "the twelve," but the gospels do.
Thus, the gospels appear to be formed without specific knowledge of Paul's writings.
|
I think the gospel writers certainly did have some contact with Paul. But, I also think they had some disagreements with him. All of the gospels were written by the followers of Peter and/or Paul. But it is still somewhat of a mystery how these followers could write stories why seemed to contradict the beliefs of their teachers.
Mark was supposedly written by Mark the Evangelist. This person traveled around with Paul for a few years, but left him after some sort of falling-out. The story goes that Mark then set up shop in Alexandria Egypt and started his own personal Jesus cult. He was a faith healer who claimed that Jesus gave him the power to heal people and perform miracles. The Egyptians got tired of his shit in 68AD and executed him.
The interesting thing here is that Mark's gospel claims that all of Jesus' followers were granted the power to perform miracles -- Paul never mentions anything of the sort. It seems likely that Mark just made the entire story up in order to use it as a back-story by which he could explain how he obtained his magical powers. And he compiled his story by plagiarizing several myths (including Jewish mythology). If the gospel of Mark was written by this guy… and if the story about his time in Alexandria is correct… it seems to me that Mark was just a magical con-man. And his gospel account was a complete fairy tale (as if we didn’t know that already)
It needs to be pointed out that there is one MAJOR thing that is lacking is that in the original version of Mark's gospel -- Mark did not day that Jesus rose from the dead. Considering that to Paul, Jesus' resurrection was the most important part of the Jesus story, you can begin to see why these two apostles did not get along (That along with the fact that Mark was a charlatan who performed magic tricks in the name of Jesus).
But the question is, is the person who wrote the Gospel of Mark actually this same Mark? And is the text we have today Mark's original writings, or were they merely based on his teachings? Personally, I think that Mark did write this story, but that the text was altered by his followers after his death (the bits from “secret Mark” were removed, and the resurrection tale was added).
| sorianofan wrote: |
Anyway, enough of this aside and back to the implications of Jesus' vocal ministry. I pulled these three out of Romans, which I am in the process of re-reading:
Romans 6:17
| Quote: |
| But, thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. |
Whose form of teaching? So far, Paul has been making theological arguments, particularly that one is either a slave to sin or righteousness-- there's no middle ground. However, who instructed the Romans on how to be a slave of righteousness?
-It could be Paul or an apostle, but he would have wrote "you...obeyed the form of teaching to which we/I entrusted you with" or something of the nature.
-It could be reading of the old testament, but judging from the bible quotations and the gentile audience--plus the fact that Paul makes an argument against law, it would be strange that "the law" was the form of teaching.
-Then we have Jesus. The teachings of Jesus were the new form of teaching, entrusted to the roman disciples, because many elements of the Christian religion were still secretive (much like Mithraism.)
|
I think Paul must have been referring to his own teachings, since he seems unaware of what any of Jesus’ teachings were.
| sorianofan wrote: |
The context of this quote is expanded upon later in Romans.
Romans 8:3-4
| Quote: |
| For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. |
-The bold clearly states that Jesus condemned sin on earth. So at the very least, he said something about why sin is bad. What was that something? Read the underlined above.
-The underlined is a pretty to the point synopsis of what Jesus taught in the Gospel portrayal of him-- the law is a guide, but not to be taken totally literally...to follow the law in spirit.
The preceding leads me to believe that Romans 8:4 was the specific "form of teaching" spoken about in Romans 6:17.
|
Here again is the word "likeness"... Jesus's ghost appeared in the "likeness of sinful man" in order to be some sort of Human sacrifice. Jesus took on the form of a human, but was not actually human. If Paul had believed that Jesus was once a human, why is it that the NEVER talks about anything that Jesus did while on Earth? Jesus is no different from many other gods who were worshipped during Paul's time. Many gods had stories about death and resurrection, but nobody believes that these gods ever really walked the Earth... with only one exception - Jesus. But as you can see from Paul's writings, he didn't believe that Jesus walked the Earth either. That belief didn't start to surface until later, when people began taking Peter & Paul's mythology as literal truth, and fictional stories started appearing which contained details of this god's life on Earth.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Lastly, let's take a look at Romans 10:11-17
| Quote: |
11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[g]
16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. |
-Now, the "word of Christ," within this context is not Jesus' word, but "word about christ." Paul is speaking about missionaries spreading the word about justification by faith.
-the embolden is much of the same, but with one difference: "the one of we whom they have not heard" is Jesus.
-I believe that the context ISN'T saying "whom they have not heard of." Instead, I think it is saying "whom they have not heard speak." Paul is putting great emphasis upon proximity: Israelites versus gentiles. The Israelites heard what Jesus had to say and greatly ignored it. The gentiles, having not heard a word, are justified in their faith in those who bring the good news of Jesus' teaching.
|
I think you're reading a little more into this than you should. Paul is just stating that people should spread the story of Jesus, so that more people can be saved when Jesus returns to destroy the world (which was supposed to be happening very soon).
When Paul says "The word of Jesus", he is not referring to book of Jesus' quotations. He is simply referring to the story of Jesus --- That this son-of-a-god was sacrificed so that his dad might forgive the world of Adam’s sin, and that Jesus would soon be coming to Earth to take up all who believed in him to his new kingdom in Heaven. But, before this can happen, the word of Jesus must be spread. It wouldn’t be fair for Jesus to condemn people for not believing in him, when these people had never heard of him in the first place. Therefore, Paul believed that one of the prerequisites for the Rapture was that all people on Earth had to hear the story of Jesus. Once everybody had heard the tale, then Jesus would be justified in damning all those who didn't follow his apostles.
In other words, it's a all a slick pyramid scheme to spread Paul's cult throughout the world. And it was a great successes, at least in Europe.
| sorianofan wrote: |
Now, the majority of Jesus' teaching appears to be "teach yourself." If you read corinthians for example, worship is singing, speaking in toungues, saying your own inspired words...a lot more spontaneous than most present Churches, besides maybe the Quakers. At a Quaker meeting, people rarely quote Jesus or even mention a Jesus situation. They speak more of the overall message, and in Quaker correspondence, you do not see a bunch of citations to biblical passages (unlike Jehova's Whitnesses for example.) Unprogrammed worship just ends up that way. It also presupposes knowledge of what the meat of Jesus' teaching is to begin with. You speak to any Quaker after the meeting, like during coffee hour, and you'll hear all about it.
