• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Case for Christ

Don't take my word for it.......simply read Maccoby and you will be forced to reexamine your bizarre belief.

Because Paul invented "The Christ" concept and dishonestly applied it to Jesus (to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus).

Maccoby's work on the historical Jesus and Paul has been widely panned and finds virtually no support in the scholarly community. Believe him and promote his work if you will, just be aware that you are not promoting a view held by any serious number of historians, but rather a fringe position with virtually no support within the scholarly community. His work has been panned by Jewish, Christian, and secular historians alike.

Maccoby is to New Testament History as Wakefield (creator of the anti-vax movement) is to medicine.
 
Last edited:
Maccoby's work on the historical Jesus and Paul has been widely panned and finds virtually no support in the scholarly community. Believe him and promote his work if you will, just be aware that you are not promoting a view held by any serious number of historians, but rather a fringe position with virtually no support within the scholarly community. His work has been panned by Jewish, Christian, and secular historians alike.

Maccoby is one of the MOST respected Talmudic scholars.

There is no dispute of that fact.

Where he differs from others is his work on the fables of Saul/Paul and the fallacy of the "Christ" myth.

The reason is simple. Jewish scholars have always known that the NT version of Jesus is in direct opposition to the actual history.

One example: The NT portrays Jesus as being in opposition to the Pharisees. The Talmud and Jewish history clearly show the Pharisees to be IN AGREEMENT with the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus was teaching the same thing that the Pharisees of his time were teaching. This is just one of many New Testament lies that Maccoby exposes.

As I said before, the best of the Jewish scholars have always known this..........it's common knowledge.

Why don't they write about it? Why do they deny what Maccoby wrote?

Simple. The Jews see no profit in it. A Jew bebunking and refuting the NT enrages the Christians (dangerous for any Jewish writer/scholar) and the books will suffer a firestorm of criticism.

Maccoby should be applauded for his courage rather than criticized.
 
So Joe finally consummated his relationship with Mary?

I wonder if they needed counseling due to Mary's little adulterous fling with God?

Is there more info about Jesus' bro?

We're not talking about hypothetical gossip, Doxygen.

To each his own.

If you enjoy..... and you want to indulge and stretch your mind on cheap, sleazy thoughts.....create your own thread for it. Nothing stops you.
 
Last edited:
What you ignore is the fact that the Bible (your part, that which you call a "new testament") was totally written and edited by Saul/Paul, Luke and their disciples and later followers.

OF COURSE it calls Jesus "The Christ."

Because Paul invented the thing.

Once you get that (and get that Paul was a liar and a fraud) you will see that once the crooked card called Saul/Paul is pulled out of the base of the Christian House of Cards..........that House of Cards collapses in ruins.

All Christianity is totally dependent on one man.........the liar, Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

Don't take my word for it.......simply read Maccoby and you will be forced to reexamine your bizarre belief.

Because Paul invented "The Christ" concept and dishonestly applied it to Jesus (to the dismay of the real disciples of Jesus).

So that's where Ramoss gets that crap from, about Paul being a gentile, Ebionites, and Christianity not having Jewish roots...
 
We're not talking about hypothetical gossip, Doxygen.

Says the guy who uses the false "New Testament" as validation for his bizarre Christian belief.

:mrgreen:
 
:lol:


Clearly.....

Your logical thinking has gone south.

I think you better take a break, and think about what you just said. That's laughable.

Check out the explanation on post #220. It should help you somewhat. I hope.

Why do you keep trying to reference logic when nothing you're trying to address involves it?
 
So that's where Ramoss gets that crap from, about Paul being a gentile, Ebionites, and Christianity not having Jewish roots...

Yes, Saul/Paul was an enemy of the real (Jewish) disciples of Jesus and was certainly no Pharisee as he claimed (proven by his own clearly erroneous writings about Pharisee teachings).

Saul/Paul's total lack of authenticity proves Christianity to be inauthentic because Saul/Paul invented the whole thing without even having ever met Jesus.

The man with two names was a fake and a liar.
 
We're not talking about hypothetical gossip, Doxygen.

To each his own.

If you enjoy..... and you want to indulge and stretch your mind on cheap, sleazy thoughts.....create your own thread for it. Nothing stops you.

Awww, that was PG at worst. Just trying to inject a little humor.

A box with some first names, got it.

Serious question : have you actually read The Case for Christ, or are you just promoting it?
 
Yes, Saul/Paul was an enemy of the real (Jewish) disciples of Jesus and was certainly no Pharisee as he claimed (proven by his own clearly erroneous writings about Pharisee teachings).

