Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
davros of skaro

Philo's Jesus?

59 posts in this topic

Does Philo a Hellenized Jew mention Jesus?

No, but he does mention God's eldest son through a Jesus.

Philo of Alexandria "On The Confusion of Tongues"

In verse 61 Philo mentions a celestial  Garden in outer space (They did not know what the Stars where).In verse 62 Philo alludes to the prophet Zecharia and verse 6:12.Philo takes the verse out of context to tie in the celestial Garden and (through verse 63) God's firstborn.The Zecharia verse is about the crowning of Joshua.Joshua is English for Yeshua which means "Yahweh is salvation" or Greek Jesus meaning "savior".

Zechariah 6:12 (KJV)

12 And speak unto him, saying , Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying , Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Joshua&searchmode=none

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Jesus&searchmode=none

XIV. (60) But those who conspired to commit injustice, he says, "having come from the east, found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt There;"{16}{#ge 11:2.} speaking most strictly in accordance with nature. For there is a twofold kind of dawning in the soul, the one of a better sort, the other of a worse. That is the better sort, when the light of the virtues shines forth like the beams of the sun; and that is the worse kind, when they are overshadowed, and the vices show forth. (61) Now, the following is an example of the former kind: "And God planted a paradise in Eden, toward the East,"{17}{#ge 2:8.} not of terrestrial but of celestial plants, which the planter caused to spring up from the incorporeal light which exists around him, in such a way as to be for ever inextinguishable. (62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!"{18}{#zec 6:12.} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.

In verse 146 Philo says God's firstborn son is an archangel and he has many names.

(146) And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book15.html

Philo a contemporary of Paul, believes in a celestial son of God revealed through select passages of the Old Testament.Paul may have been writing about this same archangel firstborn of God, and later Church powers invented a historical Jesus to control doctrine (to stamp out the the origin of belief aka competition).

Keep in mind mainstream scholarship only in recent decades mostly agree that the Biblical patriarchs like Moses and Abraham are myth.Many scholars in this field are Christian and some secular ones have their paychecks signed by Christians.Also the Jesus myth position has been muddied up by poor scholarship, ad hom attacks, the taboo that protects Religion and the cherishment surrounding a figure deeply ingrained into society.

If not done so previously, check out the lectures linked in my signature and below.

Book of Acts Historical Fiction

Miracles and Historical Method

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like disinformation to me.

Is it really mainstream to say that none of the biblical figures existed? Or is it somebody's preference?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like disinformation to me.

Is it really mainstream to say that none of the biblical figures existed? Or is it somebody's preference?

They believe there was a King David.

Why not look at what else the mainstream historians and archeologists believe through evidence?

Bible Buried Secrets

The Bible Unearthed:

1 The Patriarchs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t440bxhn1qA

2 The Exodus

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDs8HgOZ4o

3 The Kings

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm45sZEu25w

4 The Book

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdKptBL5dc

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(146) And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, ...

Interesting. Philo is writing sometime between about 41 and 65 AD. If there was a "historical Jesus," Philo should have heard of him by this time.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Philo is writing sometime between about 41 and 65 AD. If there was a "historical Jesus," Philo should have heard of him by this time.

Doug

I urge you to listen to the third lecture in my signature.Philo and Paul share the same descriptions of this "Son of God", but Paul's writings have evidence of tampering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, does it really matter whether or not Jesus was a real person? If you agree with the message of the Bible, then why does it matter so much that it is allegory?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, does it really matter whether or not Jesus was a real person? If you agree with the message of the Bible, then why does it matter so much that it is allegory?

Naturally I can't speak for all who believe in Jesus but for me jesus' message was a crucial one to be sent, but was ultimately secondary to Jesus' actions on the Cross, to die and then literally resurrect some three days later. While I'll always take the spiritual message of Jesus as of great importance, the events of the crucifixion are a game changer in terms of my faith. Without the Resurrection, my faith is pitiable and I'll discard it the moment I'm shown it false.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, does it really matter whether or not Jesus was a real person? If you agree with the message of the Bible, then why does it matter so much that it is allegory?

Ask her that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the Resurrection, my faith is pitiable and I'll discard it the moment I'm shown it false.

LOL!

That's a good one.Thanks!

Here's another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like disinformation to me.