So, we have Paul, who is setting up all of these churches, teaching them about this religion that Jesus' devised (sp?). People are then told they are justified in their faith in Christ's teaching and spiritual resurrection, and to worship God in a loosely organized manner with a lot of give or take between people (1 Cor 14:26.) After all, if the Didache proves to be real, people were initially elected into Church positions. Paul might have not liked women to talk in Church, but that is a separate and interesting matter. |
"Teach yourself" is what Gnosticism was all about. It was pretty much what all of the mystery religions were about, including Paul's version of Christianity. But the thing that separated Christianity from the other cults is that it was derived from Judaism. And Judaism had a strict set of moral guidelines. And Paul's Christianity is basically the 10 commandments superimposed onto the cult of Mithraism. But later, the gospel writers added more "riddles" to the tale and made these texts available to everybody, whereas the other mystery cults kept their texts secretive and only allowed certain members to view these "mysteries".
Eventually church leaders took on the task of interpreting these sayings, and beating the hell out of anybody who didn't obey them. This went on for over 1,000 years, during the period known as the “Dark Ages”. In the renaissance and in near-modern times, some people got tired of being told what to do by pompous priest and formed various splinter factions of the Catholic Church. Now today, the church isn't allowed to burn people who disagree with their doctrine. This has lead people to start examining the original religious texts on their historical merit, which in turn has lead many who have done so to determine that it is all a bunch of shit.
But the problem is that the church was extremely successful at getting every person on the European landmass to believe in their bullshit. And this bullshit has been passed down from generation to generation -- an activity which inexplicably continues to this day. However, if every Christian was forced to learn the history of the church that we have discussed in this thread, I think the church would quickly wither away. Perhaps not right away, but after a couple generations. And in order to speed this process I think we need to follow Paul's lead and spread this "good word" to the masses. You can't fault people for believing in silly things unless they have had an opportunity to learn the "gospel truth" about their silly little gospels. We must teach the people about Mithra… and Dionysus… and Osiris … and Paul. Let them all hear “the good word”, lest they all be damned to a lifetime of burning ignorance.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30366
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-07-26 18:55
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Very Important Post |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I have a response to your post to me, but barring me getting back on to the computer which has the file, I will have to wait to post it.
I have some random thoughts about Paul’s apostleship. I have been catsitting where I used to go to college, and I have had plenty of time to read. I have came across the following observations—
1. Paul had problems with Jewish-Christians
2. Letter to the Colossians is an authentic letter in my opinion
3. Jewish-Christians generally followed the law, but also enjoyed freedom from it (probably due to Jesus’ ministry and their faith in Jesus and God)
4. Paul’s and early Christian’s view towards “the end of times,” was obviously wrong—which has implications for early and modern Christianity
Conclusion:
-Jesus probably spoke of the end of times as a parable, and the same can be said about the Kingdom of God.
1. Paul had problems with Jewish-Christians.
Genuine Pauline Letters:
Romans (General disagreement with the applicability of the law,) 1 Corinthians (General disagreement with the applicability of the law,) 2 Corinthians (General disagreement with the applicability of the law,) Galatians (Circumcision and dietary rules,) Phillipians (Circumcision)
1 Thessalonians lacks such concern. However, Paul was there only briefly (1 Thes 2:1-2 and 17) and Timothy (who founded the Church) just returned to give good news of the Church’s success (1 Thes 3:6.) This leads me to believe that this is an early letter, composed just after Timothy’s founding of it. Thus, word of the Jewish-Christian version of the Gospel did not reach them yet. Scholars generally agree that Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul’s writings.
Philemon is Paul begging a rich Christian to be merciful to a returning slave. The purpose of the letter does not cover Church business generally.
All but 2 “genuine” letters put great emphasis on problems with Christians trying to follow Jewish law. I will return to this.
2. Colossians is a genuine letter.
In my opinion, Colossians is a genuine letter for the following reasons.
-There are three arguments against Pauline scholarship, none are very strong. One is that the Greek is too long and flowy. However, this could be due to an unnamed scribe or the way Timothy was writing. If it was Paul himself, it would explain is confused language and his slightly different take on issues which are the 4 other criticisms:
-Another criticism is that Paul calls Jesus: (Col 1:18) “the head of the body, the church.” In Romans, Paul says that the saints (followers of the Gospel) are the Church’s body. I am surprised that scholars are so bothered that Paul would alter the metaphor and add Jesus to it. After all, after reading the verse before it, it makes sense in the context. Paul several times in the genuine letters says that Jesus is Lord, and Paul extends the metaphor of Jesus’ wisdom of God to being the image of God, existing before creation. If anything, this is much different than the other genuine Pauline letters, but by no means contradicts them. The same can be said of Jesus being “head of the church.” It is not a contradiction and it is not problematic. Thus, it is a poor criticism.
-Scholars also question the idea Paul writes in Col 2:13: “He forgave us all our sins,” because Paul elsewhere preaches freedom from the law, not forgiveness of sins. This too is a bad criticism, because scholars are being overly critical of one line. Read in the correct context, it sounds genuinely Pauline:
“He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
The underlined is in line with the “freedom from sin” idea. Implicit in forgiveness of sin is the idea that the sin condemns everyone to death. This, as seen in Romans, is a very Pauline concept.
-Scholars seem to hump on anything Paul says that canm be misogynist. However, Paul was a 1st century man, so this should not surprise us. Scholars believe that Colossians 3:18 reveals that the letter is not authentic. However, read the full context:
“18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”
How is this much different from 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, 34, 39?
-Lastly, scholars take issue with Colossians 2:13:
“13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,”
Scholars believe that the idea that the resurrection happens after repentance is not Pauline. They would be right. Paul frequently refers to an end of times when the resurrection only then will occur (example: 1 Thess 4:13-18.) However, I believe scholars are misunderstanding Paul’s point. The Christian repentant according to Paul “live in Christ,” and more importantly are not “dead in sin.” These ideas are repeated in Romans 8:6, 8:10-11. Romans 8:11 goes as far as to say “he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit.”