Saul/Paul's total lack of authenticity proves Christianity to be inauthentic because Saul/Paul invented the whole thing without even having ever met Jesus.

The man with two names was a fake and a liar.

MacCoby wasn't very well thought of even in his own time.
 
MacCoby wasn't very well thought of even in his own time.

Wrong.

Maccoby is highly regarded.

While I know most Christians will never read the book, you should take a look at this favorable review from an unbiased source (they're the only really good sources......those with no skin in the game).

In The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby, the author makes claims that contradict the traditional, orthodox Christian narrative:

For one, Jesus and his followers were not at war with the Pharisees; rather, they were Pharisees. The Pharisees’ bullying and contention against Jesus and his followers is a fabrication that contradicts Pharisee conduct. This false narrative is needed, however, to make Judaism a false, irrelevant religion in place of a new religion created by Paul: Pauline Christianity, a synthesis of mystery cults, Hellenism, Judaism, and Gnosticism.

Maccoby claims a second New Testament distortion, that a group called the Ebionites were heretics. In Maccoby’s view, the Ebionites are the true disciples of Jesus and his followers. They were not heretics. They had earlier been called the Nazarenes, led by James and Peter.

Maccoby goes into detail about how Gospel books were rewritten and re-edited to create antagonism between Pharisees and Jesus when a closer look shows that their exchanges were friendly.

Unlike a bunch of fanatical legalistic scolds as described in the New Testament, the Pharisees were liberal and progressive. Their mischaracterization has gone into the world’s collective unconsciousness and resulted in anti-Semitism.

Maccoby claims that Paul makes the Jews the killer of Christ when in fact it was the Romans. This distortion also results in anti-Semitism.

Another falsity from Paul is his claim to be a Pharisee. In Maccoby’s view, Paul is a hack whose faulty logic and analogies evidence a man over his head as he tries to impersonate himself as a Pharisee. In Maccoby’s view, Paul is not even a Jew.

Yet another claimed falsity is that Stephen was killed by the Pharisees. Maccoby argues that the High Priest and his henchmen did it. Paul is “a man of doubtful antecedents and few ideals” who works as a henchman, a “police mercenary,” for the Sadducean High Priest.

The book is fascinating in retelling Paul’s revelation at Damascus. This revelation changed world history. Just as an idea that amazes me: That a person can have a vision or a profound religious experience, and that this experience can radically change the world for thousands of years. That’s the most amazing thing about Christianity to me. I suppose the same can be said for the religion of Islam and other religions.

In the case of Paul, Maccoby paints him as a frustrated man of ambition, a man without ideals, but a man whose soul was divided. His revelation helped resolve this conflict.

But the revelation at Damascus shed light on a troubling grandiosity seething in Paul. We read, “His ‘revelation’ is thus more even than a revelation: it is a transformation and a deification of Paul himself as the supreme manifestation of the phenomenon of impregnation by God.

There is more at the link given........read more and then read the book.

It's probably the best source extant to tell us the truth about the man with two names who invented "Christ."

Hyam Maccoby?s Moral Indictment of Paul Who?s Seen as an Unscrupulous Adventurer and Self-Promoter. - Leaving Anhedonia
 
Last edited:
More Favorable coverage of Maccoby:

As many scholars (e.g., E.P. Sanders, Burton Mack) are now doing, Maccoby demonstrates how the gospel portrait of the Pharisees as legalistic opponents of Jesus is a later distortion drawn by Christians who no longer had the remotest idea of what the Pharisees had actually stood for. When one compares the positions attributed to Jesus with those held by contemporary Pharisees, one is tempted to number Jesus among their ranks (see in the same vein Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee and Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew).

If we admit this, Maccoby asks, how can we hold onto the New Testament story that Paul had persecuted the followers of Jesus because he was a good Pharisee? If the portrait of Paul is seen to be based on an anachronistic apologetical distortion, then we cannot be seeing the real Paul. Maccoby concludes that Paul cannot have been a Pharisee, that his claims are fabrications. (This problem would vanish if we removed both Acts and Philippians as spurious where the historical Paul is concerned: then he would have made no such claims).