Is it really mainstream to say that none of the biblical figures existed? Or is it somebody's preference?

It's not completely true that Moses, Abraham, Jesus et al. did not exist. Most were composites of real people - a little from this guy's life story mixed with a little from that one, etc. And at least one's existence has been confirmed by archeology. But the Bible would be better described as a historical novel than as a history book.

Moses seems to be a composite of Djehuty, Osar-Seph, Amenmesses, Ahmose and maybe some others. Djehuty was a courtier of Queen Hatshepsut, a supervisory priest of On and best friend of her lover and chief architect, Senemet. There is a limestone flake, an architect's rough draft, that shows Senemet and Djehuty together, so we may actually have a picture of "Moses" drawn by somebody who actually saw him. When Hatshepsut died, Djehuty got the job of taking her body to be buried. Somehow on that trip an altercation resulted in Djehuty killing a man named Ptah Sokar and burying his body in the sand. When this was discovered, Hatshepsut's successor, Thutmose III, ordered Djehuty to Thebes to explain himself - in other words, he was to be tried for murder. The American Museum has the letter. Djehuty fled to Joppa where he met up with a shepherd king, the Sheik of Joppa. In a coup straight out of the Arabian Nights (It's the story of Alababa and the Forty Thieves.), Djehuty overthrew the sheik and sent the prisoners to Thutmose III as a gift. Thutmose III pardoned him for the murder and Djehuty returned home to Egypt.

Seti, the future Seti I, was delegated by Horemheb to build a new city adjacent to the old Hyksos capitol at Avaris. Seti wanted to be privy to the counsels of the gods and was advised by his sooth-sayer that he could do this by cleansing Egypt of all lepers and unclean people. Seti, who hated "Asiatics," decided that included people of Semitic descent, so he rounded them up, including some priests. Then, because he needed a labor force, instead of expelling them, he conscripted them to build the cities of Piramesse (Ramses, named for his father) and Pithom. Seti's sooth-sayer started having second thoughts about rounding up priests and warned Seti that a thirteen-year curse would fall on Egypt if any harm came to them.

One of the priests was Osar-Seph who acted as a foreman between Seti and the work crews. Osar-Seph asked for permission to repair the old Hyksos ruins as a living place for the slaves/workers. Permission was granted. Osar-Seph then sent word to Jerusalem, offering the rulers their former capitol back if they would help overthrow the Egyptians. This they did and for thirteen years they "despoiled the Egyptians." Seti, afraid of the curse, declined to do anything, but went into hiding (The stories say in "Ethiopia."). When Horemheb died, Seti's father Ramses I took the throne. Ramses ruled only fourteen months before dying of an ear infection, whereupon, Seti became Pharaoh Seti I and set out to retake Piramesse/Avaris and drive the "troublesome Shosu" out of Egypt.

Amenmesses was the son of Merneptah and a half-brother of Seti II. In keeping with tradition, Merneptah ruled from Piramesse/Memphis, while Amenmesses commanded the army in Thebes to prevent incursions by the "Ethiopians," acquiring an Ethiopian wife in hostage negotiations after a victory over the Ethiopian king. When Merneptah died, Seti II became Pharaoh, but Amenmesses had the army and decided he should be Pharaoh. Seti garnered support from the other princes, raised an army and marched on Thebes. That's where history ends and coincidents start piling up. There is a convenient escape route from Thebes through Wadi Hammamat that leads to the coast of the Red Sea. A boat could easily sail from there across the Red Sea in a day. And Serabit al Khaddim, the real-life prototype of the biblical Rephidim, is only 25 miles from there. Twenty-one years later a man named "Moses," a man with military experience. is in command of mining operations in Sinai. The miners were mostly from Canaan.

Ahmose I was the last Pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty and first Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty. He was the one who finally overthrew the Hyksos and forced them out of Egypt. The 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th dynasties were contemporary - all existed at the same time. The 17th was Egyptian; the others were Hyksos. The 14th and 15th were overthrown in the war. The 16th hung on against Ahmose' attacks. "Ahmose" means "Child of the Moon" ("Moses" is an Egyptian word meaning "child."). Ahmose' predecessor, the last Pharaoh of the 16th Dynasty was named "Amu" - meaning "father;" the biblical Moses' father was named Amram, also meaning "father." The Pharonic line-of-succession three generations earlier had a name named Jacob-Baal ("Follower of God"). And three generations before the biblical Amram was a man named Jacob-Israel ("Follower - God's Warrior"). Moses' genealogy is a Hyksos king list.