Paul believes the resurrection is spiritual, so what does he mean in Romans 8:11? The same exact thing he means in Colossians—that repentance also improves one’s Earthly life. No one disagrees that Paul states this, so what is the problem with Colossian 2:13?
Furthermore, Paul speaks of a separate resurrection that will happen in the future:
(Col 3:4)
“4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.”
This criticism is also weak.
After reading into all the scholarly criticisms of Colossians, only the one about the atypical use of language holds any water, but is hardly condemning. Other letters in their original Greek are also long winded in sections. Colossians is short and just happens to be that way.
-Colossians has evidence of early Church practice.
Colossians does not concern itself with Church hierarchy like questionable letters. Instead, it is much more in line with 1 Corinthians, which describes worship as random singing and people teaching each other by the spirit. This is evident in the Collossians’ church:
(Col 3:16)
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”
-Specific details
For a “fake” letter, the fraudulent writer sure puts a lot of effort into making pointless fake details. Colossians 2:1 shows Paul’s concern for possibly losing authority in Laodicea, because he did not found their Church.
Colosians 4:7-18 is chock full of details. The letter was sent by Tychicus, only mentioned in Ephesians (which almost ad verbatim rips off parts of Colossians, which means that Colossians existed before Ephesians and was considered worthy enough to copy), Acts, and all three of the pastoral Epistles (believed to be largely based on Acts.) I cannot way in on the pastoral epistles myself, because it has been a year since I have read them. However, Tychicus either got around a lot, Colossians copies Acts and mentions no other details that reveal a late date, or the most likely, Acts copied Colossians.
4:9 mentions that Onesimus, the slave from Philemon, is coming with Tychius. This is a strange detail, because from reading Philemon, one is lead to believe that Onesimus went directly back to his master. Did the “real” writer of Colossians think it was funny to add such a detail? Did Onesimus earn freedom from his master and return to Paul? Did Paul write Philemon about the same time as Colossians, because he is imprisoned and has contact with Onesimus? This would make sense, because Onesimus could have been making a 2 stop journey, and Tychius could have as well, taking a separate letter to Laodicea (Col 4:15, which in itself is a strange detail.) To make it even more complicated, Paul states in 4:16 that there is a different letter he sent to Laodicea that he would wants those at Colosse to read. Why mention yet another letter? Why has the fraudulent author make a fake Laodicea letter to? Maybe I should as a joke…
Back to Onesimus. In Philemon, Paul writes “23Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.” In Colossians Paul calls Aristarchus a fellow prisoner and says the Epaphras is praying for them. Did he withhold information off Epaphras’ imprisonment so as not to worry the Colissians or did he not say it because it was already yesterday’s news?
Paul mentions a guy names Jesus Justus. He calls Luke a doctor. He mentions that Barnabas’ cousin Mark might stop by, and that the Colossians have instructions on how to treat him. Paul even adds a personal message to a guy named Archippus.
Some scholars have concluded, which I agree, that Philemon’s church was the Church at Colossae. Onesimus was making an one-stop trip with 2 letters. This explains Paul’s identical (but different) greetings and the fact that Archippus, though not owner of the slave, is the only guy specially picked out in both letters. He was no doubt important to Paul. Thus, the letters were written during Paul’s same imprisonment.
The letters lack a copycat feel of a forger, have different but non-contradictory details, and the details are typical of someone who is trying to orchestrate the exchange of several different letters between several different people while trying to avoid punishment for Onesimus.
-Paul attacks Jewish Christians (Colossians 2:11-17)
As I have shown, genuine Pauline letters attack Jewish-Christians. Thessalonians did not because that was Paul’s first letter to the church. We can now conclude that Philemon did not, because that was a more personal letter—the public letter (colossians itself) would do that anyway.
The writer of Colossians either was very good at forging a letter and adding extremely subtle historical details, or more likely, was Paul not thinking much of it.
Now, let us return to an older issue: What is the significance of Paul attacking Jewish Christians so much?
One of the following must be true:
1. Original Christianity stressed Jewish law, and Paul was flat out wrong.
2. Original Christianity preached freedom from sin, but the Jewish-Christians became much more conservative and missed out on the original message or out of pride of being Jewish, stressed their Jewish heritage thus link to their deliverer.
3. Original Christianity preached freedom of law when the Spirit invoked one to believe it was not applicable in the situation. Paul was more extreme in one direction and the Jewish Christians in the other.
4. Original Christianity stressed Jewish law yet freedom from it through faith. Paul was allowed to preach to the gentiles to have faith apart from Jewish law, but it was understood that this was a prerequisite for gentiles to convert to Judaism.
Any one of these are defendable, but I think 3 and 4 are the most likely.
You and me have given Paul a somewhat bad wrap—we assumed he preached a toned down Judaism to gentiles, because he thought it would give the gospel more mass appeal. In other words, Paul sold out to go mainstream.
I have recently came to the conclusion that this cannot be true. Why in almost all of Paul’s letters is he on the defensive against Jewish Christians? Shouldn’t gentiles NOT want to have pieces of their dicks cut off and shouldn’t they want to avoid all of that dietary law? Why would Paul get so defensive over this? Why would his authority be questioned by accusers?
The answer is simple. Paul was kind of full of crap—he was distorting the message of Christianity that was then mainstream, based upon his own personal beliefs. If we look at Galatians, we see that Paul’s opinion left mainstream thought after another revelation which occurred after 17 years of preaching (Galatians 2:1-2.) Paul was afraid that if he did not speak to the Church leaders about his new idea, he would be excommunicated (Galatians 2:2.) He found the “reputed” Church leaders (Galatians 2:9) and the gave him permission to preach his Gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s use of the word “reputed” implies that he is at odds with Jewish leadership of the Church, but recognizes their legitmate command. He continues to raise money for the Jerusalem Church (which might explain why Jewish-Christians gave Paul legitimate status, but apparently worked against him) and he defers to Cephas’ position as the true leader of the church, likely because he knew Jesus in the flesh.
Likely, what Paul does not tell us is that the agreement was temporary. The Didache, if a true early document, offers us a clue. In chapter 16, it states “But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time.” To be made perfect, means, to follow Jewish law and be a Jew. What the pillars of the Church had in mind was that Paul would convert many gentiles and raise some money to help convert more people. They hoped that before the world came to an end, that the converted gentiles would then “perfect” themselves as well. Thus, Peter was being pragmatic.
