The Case for Christ

[it's just me]

Epiphanius, in Panarion 30.16.9

I'm not seeing how you came to some of your conclusions reading Epiphanius. But, carry on, I don't wish to discuss it.

 

[RAMOSS]

I'm not seeing how you came to some of your conclusions reading Epiphanius. But, carry on, I don't wish to discuss it.

You never do. In specfically, that passage discusses the Ebionites, adn the Ebionite claim that Paul was a convert. This fits the knowledge and attitudes Paul shows in his letters.

 

[Vox]

Read my response above. #270, #271.
The other poster above was lamenting why there was no resistance to Paul....and here you are saying the contradictory. I suppose you guys don't belong in the same atheistic denomination!

First off, I'm not an atheist. Your silly assumption that I am is as accurate as the rest of your "thinking."

Second, your posts #270 and #271 are silly drivel that has been proven wrong thousands of times.

Repeating it won't make it come true. You're stuck stubbornly, lavishly (and boringly) defending an indefensible belief system that hardly any scholars care to defend anymore.......it's just the worst kind of nonsense that serves only to enslave people and take their money.

Your futility is clear and sort of endearing.

 

[it's just me]

You never do. In specfically, that passage discusses the Ebionites, adn the Ebionite claim that Paul was a convert. This fits the knowledge and attitudes Paul shows in his letters.

Epiphanius also thought the Ebionites were heretics, but I am not surprised that you would think they are legit.

 

[tosca1]

First off, I'm not an atheist. Your silly assumption that I am is as accurate as the rest of your "thinking."

Second, your posts #270 and #271 are silly drivel that has been proven wrong thousands of times.

Repeating it won't make it come true. You're stuck stubbornly, lavishly (and boringly) defending an indefensible belief system that hardly any scholars care to defend anymore.......it's just the worst kind of nonsense that serves only to enslave people and take their money.

Your futility is clear and sort of endearing.

I don't care whether you're an atheist or not! So I assumed you are. Big deal! Never mind the pathetic deflection - like as if confusing you for an atheist, debunked my argument.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like duck - it certainly ain't an ostrich!
Maybe the duck is simply confused about his identity, too? :mrgreen:

The point remains the same: you are contradicting another who's also attacking Paul. :lol:

As usual.......you've got nothing substantive to say. Simply saying it's isn't true, isn't a rebuttal.

I debunked this silly idea about Paul. You've got nothing to counter that, in other words. :mrgreen:

 

[Vox]

The point remains the same: you are contradicting another who's also attacking Paul.

I debunked this silly idea about Paul. You've got nothing to counter that, in other words.

Since you "debunked" nothing......you'd best start the debunking rather than claiming it.

The other poster asked a question and I posted this answer to his question.

Conaeolos asks why there was not more resistance to Saul/Paul......well, that was because he preached to new Gentile converts who only knew that he was offering them an exciting new religion with speaking in tongues, prophecies, love feasts, miracles and (most of all) the newly adapted concept of salvation through "Grace" and the vicarious suffering and death of a "Christ"--(which meant you could sin and yet not be held accountable for your sin).

I didn't contradict anybody except you.

Are you really so desperate that you have to make up these stories?

 

[tosca1]

As several links and much discussion have shown here........Jesus preached standard Pharisee doctrine as an itinerant Pharisee rabbi. Nothing Hellenistic.

In his groundbreaking study, Judaism and Hellenism, Martin Hengel has shown that, from the middle of the third century BC, Jewish Palestine had already experienced the effects of Hellenism in various ways.

For example: (1) under Ptolemaic rule, the Jews were forced to deal with Hellenistic forms of government and administration; (2) as inhabitants of an important coastal land, Palestine served as a crossroads for international trade, which brought many Hellenized merchants through the area; (3) the Greek language--the common language of the Roman Empire--became a part of Jewish culture (and became the language of the New Testament!); (4) Greek educational techniques were adopted, in part, by the Jews. Thus, the idea of a pristine Judaism, untouched by Hellenism, giving rise to an equally untouched early Christianity that was later 'corrupted' by Hellenism is simply a false historical picture.

The historical and archaeological evidence shows that both Judaism and early Christianity carefully guarded their religious views from the surrounding Hellenistic culture.
For example, with regard to Judaism, the archaeological work of Eric Meyers on the city of Sepphoris in first-century Upper Galilee reveals that, in spite of wise-spread Hellenistic influence on various cultural levels, the Jewish people maintained a strict observance of the Torah.