But there was at least one person in the Moses story who really lived. He was the priest of Baal - Balaam, owner of the talking donkey. Balaam's name was found on a wall at Hisban. He was a priest of the Baalist sun god. And he really lived. Also, the name Phineus is carved into the rock at Serabit al Khaddim. There is a Phineus in the Exodus story - the same one? Or just coincidence?

There are several people named Jesus who lived about the time of the biblical Jesus. They have many similarities to the biblical Jesus, including one who was crucified and one who was murdered by the Romans and his body hung on a tree (Though I doubt the truthfulness of the latter.).

The Bible stories are neither completely true, nor completely false. They are legends.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In post # 7 above, PA demonstrates the 'bottom line' for Christian faith: The Resurrection. Although it is doubtful that such an event can ever be "proven" as historical, an historical-critical reading of the Gospels indicates the centrality of the resurrection event--internally to the gospel narrative and beyond (kerygmatically, as the 'message' of the Gospels) for the propagation of the message. PA, as usual, exhibits courage in making this claim, and does not flinch from it as the 'sine qua non' of Christian faith, expressed and active.

1 Corinthians 14:15--- Paul writes that if "Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also vain." I appreciate PA's adherence to this central and indispensable (in my opinion) aspect of the Christian faith as transmitted, entrusted and expressed.

Without the resurrection the story of Jesus is a nice amalgam of nativity anecdotes, intimations of divinity, ethical principles, fascinating human interest stories, miraculous actions, broad interpretation of Jewish monotheism, examples of breaching the norms of Jewish faith, but on the whole, hardly compelling.

Edited by DeWitz
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of post Pauline interpolation.

In 1 Thes 1:9-10 Paul talks about Pagan persecution of the Thessalonians and that God's wrath is yet to come.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 (KJV)

9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

In 1 Thes 2:14-16 Paul talks of Jewish persecution, but strangely he mentions God's wrath has come.The mention of the Jews killing Jesus and God's wrath come upon them sounds of post Temple destruction by the Romans.This looks post Pauline.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 (KJV)

14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved , to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Check this article out for deeper textual scrutiny on why Paul did not write 1Thes 2:14-16.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html?m=1

Meanwhile at the same time of Paul, Philo writes about God's divine angelic ambassador for Mankind.

"WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS" Chapter 42

(205) And the Father who created the universe has given to his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. (206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;"{69}{#nu 16:48.} neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the 17th Century version of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the 17th Century version of Jesus.

What did you prefer about said 17th century Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you prefer about said 17th century Jesus?

I think he adores the Isaac Newton look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is alleged that the following is easily recognized as an interpolation:

1Thessalonians 2: 14-16

For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus and also drove out their own prophets and us. They do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up their sins. Moreover, the wrath of God always has come upon them to the utmost.

I disagree.

Since we are discussing Paul, can we find a similar passage in the Jewish scripture? Something that Paul may have updated in light of recent experience?

Let's try 2 Chronicles 36: 15-16

(In what follows, "they" are the princes of Judah, not Jews generally)

Early and often the LORD, the God of their ancestors, sent his messengers to them, for he had compassion on his people and his dwelling place.j But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the LORD's anger against his people blazed up beyond remedy.

And indeed, what follows is the destruction of a Temple in Jerusalem - the First Temple, not the Second Temple. Gee, what was that like? Was that wrath to the utmost?

Continuing on until the middle of verse 20:

Then he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in their own sanctuary, with compassion for neither young men nor young women, neither the old nor the infirm; all of them he delivered into his power.

All the utensils of the house of God, large and small, the treasures of the LORD's house, and the treasures of the king and his princes, all these he brought to Babylon.m They burnt the house of God, tore down the walls of Jerusalem, burnt down all its palaces, and destroyed all its precious objects.Those who escaped the sword he carried captive to Babylon, where they became slaves...

Meh, a rough couple of days, and then the survivors' servitude, and their children's, and their grandcildren's only lasted another 70 years before the Persians came to power. Piece of cake.