This situation makes sense and explains why Paul was constantly under attack by Jewish Christians and was at odds with Peter and James eating kosher in Galatians 2 in front of the gentiles (they were asserting the importance of the law.) Paul only did half the job. Due to his revelation (which was an addition to Jesus’ teaching,) he had no interest in perfection through law. He thought that faith alone would do the job.
3. Jewish Christians followed the law, but also broke it.
As we have discussed previously, one can see that the law was important to Christians. James and Jude (I believe are genuine) also emphasize law, but faith over it. In Galatians 2, Paul accuses Peter of “14…"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
This reveals that all Christians took liberties with the law. Jesus meant this in what we have in the Gospels and what Paul has told us in Romans 14:14: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.”
Jewish Christians perhaps became more conservative to be on the “safe side” when the world supposedly would come to an end. My opinion is that there is a combination of this and Paul somewhat distorted Jesus' message. To be fair to Paul, his simplification of faith does not prevent him from praising works (which he calls deeds in Romans.) However, Paul concluded that the more morally neutral Jewish laws (circumcision, festivals, food) were neither good nor bad, and through faith, can be disregarded. His argument against circumcision is his own and not Jesus’ (Romans) and the same can be said about festivals (Colossians.) This understanding he derives from his understanding of justification through faith.
Thus, Paul’s distortion is minimal, because he emphasizes the same positive aspects of Christianity and it is likely that the idea of having “faith” in a spiritual resurrection is hard to put a finger on significance-wise when we take into account the faith+law version of Christianity that seems to be the mostly correct one. The mushiness for the basis of faith made it very open to interpretation.
Paul’s version of faith is that in the hope that we will resurrect just like Jesus. This is much simpler than the faith espoused by Cephas, James, and Jude I believe was something more like “saying ‘Yes’ to God’s initiative.” This means believing in Jesus’ ministry, believing that their was a resurrection, believing that through the Spirit you will tell you when to disregard needless law…essentially, faith in the entire creed. Paul is a lot less dogmatic (he has one piece of dogma,) compared to Jewish Christians.
4. All early Christians worked under a serious misunderstanding concerning an end of days.
According to Paul and early Christians (you can surmise this from reading the Didache and considering the fact that Peter would have not allowed Paul to preach something so different,) the end of times was literal fact. Yet, they speak of it in symbolic terms with the word “thief,” “trumpets,” and etcetera. Claiming the world is going to end was not new to Judaism (See Daniel) or Christianity.
However, Paul and others were seriously wrong. The world did not end and they were not saying that the end of times was in the future. So, this means Jesus was wrong or they were wrong. My opinion, is that they misunderstood Jesus’ words.
Conclusion- Jesus probably spoke of the end of times as a parable, and the same can be said about the Kingdom of God.
The end of times, with its symbolic language and far out nature, was probably a parable. Paul and early Christians invoked this parable, but understood it wrong. They took the parable to mean that there really would be an apocalypse, and that people would be led astray. Lastly, Jesus probably stated something about the coming of the Kingdom of God.
However, was the coming of the Kingdom of God literal? I find it amazing that Christianity, a religion that stressed the physical coming of the Kingdom of God, somehow let the following Jesus saying slip through.
Luke 17:20-21:
“Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
The Gospel of Thomas has a like saying:
113) His disciples said to Him, "When will the Kingdom come?" <Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
If anything, this is Gnostic sounding. Through some sort of realization that one can see or be part of the Kingdom of God, one can take part.
Perhaps, faith in Jesus’ resurrection was also not something that Jesus himself preached. Our “evidence” of any resurrection is from 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul purports such an occurrence. Paul also claims that the resurrection occurred after 3 days “according to the scriptures.” No scriptures claim this. If a bunch of guys today claimed they all saw Jesus, no one would believe them. However, a group of guys claiming to see something is the basis of justification by faith according to Paul. However, Paul was dead wrong about the soon to come end of days. Everyone worked under the misunderstanding of it that it was certain.
I am leaning towards the opinion that Jesus (like in Luke 17) told a parable of the end of days. The end of days was a parable of the struggles one will face before realizing the Kingdom. In this parable, Jesus spoke of that only in this trial, will you see him. Thus, after struggling to realize the Kingdom, we will realize the full ministry of Jesus, eternal truth…what Plato coined “the light.”
I admit I am speculating quite a bit. However, every serious Christian has to consider these things:
-The resurrection story in 1 Corinthians 15 is in part falsified and not a very good grounds of evidence.
-Paul’s Gospel was considered wrong by Jewish Christians.
-Jewish Christians in part were confused over the applicability of the law.
-There was no end of times.
-The end of times was likely a parable, as its language is highly symbolic and is typical of what we do know of Jesus’ ministry. Paul, when speaking of the Apocalypse, is not invoking Daniel or any part of scripture. He is not using symbolism concerning the flesh or body of Christ either. The symbolism is richer, thus I do not believe the idea originated with Paul.
Hopefully, my other response will reach you soon, but oddly enough my opinions have been modified even since then.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30378
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-07-26 22:18
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| My (slightly) Delayed Reply |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually... I was going to go back and edit my post too, because when Paul says Cephas, he is referring to a guy named Peter.... as in Saint Peter… one of the leaders of Christian cult in Jerusalem.
Now, one has to wonder why Paul makes this claim that Jesus first appeared to Peter, since NONE of the gospels repeat this version of the story. They all say that it was Mary... or two people named Mary ... or some dude named Cleopas. (You really have to wonder why nobody was able to get the story straight about this key event in Christian "history".) |
It is pretty much proof that the Gospels were written without the knowledge of Paul's first (though in reality it was at least the second) letter to the Corinthians. The Gospels' authors had oral tradition and sayings Gospels…not Epistles. The parallels between Paul's letters and the Gospels s evidence of an earlier common source.
| Quote: |
| So why did Paul make this claim? And why did the later gospel writers all reject Paul's words? I believe that at the time that Paul wrote this letter he had yet to meet with Peter, so I wonder what lead him to believe that Peter had been the first to see Jesus' ghost. He must have picked it up off of the grapevine. |
In all probability, the reason is that Peter (not James) was the head of the Church in Paul's time. Gentile churches even sent money to Jerusalem, not the other way around. Peter's importance is made greater by the fact he was the first to see the resurrection. It could have been a bragging right, it offered legitimacy to Peter's position.
