Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
eight bits

Did Paul report meeting Jesus' brother?

249 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

. If we assume there is no supernatural... no God... then what is the point of the discussion of if Jesus was real or not?

Which is pretty well most people's position, though I'm pretty sure 8 bits did not agree when I said as much. Unless if you can prove "no Jesus", that is more ammunition in the minds of some, to use against the notion of any God, though it would not really impact, logically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, Muslims care, and while they are fewer than Christians, they are nevertheless numerous and profess that Jesus was human.

Good point, I had not considered the Muslims. I see that point.

Quote

As to miracles before death, so too did the apostles work wonders according to Christian sources. Why would I think Jesus is a facet of God and not Paul or Barnabas.

Because of the Christian traditions of the Trinity. None of the Apostles are an aspect of Godhood. Jesus is. Most often they did miracles "in his name". Giving him the credit, just as Jesus gave credit to God the Father. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Tell me more; I've never heard this.

 

I don't remember all the details, the whole of the synopsis lay in the adventures of Saul before he became Paul, he started off as the star persecutor of the JC / James factions, or the non Rome friendly factions and zealots , the Opposition to the Jerusalem Temple elite and so on and so forth. Paul did say he was the one with the most enviable record, that's the reason he was picked for the Damascus Operation, not by Rome because Damascus was not Roman Jurisdiction at this time ( not sure here but you'd know the dates better )

There is also that little bit about Stephen being a mirror story about James, the plots and characters being too similar but one without Paul and James, so understandably there were cause for implying that names were slightly altered to help Paul's career move. ( I remember I had the links to a host of material regarding this but I can't locate them anymore, :lol: no, no conspiracy theory here but that's what it is)

We know that there was a split between the Jerusalem Council and Paul, Paul's letters is filled with his defensive tone about how he was not only innocent of charges but also the one most qualified and chosen by JC himself. It was also known that he was not allowed to return to Jerusalem when he wanted and then he didn't return when he was summoned to defend himself. It was precarious days in those earl days for him, and his behind was saved by the Romans on more than one occasion, I believe

I can't say how much of this all is backed by sources or research, it was all a long time ago, and as I said before, I gave up on this bit of the history years ago

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@third_eye

Paul's letters (the ones that aren't completely forged) are the tiny flickering candle illuminating the first twenty-thirty years (at least we think they were the first) of the Christian movement. Some people like to supplement Paul with Acts, but on so many points, Acts is in direct conflict with the letters. I think that may account for some of what you recall.

For example, Galatians chapters 1 and 2 make a big deal that Paul's preaching (his "gospel") depends on no man except Jesus. In "proof," he emphasizes his long three-year post-conversion delay in going to Jerusalem, the few people he saw there, and that neither of those people supported his gospel consistently, a good reason to think it wasn't theirs.

But Acts chapter 9 paints an entirely diffrent picture of Paul's instruction in the faith. Jesus tells Paul next to nothing, and directs him to find a human instructor in Damascus. Jesus then delegates Ananias, a disciple (!), to attend to Paul, beginning with a healing miracle. Then (verse 19) Paul spends several days with the disciples, plural, who were at Damascus. Only after that does he begin preaching. That is, he is receiving instruction in the faith within days of conversion, not years later, and before, not after, he begins his preaching career.

This is a "pinch yourself" discrepancy. Suppose in answer to a question about Russian collusion, Donald Trump goes on and on about his meetings with Putin and the Russian Ambassador to the United States, and only those two Russian officials, and only long after Trump was elected. Then suppose it emerged that before the election, Trump had had days of meetings with several Russians,  including an eye doctor who happens to be a drinking buddy of Putin, meetings personally arranged by none other than Putin himelf.

We would conclude that Mr Trump was being untruthful in deflecting our attention to the official meetings and uttering not a word about the extensive "informal" meetings with well connected people chosen to play an intermediary role. In that sense, Acts isn't just "conflicting" with Paul; it's damned near calling him a liar.

So, maybe you were smart to give up on this :) .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, eight bits said:

@third_eye

Paul's letters (the ones that aren't completely forged) are the tiny flickering candle illuminating the first twenty-thirty years (at least we think they were the first) of the Christian movement. Some people like to supplement Paul with Acts, but on so many points, Acts is in direct conflict with the letters. I think that may account for some of what you recall.