BTW, although 2 Chronicles does include the killing of a prophet, the translation of Paul which asserts that Jews killed their own prophets, rather than what 2 Chronicles 36 says, relies on Matthew 23:37 (also picked up by Luke 13: 34):

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, ...

Paul's verb placement is (arguably) ambiguous

http://biblehub.com/...salonians/2.htm

It is odd that while Paul has been translated in parallel with this verse, the (supposed) ambiguity of Paul's verb placement has not been fixed in the source material that reaches us. One would think that an interpolator would actually get the point of making an interpolation clear I have chosen the other translation to place in this post, the one that parallels what is obviously Paul's source for the remark, not what paralles something that was written after 1 Thessalonians.

On a point arising, in any admissible translation, Paul's anger is not addressed to Jews, but to Jews who mistreated Jesus, their own prophets and "us." Paul does indeed number himself among those Jews elsewhere in his letters, but with no pride.

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you prefer about said 17th century Jesus?

Well for one, he was really easy to follow because all of his words were in red.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is alleged that the following is easily recognized as an interpolation:

1Thessalonians 2: 14-16

I disagree.

Since we are discussing Paul, can we find a similar passage in the Jewish scripture? Something that Paul may have updated in light of recent experience?

Let's try 2 Chronicles 36: 15-16

(In what follows, "they" are the princes of Judah, not Jews generally)

And indeed, what follows is the destruction of a Temple in Jerusalem - the First Temple, not the Second Temple. Gee, what was that like? Was that wrath to the utmost?

Continuing on until the middle of verse 20:

Meh, a rough couple of days, and then the survivors' servitude, and their children's, and their grandcildren's only lasted another 70 years before the Persians came to power. Piece of cake.

BTW, although 2 Chronicles does include the killing of a prophet, the translation of Paul which asserts that Jews killed their own prophets, rather than what 2 Chronicles 36 says, relies on Matthew 23:37 (also picked up by Luke 13: 34):

Paul's verb placement is (arguably) ambiguous

http://biblehub.com/...salonians/2.htm

It is odd that while Paul has been translated in parallel with this verse, the (supposed) ambiguity of Paul's verb placement has not been fixed in the source material that reaches us. One would think that an interpolator would actually get the point of making an interpolation clear I have chosen the other translation to place in this post, the one that parallels what is obviously Paul's source for the remark, not what paralles something that was written after 1 Thessalonians.

On a point arising, in any admissible translation, Paul's anger is not addressed to Jews, but to Jews who mistreated Jesus, their own prophets and "us." Paul does indeed number himself among those Jews elsewhere in his letters, but with no pride.

The Jews were redeemed by Christ Cyrus through God from the Babylonian exile centuries earlier.

1 Thes 1:10 mentions a "wrath to come", meaning a final judgement.

1 Thes 2:16 says "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.", meaning a final judgement has happened.

Paul talks many times of a future final judgement.

Romans 2:5 (KJV)

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Romans 3:5-6 (KJV)

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid : for then how shall God judge the world?

1 Thes 2:13-16 has an antisemitic tone which is unlike Paul and he talks with pride as being a Jew (not to mention that many of the Church members are Jews too).

Romans 11:1 (KJV)

1 I say then , Hath God cast away his people? God forbid . For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 Corinthians 11:22 (KJV)

22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

Paul talks about that the Jews will be saved.

Romans 11:25-28 (KJV)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in . 26 And so all Israel shall be saved : as it is written , There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer , and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes : but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Christians have no problem doing what it takes to promote an historical Jesus.Putting words in people's mouths is nothing compared to making what started out as a celestial being revealed through the OT, into a Flesh and Blood person on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

davros

The Jews were redeemed by Christ Cyrus through God from the Babylonian exile centuries earlier.

That's nice. However, neither passage expresses any problem with the "Jews." 2 Chronicles laments the misdeeds of the princes of Judah. Those about whom Paul complains are the particular Jews who mistreated Jesus, other Jewish prophets, and the church. Among that group was Paul, who was redeemed by Christ Jesus.

By the way, the "princes of Judah" were Christs, too. Biblical kings were annointed. So what?

1 Thes 1:10 mentions a wrath to come

That's nice. So does Romans, tail end of 1 onto the beginning of 2. So what?

1 Thes 2:16 says "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.", meaning a final judgement has happened.

On whom? Final judment on the prince of Judah? OK, they're dead, their city was utterly destroyed, etc, etc.. There's an enitrely different city where theirs used to be. What's your point?