Paul had met Peter 3 years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18). Thus, Paul knew and talked to Peter years before any of his letters.
| Quote: |
And you also have to wonder why Paul did not include Peter among the 12 disciples. Is the fact that there is a disciple named peter and a apostle named Peter mere coincidence? Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think it's coincidence at all. One thing that needs to be remembered here is that "Saint" Peter's original name was Simon. Simon does not translate into "Peter"... it was merely a nickname. The name Peter (Petros, meaning "the rock") was chosen later in Simon's life, and was most likely chosen by Simon himself. And it is important to note that the phrase "the rock" has special importance in Mithraism (Mithras was born out of a rock, or cave).
But then again, the reason that we know that Peter changed his name was because the gospel writers said so. And they were talking about the disciple Peter, not the apostle. So did the apostle Peter name himself after the disciple, or was the disciple named after the apostle? It all gets so confusing.
In any case, Paul does not say that Peter was around to see a flesh and bone Jesus -- he just claims that this Jewish guy in Jerusalem was the first to see his ghost. And this claim is rather dubious since none of the gospel writers ever repeat it. Even the gospel of Luke doesn't make this claim, despite the fact that Luke later writes tons of fiction... er... uh... information about Peter in his "Act of the Apostles". |
Peter, being the first to see Jesus after 3 days of his physical death, was likely there to see him in the flesh. Then there is the whole debate over James' being brother of Jesus and 1 Corinthians 9:5 which states "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as to the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Are these the same brothers (of physical relation) mentioned in 6:2-3:
| Quote: |
When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. |
For details outside of Jesus sayings, I do not believe the Gospels are good sources. After all, they turn the "pillars of the church," likey not of the twelve because John and James saw Jesus after the crowd of 500 (which leads me to believe that they were converted after Jesus' death and never knew him) into disciples.
It is possible that Paul meant that James' was a follower, not of relation to Jesus, and that 1 Corinthian 9:5 is referring to the same (albeit in a very strange order, if one considers that Paul is writing in order of status, number 1 being Peter, 2 being the relatives of Jesus, and 3 the original apostles, and 4 being the last of the apostles, Paul (and the tag along Barnabbas.) If "brothers" is rendered to merely be "followers of Jesus," the sentence's organization is jumbled and loses the predictable hierarchy. You cannot put it past Paul to have his scribe write in a confused manner, but it is also likely that Paul is speaking of physical relatives, which mans Jesus was physical.
| Quote: |
There's no reason to be ashamed. There are many "evangelicals" who don't personally believe in all this shit either, but pretend to in order to make a buck.... or just because they like telling people what to do with their lives.
Understanding the flaws in ancient dogma isn't a weakness. It's the only thing that separates (some) modern folk from medieval peasants. The primary problem with the modern Christian movement is that they think that the shit in the bible really happened. It didn't. But that fact shouldn't keep people from being a fan of this particular piece of fiction. Just look at all of the Trekkies and Star Wars fans out there. Only people with a clinical disorder could believe that these two mythologies reflect real events. Yet, that doesn't keep people from gathering to "worship" these stories, nor does it keep them from using the morals contained within these stories as a guide for their lives.
I agree that there are many fanboys that take this shit too seriously, but even the worst offenders pale in comparison to an average Christian. I mean, you're actually feeling guilty for recognizing that this collection of ancient mythology might be fictional. I don't even know how to respond to that. How would you respond to a person who really believed that Luke Skywalker once lived in a Galaxy far, far away?... and who thought that if he believed otherwise, he would be turning to the “dark side”? |
I chuckled reading this and I understand where you are coming from. Christian mythology is fictional, a lot that has been attributed to Jesus is fictional too. I do not doubt these things. However, do I believe in some abstract concept of the Spirit? Yes. Do I believe in Jesus as Lord? Yes, though his commands are all second hand because none of us lived to talk with him. Do I believe in God? Yes.
When I first started to read scripture for a different reason than to bash Exodus 34's compulsion for human sacrifice, I started to get what the Way was. I repented my sins before I even believed in God. The Way was logical, rational, and a welcomed change from how I was conducting myself.
What bothers me most is my lack of knowledge. I have been getting over that, but I am not over it completely. I do not doubt that what Jesus revealed or devised is the only way towards what any of us can term "salvation" in this life or the possible next. However, what Jesus said and literal belief in Jesus is not what gives any of us salvation. According to Paul, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires…are a law to themselves." (Romans 2:13-14)
Jesus is a helpful example of life and how to approach death. Faith in Jesus makes it easier to live in the best possible fashion, but this would not be impossible without Jesus. It would be more difficult.
Now, I can defend my faith in Jesus' ethics easily in a logical fashion, and though we may disagree, none of us would be irrational. But that is just half. Jesus "proved" that there is life after death. I do not believe in ghosts, mediums, or anything like that. In fact, Jesus' "appearance" cannot be described as having a conversation. It is, if you will, an ancient and less intelligent understanding of tapping into the divine. Now, I would never take's someone's account seriously. I can hope that the good things are truth, but only with reason.
What reason do I have? Well, people back then did not know it, but our minds are like little computers. What happens when the computers turns off? The simple, and probably right answer, is that absolutely nothing happens…"disexistence." However, our conception of reality is governed by changes in electric flow between neurons and we really do not know how this works. Nonetheless, we can actually measure this energy as "brain waves" (an unscientific term) and just as Aliens one day might be reading our radio signals that are millions of years old, what happens to the essence of the mind? We cannot feel it now any more than we can feel the present, but what if a signature of our mind's energy "lives" forever? If so, I have one very good piece of advice: think happy thoughts before you die, because you might live with them for eternity.
Now, the ancients would have had no conception of this. They just had a gut feeling that there was something more to the mind. To be honest, I am not too worried about it and I believe that it is more a tenet of Paul's teaching than of Jesus'. It is Judaism with a greekified version of an afterlife. I can get more into this and how it relates to specifically what is in the NT, but you probably don't care so I will stop!
| Quote: |
I generally I agree, since Paul never talked about any of the actions or words of a flesh-and-bone Jesus (apart from the Eucharist ceremony at the last supper). But there are a couple of things in Paul's writings that seem to confuse the matter.