When it comes to early Christianity, it is clear that the religious influences are Jewish rather than Hellenistic paganism.
The essence of the Christian Gospel is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of all the Old Testament covenantal promises through the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. It is the climax of the history of Yahweh-God's dealings with the Jewish people through a series of covenants, culminating in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. It is a Jewish worldview that dominates the Gospel, not that of paganism.

Gregory Dix's conclusions on the question of the Hellenization of the Gospel confirm this claim: the central core of the Gospel consists of "a Jewish Monotheism and a Jewish Messianism and a Jewish Eschatology; which is expressed in a particular pattern of worship and morality."

Was Early Christianity Corrupted by Hellenism?

Saul/Paul is the one that brought in Hellenistic and Pagan notions.......much to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus.

Like what notion did he bring? Be specific.

 

[Vox]

What Hellenistic and pagan notion? Cite.

Read the thread. Already covered.

 

[tosca1]

Read the thread. Already covered.

Which page? Post #?

 

[Vox]

Read the thread.

I'm not your mommy.

 

[Conaeolos]

Thank you for writing out a reply Tosca. And yes it’s been quite a few years since I’ve read Christian theology, the bible, articles, etc. So, unfortunately, I am not able to just boom cite everything; however, I have been very versed and I do not make my claims based on pithy knowledge. I had many internal arguments, read huge amounts of different articles, explored the Jewish roots, studied geek, Hebrew, Aramaic and spend much time in prayer, contemplation, and meditation with God on the issue.

I would never expect you to go wow I never heard that he must be right. I totally respect your point of view and honour the time you’ve spend in your own study and contemplation and listen intently as I do believe the bible, new testament (minus revolutions) holds great wisdom and can help us live a better lives and come to a better understanding of God.

That said, no nothing you said makes me reconsider my conclusion Jesus was likely mythic not a historic figure.

Despite that, I know we could have powerful discussions and wouldn’t even know I think that as when I refer the terms that matter like the “holy spirit” I mean the same holy spirit you mean. We just have two very different views on the original disciples and what they actually taught, their purpose and what Jesus is and serves. Toward this last motive, my hope in sharing my opinion is not to shake your beliefs but rather challenge untruth and half-truths to clear the way for the Truth and join in on strengthening our connection with the Holy Spirit which is muddled by falsehood minor & major.

You must've read Harpur?

No, although there was a lot of pretext the actual first time I gave this any credence was when I read arguments made by: Richard Carrier. Sounds from Wikipedia Harpur focused on where the gospel’s shared structure with other religious stories. That is curious but not damning. No Carrier introduced a different way of reading acts & Paul’s letter in a more critical lens than the one I have ever been reading before which was based on current Christian commentary. I do question his motive but his position was stated with humility (does not dismiss your view or others) and merely tried to contrast different modes of thinking which is true inquiry.

His ultimate argument & conclusions: atheism and dismissal of Christianity as a source of God/wisdom/authority is radically different from my own conclusion based on what I believe was him supporting his own “secular belief system”. Outsiders often though can give valuable feedback.

I think his criticism had some key points worth examining and which makes the big picture make a lot more sense. We do not after all take our belief based on faith or testament alone but on the total reflection of the fruits and above all else trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal Truth.

 

[Conaeolos]

The fact of the matter is Paul often spoke of Jesus...

Dismissal and calling things absurd are the corners where the light of truth is hidden.

I have not read Harpur but if like Carrier his intention were to discredit Christianity then I understand the speed at which one dismisses his ideas. It doesn’t pass a smell test. That is not to say there isn’t real inquiry there. Yes, of course, Paul mentioned Jesus and “word made flesh” no sane person dismisses Paul was a Christian. We all make huge assumptions and put a great deal of trust in others when we read the new testament. An old document that was written in a foreign language in a culture unrecognizable from our own.

Timothy 2:5
Can be read: Christ Jesus of Mankind or "for mankind" amongst other things.

Philippians 2:5 -> Philippians 2:7
Specifically mentions likeness

Romans 1:3
Difference between “begotten” and “created” son. Guess which was used here?

There is better evidence: 2 Cor 5:16, Galatians 4:4, Acts 12:2 and Rom 1:3 from others which are more supportive of a historic Jesus and Gal. 1:1,1 Cor. 15:45, Heb. 8:2 that goes the other way.

but gospel correlation: 1 Timothy 6:13?
Well no, in fact, Jesus did not testify before Pilate and this can be read that the "original revelation transpired during the reign of Pontius Pilate."