Maccoby points out that even in Acts there is a tension between the Pharisees who, like Gamaliel, seem fairly well-disposed toward the apostles, and the High Priest who, along with his obedient minion Paul, is out for Christian blood. If Paul is a Pharisee, he is on the wrong side in this scenario! Maccoby makes him a member of the Temple police, an operative of the High Priest, no Pharisee at all. Neither does Paul in his letters, Maccoby continues, in fact practice Pharisaic/Rabbinic techniques of exegesis, despite the oft-repeated claims of W.D. Davies and others whose search for authentic Rabbinism in Paul comes up with such meagre results. Maccoby shows how such Christian scholars and apologists do not seem to get the point, for instance, of the "qal wahomer" argument and confuse it instead with a generally similar lesser-to-greater argument familiar from popular Hellenistic rhetoric. It is the latter, not the former which Paul can be shown to practice. And alleged bits of rabbinic scribal lore, such as the rolling stone that provided water in the wilderness, can be shown to be the common property of popular Hellenistic Judaism (**Pseudo-Philo). Paul does not argue like a Pharisee.

Review - Maccoby - The Myth Maker by Robert M. Price
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

Maccoby is highly regarded.

While I know most Christians will never read the book, you should take a look at this favorable review from an unbiased source (they're the only really good sources......those with no skin in the game).



There is more at the link given........read more and then read the book.

It's probably the best source extant to tell us the truth about the man with two names who invented "Christ."

Hyam Maccoby?s Moral Indictment of Paul Who?s Seen as an Unscrupulous Adventurer and Self-Promoter. - Leaving Anhedonia

Go read the Wikipedia article about him. "Reception of McCobys view of Paul has been generally negative". One guy said that his book was not good history or history at all.
 
Maccoby is one of the MOST respected Talmudic scholars.

His accolades in other fields are irrelevant.

The fact remains his work on the historical Jesus and Paul is widely panned by NT Scholars and historians alike. Virtually no scholar of any note takes his work in those areas seriously.

But I guess you've created your own alternate history where Maccoby was a very highly regarded historian whose theories are widely accepted.
 
Last edited:
Go read the Wikipedia article about him. "Reception of McCobys view of Paul has been generally negative". One guy said that his book was not good history or history at all.

Wikipedia? LOL! Anybody can comment on Wikipedia.

Negativity? Naturally--from Christians.

I gave you favorable reviews from unbiased scholars.
 
His accolades in other fields is irrelevant.

The accolades are from his work as one of the best Talmudic scholars........and that's what he used to invalidate Saul/Paul........creator of the "Christ" myth.
 
The accolades are from his work as one of the best Talmudic scholars........and that's what he used to invalidate Saul/Paul........creator of the "Christ" myth.

OK...you go ahead and believe that. I think enough evidence has been provided here that no one else but you is going to fall for that.
 
Wikipedia? LOL! Anybody can comment on Wikipedia.

Negativity? Naturally--from Christians.

I gave you favorable reviews from unbiased scholars.

One of those reviews was in a Jewish publication.

Look, I share your sentiments, Wikipedia isn't the best place to find information but I think I know enough about Christian history to know that guy was a crackpot.
 
SoN that's where Ramoss gets that crap from, about Paul being a gentile, Ebionites, and Christianity not having Jewish roots...

NO, actually. I do not get anything from Maccbby. One of my sources is actually an early christian father. The other is , well, looking at Paul's writings, and how it compares to the Jewish culture of that time period.
 
One of those reviews was in a Jewish publication.

Look, I share your sentiments, Wikipedia isn't the best place to find information but I think I know enough about Christian history to know that guy was a crackpot.

Except........the links I gave you mentioned a number of major scholars who agree with Maccoby (possibly even scholars better than yourself).

Read them.......don't just accept the Christian propaganda.
 
Except........the links I gave you mentioned a number of major scholars who agree with Maccoby (possibly even scholars better than yourself).

Read them.......don't just accept the Christian propaganda.

It doesn't matter who agrees with him, it only matters whether or not I agree with him. You know over the past 20 years the only time I ever hear about this stuff is in places like this.
 
NO, actually. I do not get anything from Maccbby. One of my sources is actually an early christian father. The other is , well, looking at Paul's writings, and how it compares to the Jewish culture of that time period.

You wouldn't mind telling me who the early father is?
 
Except........the links I gave you mentioned a number of major scholars who agree with Maccoby (possibly even scholars better than yourself).

No, it does not.

It appears you are unable to identify who qualifies as a major scholar.

You fell for a crackpot and are doubling down.
 
It doesn't matter who agrees with him, it only matters whether or not I agree with him. You know over the past 20 years the only time I ever hear about this stuff is in places like this.

That indicates you've led a sheltered life.
 
Back
Top Bottom