From Romans 1:1-7
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ....
Here it states that Jesus was a descendant of King David "according to the flesh", which is supposed to imply that Joseph was his actual father (Although Paul never mentions the name Joseph). But it then goes on in the next line to state that Jesus is also the son of the Jewish god, because this god somehow anointed him with special powers.
But the thing about this passage that concerns me is that it doe[s] not appear to have been written by Paul. It appears to be some sort of "introduction" to Paul's letter, probably written at some later time. (Notice how the first line refers to Paul in the 3rd person) It looks as though Paul's original letter started with verse 1:7. (But that’s just my amateur opinion) |
I think you are stretching a bit. What Paul wrote (actually his scribe, named in the end of the letter) was a Salutation. Every epistle begins with one.
My response to the other issue, is that "son" is not used literally, but more in the tense of "special servant." Son of God throughout the bible, including referring to David, is used in this tense.
| Quote: |
Then there is this bit a few chapters later...
From Romans 8
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
So was Paul saying that Jesus was human, or merely that he appeared in the "likeness" of a human? Considering that Paul states in this letter that flesh in inherently flawed and evil, I would tend to think that Paul didn't believe that Jesus was ever really a human. And this verse seems to confirm this:
From http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/15.html#44
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The first man sent to Earth by the Jewish god was Adam, who was a regular human being. The second man sent to Earth was Jesus, who was a spiritual entity. (A ghost, not a man) |
Romans 8:3 refers "in the likeness of sinful flesh," because Paul uses the word "flesh" to represent humanity's sinful nature throughout the Epistles. What Paul was saying is that Jesus came as man, but was not a sinner like other men. Paul was most likely wrong, because all humans have sinned, but he is building up Jesus to be this great guy, so he tells us that looks are deceiving, Jesus was more than a mere mortal.
In 1 Corinthians 15:45, what sticks out is "the last Adam became (instead of "was made" in NRSV) a life-giving spirit." You cannot be made something, unless you were something different before. Adam was dust and then a man with a soul. Jesus was a man with a soul, and instead of returning to dust, was made a spirit.
| Quote: |
| Or Paul was just a nutbag who had nutty hallucinations. |
Granted, yes, this is likely true and I believe that. However, we have to keep in mind what Paul was purporting.
| Quote: |
| The problem with the "holy trinity" is that it is polytheistic. And one of the commandments of the monotheistic god is that polytheism is evil. This caused a major crisis for the early church, and the only way to resolve the problem was with a heaping help of doublethink. Originally Christianity was polytheistic (a natural outcome since it plagiarized earlier "pagan" myths). You can’t say that god has children, without open the door to polytheism. So at a later time somebody tried to rectify this situation bay claiming that Jesus was god. And that is just silly. You can't believe that the son of a god is also the father of a god without receiving a great deal of brainwashing as a child. The idea of a "holy trinity" in completely nonsensical, but it is understandable why this nonsensical belief developed. |
I do not believe in a trinity. It is an oversimplified belief that ran away with itself between gentiles. Jewish Christians (as seen in the Epistles of James and Jude) were not nearly as obsessed or cared about the theological precision of the following:
The Holy Spirit- Called "the Spirit," by Paul, it was used during worship. People would invoke the spirit and teach each other their religious and ethical opinions like Quakers. The Spirit is not an entity. It is a less philosophical version of what Plato coined "the Light--" The essence of truth perceivable in existence through glimpses.
The Lord Jesus Christ- Lord, invoking the administrative functions of a middle eastern overlord, is the idea of a source of command. The Jews Lord is God itself, without the middleman so to say. Jesus as Lord does not mean that God is less important, but that Jesus' take on the commands are to be followed over preceding ones.
The Father- He is the only real important entity, and throughout the Epistles, God is constantly held to higher esteem. No one prays to Jesus or to the Spirit--they pray to God (1 Cor 14:2.) Christianity began as monotheism, but was hijacked by Gentiles and perhaps by a degree Paul, who wished to make it more easily understandable to as many gentiles as possible before the world ended.
| Quote: |
You have witnessed the inconsistencies of the Christian myth, yet think that the reason the story is so nonsensical is because that you think that you just aren't smart enough to understand it?
It is nonsense because it is nonsense. Don't read any more into the bullshit than you have to. |
To an extent yes, because I will never see the Light in its entirety. I doubt any of use besides a very select few came even close to leaving Plato's cave. I suppose that you are right, I am too defensive, and the truth must also be sought from separate sources and inspirations.
| Quote: |
| I pretty much agree with that listing, except that I think that the accuracy declines greatly once you get past Paul. I really do think that Paul believed most of what he said, and the only errors in his writings were caused by misinformation (and possibly by later corruptions of his original texts). But I think Mark was pretty much aware that he was writing fiction. And I think that Mathew and Luke believed what Mark had written, but decided to add some fiction of their own. |
I would be interested by your take on the Didache, but because you are not paid for my pleasure, I do not expect it!
| Quote: |
| If they were already familiar with Jesus' teachings, why was it necessary for Paul to send these letters to his cult members in order to clarify Jesus' teachings? And how is it possible that Paul never mentioned any of Jesus' actual teachings while explaining Jesus' teachings? |
To give Paul credit, the most troubled Church (Corinth) received 3 Jesus commands in 1 Corinthians (concerning marriage, paying apostles, and the last supper.) Otherwise, he heavily paraphrases. As you stated that the Gospels blatantly disregard Paul, it is because they were no written long enough afterwards to have many, if not any, of Paul's letters. None of them make up Paul as a bad guy or something (which they easily could have.) Instead, they settle on oral tradition, imagination, and circulated Jesus sayings.
| Quote: |
| For a comparison, look through this website and take a look at any discussion of Orwell's "teachings". Take this thread for example. It is a 7000 word discussion which attempts to clarify one aspect of Orwell's teachings (The question was whether or not O'brien was an actual member of the though police). In this thread, you will see at Orwell's words are quoted directly at least 10 times, and quoted indirectly in just about every post. |
Yet, you can read entire books from Quakers that will not quote Jesus directly at all.
| Quote: |
You'll see about the same thing in this thread, which is about ~10,000 words long, and contains about 15 direct quotes.