For example, Galatians chapters 1 and 2 make a big deal that Paul's preaching (his "gospel") depends on no man except Jesus. In "proof," he emphasizes his long three-year post-conversion delay in going to Jerusalem, the few people he saw there, and that neither of those people supported his gospel consistently, a good reason to think it wasn't theirs.

I can't remember which parts is from where but I can say for sure that most of what I do remember is from snippets of Max Dimont, Barbara Thiering Ms E UNderhill Elaine Pagels and the Qumran, Hammadi sources, I'm not about to rustle through those material as I am in the process of moving house. I really can't put in the hours digging through those stuff again.

What I got from those early discussions, its on mIRC by the way, which means it was really a long time ago, was with someone who is studying Mosaic Law and ancient Judaic Law History at the time, she rather insisted very vehemently that most of what is in the NT can only make sense, or not, if it is referenced with the Jewish system of the time, what was allowed and not, available where at which time of the period depending who was calling the shots in Jerusalem. There were many factions but mainly it depends on who was on friendliest terms with Herod, the Emperors on the ROman Senate merry go round of power back in Rome. To some extent it also involves the weight of influence carried by those from the factions representing the Diaspora, for example Damascus, Alexandria and of course Rome itself. Travel and communication such as it was back in those days meant that though they had the numbers and influence, they really didn't have the means to be really effective on the many issues regarding the Policies and Decisions in the Holy land

~

Quote

But Acts chapter 9 paints an entirely diffrent picture of Paul's instruction in the faith. Jesus tells Paul next to nothing, and directs him to find a human instructor in Damascus. Jesus then delegates Ananias, a disciple (!), to attend to Paul, beginning with a healing miracle. Then (verse 19) Paul spends several days with the disciples, plural, who were at Damascus. Only after that does he begin preaching. That is, he is receiving instruction in the faith within days of conversion, not years later, and before, not after, he begins his preaching career.

According to tradition, Saul was more a Philo's choirboy more than JC's , according to speculation, Paul sold a repackaged Philo to JC and made the sale of his life, this of course is the JC that survived the Roman trials and wasn't absconded to that Kingdom of Heaven 

According to the Jewish training program, Saul the qualified Pharisee trained in the Jewish Law would need six years (?) of monastic training at least before graduating as trainee, but he was said to be already well learned from childhood due to his parents being the wealthy Tarsus citizens that they were and could afford his education from an early age. I guess him going through some sort of intensive program would make sense

~

Quote

This is a "pinch yourself" discrepancy. Suppose in answer to a question about Russian collusion, Donald Trump goes on and on about his meetings with Putin and the Russian Ambassador to the United States, and only those two Russian officials, and only long after Trump was elected. Then suppose it emerged that before the election, Trump had had days of meetings with several Russians,  including an eye doctor who happens to be a drinking buddy of Putin, meetings personally arranged by none other than Putin himelf.

We would conclude that Mr Trump was being untruthful in deflecting our attention to the official meetings and uttering not a word about the extensive "informal" meetings with well connected people chosen to play an intermediary role. In that sense, Acts isn't just "conflicting" with Paul; it's damned near calling him a liar.

Paul was Saul in parts of the Chronicles, Epistles and Acts, just as Saul was Paul in those other parts. No surprises there

~

Quote

So, maybe you were smart to give up on this :) .

I wouldn't say smart, I would say thoroughly defeated as the resources and time available to me were somewhat limited

~

Edited by third_eye
Elaine Pagels
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Posted (edited)

@eight bits

SOrry ... Corinthians , not Chronicles along with honorable mentions to Thessalonians as well as a shout out to the Ephesians and who else ? Oh I don't remember ... Oh the Collossians and the Galatians ... and ... well you get the idea ... oh the Romans .. we musn't forget the Romans ....

:lol:

~

   

 

Edited by third_eye
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

About Barbara Thiering:  she is evidence only that there could be another version of the Jesus story that makes sense. 

For one thing the Gospel of John according to her is the first one written. That's a broken leg at the starting gate. Also I see her getting some of her ideas from an 19th century forgery.

Many more isues....

On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

If that is so, then there is the possibility that he really lived, that the stories are not just faerie tales. 