Paul talks many times of a future final judgement.

That's nice. Paul talks zero times about the destruction of the Second Temple in the past tense, the claim being flim-flammed by Carrier.

1 Thes 2:13-16 has an antisemitic tone

No, it doesn't. It alludes to Jewish scripture which criticizes specific Jews, so that by allusion Paul may criticize other specific Jews, to which group Paul admits, with sorrow, that he used to belong. Honest talk about criminals within one's own ethic group is not "anti" your group.

I am Irish. I have criticized Irish terrorists of the past. My remarks were not anti-Irish, they were anti-terrorist. Paul's remarks arent't anti-Jewish, they are anti- killer and anti-persecutor. That some of the killers and persecutors were Jewish says nothing at all about Jews. Members of an ethnic group victimizing other members of their own group is routine.

Christians have no problem doing what it takes to promote an historical Jesus.Putting words in people's mouths is nothing compared to making what started out as a celestial being revealed through the OT, into a Flesh and Blood person on Earth.

Nevertheless, 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16 is fully consistent with other writings of Paul's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16 is fully consistent with other writings of Paul's.

Speaking of Paul: Paul mentions meeting James, Jesus' brother. If anybody was in a position to know whether Jesus was real or not, it would have been James. That is, if James and Paul were real. I do not doubt that there was a "historical Paul" back there somewhere. But exactly who or what was he? And did the "historical Paul" write the letters attributed to him? I think the question of Jesus' historicity hinges on Paul. The gospels could have been written any time during the first 500 years of the modern era without affecting their reliability, such as it is. But it will most-likely be Paul who holds the key.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

davros

That's nice. However, neither passage expresses any problem with the "Jews." 2 Chronicles laments the misdeeds of the princes of Judah. Those about whom Paul complains are the particular Jews who mistreated Jesus, other Jewish prophets, and the church. Among that group was Paul, who was redeemed by Christ Jesus.

By the way, the "princes of Judah" were Christs, too. Biblical kings were annointed. So what?

That's nice. So does Romans, tail end of 1 onto the beginning of 2. So what?

On whom? Final judment on the prince of Judah? OK, they're dead, their city was utterly destroyed, etc, etc.. There's an enitrely different city where theirs used to be. What's your point?

That's nice. Paul talks zero times about the destruction of the Second Temple in the past tense, the claim being flim-flammed by Carrier.

No, it doesn't. It alludes to Jewish scripture which criticizes specific Jews, so that by allusion Paul may criticize other specific Jews, to which group Paul admits, with sorrow, that he used to belong. Honest talk about criminals within one's own ethic group is not "anti" your group.

I am Irish. I have criticized Irish terrorists of the past. My remarks were not anti-Irish, they were anti-terrorist. Paul's remarks arent't anti-Jewish, they are anti- killer and anti-persecutor. That some of the killers and persecutors were Jewish says nothing at all about Jews. Members of an ethnic group victimizing other members of their own group is routine.

Nevertheless, 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-16 is fully consistent with other writings of Paul's.

Paul makes no reference to scripture in 1 Thes 2:14-16 which he does when he qoutes scripture.

Paul talks about a revealed being that never had an Earthly ministry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Paul: Paul mentions meeting James, Jesus' brother. If anybody was in a position to know whether Jesus was real or not, it would have been James. That is, if James and Paul were real. I do not doubt that there was a "historical Paul" back there somewhere. But exactly who or what was he? And did the "historical Paul" write the letters attributed to him? I think the question of Jesus' historicity hinges on Paul. The gospels could have been written any time during the first 500 years of the modern era without affecting their reliability, such as it is. But it will most-likely be Paul who holds the key.

Doug

Paul does not make a distinction from a biological brother or a brother baptized in Christ.Look up the Greek texts and see that he usees the word "adelphos" (brother) which he calls everyone that's "in the word" of Christ.Christians are a family under God and are related in spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for one, he was really easy to follow because all of his words were in red.

Many 21st century texts have Jesus' words in red too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many 21st century texts have Jesus' words in red too.

For example this verse would be in red.

Mark 6:11 (KJV)

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example this verse would be in red.

Mark 6:11 (KJV)

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

As would this:

Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV)

" ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind .’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments .”

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.