Yet, Paul's 7 genuine epistles total 32,464 words. And the only time he quotes Jesus' words directly is during the Eucharist ceremony, and that most likely was not a real event (since the Eucharist ceremony was stolen from several other previous cults)
Bear in mind, that nobody on this website considers Orwell to be a god. He is merely with whom many of us agree. Yet, we seem to have more reverence for the words of Orwell than Paul has for his lord and savior. He quotes the old testament on several occasions, but he never quotes his messiah, not does he mention anything that he messiah ever did while on Earth.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul talk about marriage. Why not include Jesus' thoughts on the subject? |
First, he did. He said the lord commanded that there shall be no divorce. Why is there so much emphasis on Jesus' ideas but not sayings? A lot of it is cultural. We have the internet and college educations which are conducive to picking sources and quoting to convey our ideas. If we look at the context in which the Epistles were written, most people did not have access to the scriptures (so you can cherry pick quotes and prove just about anything), had access to a couple pages of Jesus writings, worshipped in an unorganized manner conducive to "the Spirit" speaking through them…all of these things explain why Paul was not an avid Jesus "quoter." Ever 2 Peter, which is blatantly fake, does not extensively quote Jesus or the Gospels. It relies on paraphrases.
| Quote: |
| In the next chapter, Paul discusses whether or not vegetarianism is a virtue. Again, why not mention the fact that Jesus was known to have eaten meat? |
Because Paul was talking about how Jesus commanded that eating anything is okay, but he believes that eating Idol meat weakens the faith of others and should be avoided, though he concludes "don't worry about what you buy in the market." He was disagreeing with Jesus to an extent, so he did not bother invoking him.
| Quote: |
| When reflecting on matters of Jewish law, Paul never stops to wonder what Jesus thought of these matters. If Paul had believed that Jesus lived in Jewish lands and was raised as a Jew, you would think that Paul would like to know which laws Jesus obeyed, and which Jewish customs Jesus ignored. The gospels portray Jesus as being at odds with Jewish law on several occasions, yet Paul seems to be unaware of ANY of these disagreements. |
My brother once asked me this question. Jesus' Jewish and closer followers acted more Jewish. Jesus probably was the same way. Jesus, probably walking around hungry like Socrates, ran into a "sinner" who offered him Pork. Jesus said "Fuck it" (I have a jewish friend who got a ham sandwich by mistake, but because he paid 5 bucks, ate it anyway and said that) and ate it. A couple of disciples might have asked, "Why are you defiling yourself." Jesus replied, "It is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what leaves it."
There is every indication that Jewish Christians, thus probably Jesus followed the law, but they would not sweat the small stuff. Paul, believing that logic dictates an all or nothing approach, totally disregarded the law. Thus, a minor disagreement with Jesus would lead Paul not to invoke Jesus on manners like circumcision, but on different ones like food.
| Quote: |
| The only explanation that people have been able to come up with to explain why it is that Paul never quoted Jesus is that Paul never quoted him because he assumes that all of his followers were already thoroughly familiar with his words. But this seems like an unlikely cause for Paul's silence. It seems that by far, the most likely reason that Paul didn't quote Jesus is because Paul didn't have a collection of his quotes. And the only reason that I can think of o explain why the founders of the Christianity did not have this collection of quotes in 50-58CE is that the collection of quotes did not yet exist. |
For the same, and other reasons I stated, I disagree with this. Paul heavily paraphrases. He is probably trying to write as if the Spirit is his inspiration. This certainly explains his jumpy style in his genuine letters.
| Quote: |
| I think the gospel writers certainly did have some contact with Paul. But, I also think they had some disagreements with him. All of the gospels were written by the followers of Peter and/or Paul. But it is still somewhat of a mystery how these followers could write stories why seemed to contradict the beliefs of their teachers. |
It is more simple to believe they did not have access to all if any of Paul's letters. I mean, there are major works of Cicero that are lost to history. Shit moved slowly and not often back then. A generation after Paul's death, the Gospel writers might have been largely unaware of what Paul was specifically about.
| Quote: |
Mark was supposedly written by Mark the Evangelist. This person traveled around with Paul for a few years, but left him after some sort of falling-out. The story goes that Mark then set up shop in Alexandria Egypt and started his own personal Jesus cult. He was a faith healer who claimed that Jesus gave him the power to heal people and perform miracles. The Egyptians got tired of his shit in 68AD and executed him.
The interesting thing here is that Mark's gospel claims that all of Jesus' followers were granted the power to perform miracles -- Paul never mentions anything of the sort. |
Well, Paul actually does, not that I give it much credence. Read 1 Corinthian 12:10-- the "spirit" gave people this power, not Jesus…it is like an untapped ability.
| Quote: |
| It seems likely that Mark just made the entire story up in order to use it as a back-story by which he could explain how he obtained his magical powers. And he compiled his story by plagiarizing several myths (including Jewish mythology). If the gospel of Mark was written by this guy… and if the story about his time in Alexandria is correct… it seems to me that Mark was just a magical con-man. And his gospel account was a complete fairy tale (as if we didn’t know that already) |
The name Mark was probably added much later, as with the new ending as you speak of…
| Quote: |
It needs to be pointed out that there is one MAJOR thing that is lacking is that in the original version of Mark's gospel -- Mark did not day that Jesus rose from the dead. Considering that to Paul, Jesus' resurrection was the most important part of the Jesus story, you can begin to see why these two apostles did not get along (That along with the fact that Mark was a charlatan who performed magic tricks in the name of Jesus).