Once you weigh it all out there are two reasonable readings both with their own pros and cons. No side completely sound and the other ridiculous. If you with 100% faith believe the new testament is God’s word to the iota, you're going to side with the interpretation which supports that truth. I don't see great harm in that only limitations toward the bigger pictrue. If however, you view the bible as the creation of men be them inspired (my opinion) or simply believers(Carrier) your going to side with the other interpretation which has a lot of contextual and subjective support to larger questions we now face 2000 years later…such as why many wonderful wise and spiritual ground people are not Christian.

The wisdom in the bible says on these type matters: “by their fruits, you shall know them”.

I ask: does Jesus’s teaching teach to follow “conviction” or “humility”? Does it support “This is God and he was this man” or “I am that which I am”? “Israel is the only priesthood” or “the kingdom of God is within you”?

God Bless

 

[Vox]

I ask: does Jesus’s teaching teach to follow “conviction” or “humility”? Does it support “This is God and he was this man” or “I am that which I am”? “Israel is the only priesthood” or “the kingdom of God is within you”?

Which teaching do we judge?

The teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Jesus Christ?

 

[Somerville]

From Josephus, we have the Testimonium Flavianum which is often presented as 'proof' for the existence of Jesus, yet, for some reason Josephus wrote far more about other Jewish messianic persons than about Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus also describes several Jewish messianic leaders of the first century: Simon, Athronges, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, ‘The Egyptian’, Menahem, etc. But excepting Testimonium Flavianum (A.J. 18.63-64) – by most scholars considered at least a partial later Christian interpolation – Jesus from Nazareth is not visible in the works of Josephus.
(. . .)
The fact that the Gospels describe Jesus as someone with a large following, and one whose trial involved two high priests, the tetrarch of Galilee, and the prefect of Iudaea, heightens the discrepancy between sources.

This discrepancy has led to the common view that although Jesus from Nazareth most likely existed, he was probably less significant in his own time than the gospel accounts suggest. A minority view holds that Jesus was an entirely mythological character.

For Josephus to have failed to note the "thousands of followers" of this new Messiah seems just a bit odd. Never mind the whole earthquake, darkness of the sun for three hours and the zombies walking in the streets of Jerusalem.

 

[Conaeolos]

Which teaching do we judge?

Any teaching stands on its own merit. So the teaching we know and hear.

The teaching of Jesus or the teaching of Jesus Christ?

Does it matter? To a point certainly…but ultimately there is Truth and then what we call our understanding of truth. We must be humble.

As several links and much discussion have shown here........Jesus preached standard Pharisee doctrine as an itinerant Pharisee rabbi. Nothing Hellenistic.

If we treat Jesus as a historic person this is 100% verifiable.

Saul/Paul is the one that brought in Hellenistic and Pagan notions.......much to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus.

umm, highly judized ones however…his views were not so radical of the many interpretations of the time.

Conaeolos asks why there was not more resistance to Saul/Paul......well, that was because he preached to new Gentile converts who only knew that he was offering them an exciting new religion with speaking in tongues, prophecies, love feasts, miracles and (most of all) the newly adapted concept of salvation through "Grace" and the vicarious suffering and death of a "Christ"--(which meant you could sin and yet not be held accountable for your sin).

That is one very cynical view of the guy.

Paul offered a "get into heaven free" pass........which was irresistible to the sin-loving Gentiles (who knew a really good deal when they heard it).

That’s a broad brush. Question: is “salvation” a gift or a reward?

That's why there was not more resistance. S/P's primary targets were vulnerable Gentiles.

Well today's Christians were built on those tenants so be careful when ripping them down. Don’t want to throw the baby with the bath water.

The real disciples of Jesus resisted, but were too quickly outnumbered and neutralized.

Since you seem to think this happened in the early early church and there is a clear line. Do you mean the Judaic sects which maintained the oral Torah and Law? Or the gnostics?

Those are the only two pre catholic splinter non-orthodox groups I am aware still teach "true interpretation" with line they claim is pre-creed today?

 

[Vox]

Question: is “salvation” a gift or a reward?

Interesting question.

Jesus the itinerant and radical Pharisee rabbi would say that salvation is the result of doing good works of love that are in themselves heaven. He'd call it entering the Kingdom of God. Modern psychologists would call it "becoming your best self--your ultimate you."

Jesus Christ, on the other hand........would say (speaking through the mouth of The Liar Saul/Paul) that salvation is a gift from God--payment for your sins through the suffering and death of himself, Jesus the Christ--Savior and Messiah (and this good news brought to you by Saul/Paul--who as the greatest man left in the world really deserves most of the credit for this gift).

He'd say that..........even though all your sins are paid for.......you really should not sin even though you know you can get away with it (wink wink).