But the question is, is the person who wrote the Gospel of Mark actually this same Mark? And is the text we have today Mark's original writings, or were they merely based on his teachings? Personally, I think that Mark did write this story, but that the text was altered by his followers after his death (the bits from “secret Mark” were removed, and the resurrection tale was added). |
In Mark's original ending, with the man saying Jesus has risen and the women fleeing, shows that Mark is more in line with Paul…Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. The absence of Jesus' body is much like how God gathered up Elijah.
| Quote: |
| I think Paul must have been referring to his own teachings, since he seems unaware of what any of Jesus’ teachings were. |
However, Paul did not found the Roman church, which makes this less likely.
| Quote: |
| Here again is the word "likeness"... Jesus's ghost appeared in the "likeness of sinful man" in order to be some sort of Human sacrifice. Jesus took on the form of a human, but was not actually human. |
As I stated previously, Jesus was flesh, but no [I]flesh…[i/] Sinful that is.
| Quote: |
| If Paul had believed that Jesus was once a human, why is it that the NEVER talks about anything that Jesus did while on Earth? Jesus is no different from many other gods who were worshipped during Paul's time. Many gods had stories about death and resurrection, but nobody believes that these gods ever really walked the Earth... with only one exception - Jesus. But as you can see from Paul's writings, he didn't believe that Jesus walked the Earth either. That belief didn't start to surface until later, when people began taking Peter & Paul's mythology as literal truth, and fictional stories started appearing which contained details of this god's life on Earth. |
However, if Jesus was believed to be a walking talking sage, there might not be much more to talk about aside from his gruesome death. The blandness led people to add stories of miracles and such. The fact that Jesus had anything to say according to Paul makes him much different from the other gods.
| Quote: |
I think you're reading a little more into this than you should. Paul is just stating that people should spread the story of Jesus, so that more people can be saved when Jesus returns to destroy the world (which was supposed to be happening very soon).
When Paul says "The word of Jesus", he is not referring to book of Jesus' quotations. He is simply referring to the story of Jesus --- That this son-of-a-god was sacrificed so that his dad might forgive the world of Adam’s sin, and that Jesus would soon be coming to Earth to take up all who believed in him to his new kingdom in Heaven. But, before this can happen, the word of Jesus must be spread. It wouldn’t be fair for Jesus to condemn people for not believing in him, when these people had never heard of him in the first place. |
However, Paul does not write "hear of him." You are reading into that. He said, "heard him." The apostle's dilemma is not only spreading the word as fast as possible, but spreading the word of someone they have never met.
| Quote: |
| "Teach yourself" is what Gnosticism was all about. It was pretty much what all of the mystery religions were about, including Paul's version of Christianity. But the thing that separated Christianity from the other cults is that it was derived from Judaism. And Judaism had a strict set of moral guidelines. And Paul's Christianity is basically the 10 commandments superimposed onto the cult of Mithraism. But later, the gospel writers added more "riddles" to the tale and made these texts available to everybody, whereas the other mystery cults kept their texts secretive and only allowed certain members to view these "mysteries". |
This is speculative, but interesting.
| Quote: |
| However, if every Christian was forced to learn the history of the church that we have discussed in this thread, I think the church would quickly wither away. Perhaps not right away, but after a couple generations. And in order to speed this process I think we need to follow Paul's lead and spread this "good word" to the masses. You can't fault people for believing in silly things unless they have had an opportunity to learn the "gospel truth" about their silly little gospels. We must teach the people about Mithra… and Dionysus… and Osiris … and Paul. Let them all hear “the good word”, lest they all be damned to a lifetime of burning ignorance. |
People already don't believe in it. They believe in, "Yeah, Jesus was cool. I'm going to go to the bar and fuck a housewife."
What people need to hear is that there are truth's that are larger than we can fathom. That we must be humble and loving. We must not be violent. These messages are much more important.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sweet Tooth
Spy
Post #30380
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 99
Total Words: 4,657
Average words per post: 47.04
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-07-26 22:25
|
|
| Politics: Complete Idiot |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Simple...man wrote the Bible...does it even matter whose words were used...man wrote it...
_________________
I eat unshelled pumpkin seeds
Its a joke..fucking laugh a little |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30544
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-07-29 20:10
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I added this to the wiki on Eucharist, but I believe some compulsive editor will delete it:
| Quote: |
Between that purported by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, those found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and the strikingly different eucharist found in the Didache (which is not found in the canon,) there is no full agreement over how or to who Jesus spoke to concerning the institution of the Lord's supper.
Presupposing that the genuine epistle 1 Corinthians was written at an earlier date than the Gospels, a position held by a majority of scholars, it too has the earliest known recording of what Jesus is supposed to have said. Paul, concerned about with how the church at Corinth was instituting the Lord's Supper, wrote the following:
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
The Gospels generally agree with this representation. The Gospel of Mark, which most scholars believe was used as a source in the construction of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, had the following to say:
Mark 14:22-25
14.22And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 14.23And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 14.24And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 14.25Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
After "this is my body," Luke 22:19 adds to the Mark account, "Which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" and negates all of Mark 14:25. Matthew 26:27-29 with slight variation agrees with Mark 14:22-25.
There are several possibilities why there are variations in the accounts of the Last Supper. The authors of the different Gospels relied upon independent oral traditions or made alterations for personal reasons. Because Gospel of Mark was likely the source behind the representations of the Last Supper given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the better question is what source the Gospel of Mark used to record the event.
There are only two possibilities. The first is that the Apostle Paul was the first to ever record it. In 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul claims that he received testimony of the Last Supper "from the Lord." However, the problem with this is that Paul had never met Jesus. Even if Paul knew sayings of Jesus that were told to him from other apostles, the saying he attributes to Jesus here was not purported by anyone who knew Jesus according to Paul. Instead, Paul supposedly received this information through a spiritual vision akin to his conversion. The second possibility is that at least one person who knew Jesus recorded the account and this is where the tradition originates. If this is true, Paul would have been mistaken that he learned about what Jesus said in this situation via a spiritual vision or he just happened to have an accurate spiritual vision with no foreknowledge of the tradition recorded by a follower who knew Jesus.
Whatever the truth, the issue is further complicated by another representation of the eucharist in the Didache. The Didache is arguably one of the earliest written Christian sources, though scholars have debated the possibility of second century authorship. If it is indeed an early source, its representation of the eucharist is striking for its more Jewish than pagan character. It lacks reference to the eating of a [[diety]'s flesh and even reverses the order of the ceremony. Chapter 9 of the Didache reads as follows:
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
The wine here does not represent blood, but instead Jesus' role as a successor savior to King David while the bread represents the scattered nature of those in the Church instead of flesh. It can be debated whether Christianity's association with pre-Christian theophagy was the result of an alleged vision of the Apostle Paul and the practice which resulted from it. If the Didache is indeed an accurate source, Jewish Christians not converted by Paul practiced a different eucharist that has not been practiced for centuries. |
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