 

[zyzygy]

but ultimately there is Truth?

Why does there have to be a "Truth"?

 

[Vox]

The real disciples of Jesus resisted, but were too quickly outnumbered and neutralized.

Since you seem to think this happened in the early early church and there is a clear line. Do you mean the Judaic sects which maintained the oral Torah and Law? Or the gnostics?

I mean the original disciples of Jesus......for example, Peter, James and John.

 

[Vox]

Why does there have to be a "Truth"?

It's not that there "has to be," it's that there is.

 

[zyzygy]

It's not that there "has to be," it's that there is.

And what is it? How do you know that it exists?

 

[RAMOSS]

Epiphanius also thought the Ebionites were heretics, but I am not surprised that you would think they are legit.

Yes, but he did report that the Ebionites said that Paul was a convert to woo the daughter of a high priest, and got upset when she rejected him. That explains why his attitudes towards the laws are so out of sync with the Jewish attitudes of that time period.

 

[Conaeolos]

Why does there have to be a "Truth"?

Zyzygy you don’t see God in the world, so what I call “the will of God” or “the Truth” you call reality.

Why does Reality have to exist over our conception of truth? It a self-affirming statement.

I mean the original disciples of Jesus......for example, Peter, James and John.

Yes I get that. I believe the theory goes they were the Church in Jerusalem(Judaic sect).

Jesus the itinerant and radical Pharisee rabbi would say that salvation is the result of doing good works of love that are in themselves heaven. He'd call it entering the Kingdom of God. Modern psychologists would call it "becoming your best self--your ultimate you.”

I personally would see much more in line with this one if not completely. Although I’d disagree if he said that good works is rewarded with the heavenly state. Good works certainly set one up for the heavenly state but loving works alone does not seem to always produce it. I would still say its a gift and although I think gospel Jesus did teach that, many seem to disagree so I would not presume to make the statement he did. After all it is them who carry out works in his name and preserve his stories not I.

Jesus Christ, on the other hand........would say (speaking through the mouth of The Liar Saul/Paul) that salvation is a gift from God--payment for your sins through the suffering and death of himself, Jesus the Christ--Savior and Messiah (and this good news brought to you by Saul/Paul--who as the greatest man left in the world really deserves most of the credit for this gift).

My personal bigger issue with Paul’s explanation is actually one of the core christian tenets: sacrifice to erase sin. That to me make no sense…before “judaism” history says people on the regular just sacrificed children in the name of gods/God, now that is just sick and evil. Then we had animals, less evil but how pointless. Yeah God needs goat blood - yum? Finally we rid the physical practice but keep the idea? umm…weird.

A God who asks for sacrifices still strikes me as evil. I don’t think however the fruits of Judaism or Christianity were or are evil yet both clearly prescribed(prescribes) physical sacrifice even if just in story form(there are some in both who think if there was a temple...)…and in so comes up one of those bigger questions I talked about earlier. Of course it can still have an answer which seemed to skip right by on most who went down the the road, who choose instead to throw out thousands of years of religion for atheism cause yeah let’s just replace what a huge part of our ansestors life to be replaced with…

A tolerant and loving person doesn’t micromanage people of less fortune. They stand guard against evil but leave for the most part the ridiculousness to be sorted out by itself. So why do we not prescribe this to who we don’t understand - God? To me, that is what we see if again you view Torah as people writing and preserving important stories instead of the word of God. :: Truth guiding the people away from evil without shocking them out of their own misguided understandings. The parental concept of scaffolding. It s a very old document and the evils then were very in your face - sacrfice normal. In the end though, you let the kids be kids but you show them a little at a time being patient well they sort it out for themselves.

He'd say that..........even though all your sins are paid for.......you really should not sin even though you know you can get away with it (wink wink).

Yes, I think we can all agree what is termed “sin” almost always comes with its own consequences. No need for punishment by any outside power.

 

[Vox]

And what is it? How do you know that it exists?

It's a toothy and vicious little weasel.

It has bit me on the arse often enough to assure me of its existence.

 

[it's just me]

Yes, but he did report that the Ebionites said that Paul was a convert to woo the daughter of a high priest, and got upset when she rejected him. That explains why his attitudes towards the laws are so out of sync with the Jewish attitudes of that time period.

The Ebionites said a lot of things.

 

[RAMOSS]

The Ebionites said a lot of things.

Yes, they did. The point though is that this supports the thesis that Paul was not brought up in a religious Jewish household, but is not the primary evidence for it. The primary evidence of it is Paul's attitudes and knowledge as described in the writings that are attributed to Paul himself.