There's the possibility Jesus existed with, or without her work. Scholars see where most of the stories derive from, and no Dead Sea Scrolls needed.

On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

But over the centuries, the data have become so corrupted they are unreliable.  Besides, there was never very much of it to begin with.

There's more data than you think.

On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

I work with weather records containing upwards of 40,000 observations.  That's enough data that estimates are very close to the absolute values.  We don't really need statistics.  I am not dismissing the statistical methods you told me about, but I am asking:  how can you produce accurate results with, at most, a half-dozen observations?  That's not enough to overcome finite sample bias.

The Book of Jonas was really based upon an ambergris merchant, and perfume maker.

This has a very low probability of being true based on current evidence. See how it works?

On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

While I do occasionally count rings, mostly I measure them.  I am currently studying the Dust Bowl and the four droughts we have had since then, looking for the reason that eastern red-cedar is encroaching on the plains.  If eastern red-cedar and post oak respond to drought differently, then I might have an explanation for encroachment.  What I do is hard science.  I measure things and run tests, getting yes or no answers.  Most of the time a statistical outcome has less than one chance in 10,000 of producing error.  In fact, if I get a one-in-5000 chance, I start thinking there's a mistake in there.

You should consult bird watching databases. Migration patterns of birds could provide valuable fertilizer, and harmful pest deterrent for trees? Look at that... More data.

On 3/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Without solid evidence, your guesses as to what is and isn't true about the Bible are just that:  guesses.  I can't prove Barbara Thiering's hypothesis.  Can you disprove it?

Doug

Show what you find so convincing about her work, and I will show you.

I sure hate to post something about Jesus in the future then you, and @third_eye respond with what boils down to being "Too long, did not read. Here's something that looks good. Someone with a PHD cannot be fallible".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, MERRY DMAS said:

I sure hate to post something about Jesus in the future then you, and @third_eye respond with what boils down to being "Too long, did not read. Here's something that looks good. Someone with a PHD cannot be fallible".

Well ... I must say that that was rather unkind, considering that the kind of investment invested on the subject and topic being as tenuous as it is was was as it were, what it was

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Well ... I must say that that was rather unkind, considering that the kind of investment invested on the subject and topic being as tenuous as it is was was as it were, what it was

~

It's my kind way of saying "Put up, or shut up!".

:rofl:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

It's my kind way of saying "Put up, or shut up!".

:rofl:

Well, at least its not your highway or some hellish by way ...

~

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Well, at least its not your highway or some hellish by way ...

~

I just hate to have crank taken seriously.

I'm open to have my mind changed. But dropping a stinky deuce then leaving the room is no good either.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, MERRY DMAS said:

I just hate to have crank taken seriously.

I'm open to have my mind changed. But dropping a stinky deuce then leaving the room is no good either.

 

Frankly speaking, the cranks and shafts is what moves the logic machine on an open Forum like this, perhaps its the table where the deuce is dropped is what makes for the rank and nothing at all to do with how open or shut any mind is ...

~

Quote

 

~

Mar 13, 2013 - Rules and variatons of the Chinese card game known as Da Lao Er or ... Choh Dai Di or simply Dai Di - written 鋤大地 or more often as 鋤大D ...
Introduction · ‎The Play · ‎Scoring · ‎Variations

 

~

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
7 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Frankly speaking, the cranks and shafts is what moves the logic machine on an open Forum like this, perhaps its the table where the deuce is dropped is what makes for the rank and nothing at all to do with how open or shut any mind is ...

 

Since you don't get it. Let me remind you and the ringer that you will be challenged when posting nonsense. 

Just posting without backing it up goes nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Since you don't get it. Let me remind you and the ringer that you will be challenged when posting nonsense. 

Just posting without backing it up goes nowhere. 

On the contrary, the nonsensical is in your deviation from the norm of accumulative in regards to PHDs which you misinterpret as veneration, since you are most often as not to resort such retreats to the cliff edged logic just to toss down your gauntlet, its rather less compelling when the very ground you choose to make a last stand on does not feature all that much on the landscape of rationality

~

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

On the contrary, the nonsensical is in your deviation from the norm of accumulative in regards to PHDs which you misinterpret as veneration, since you are most often as not to resort such retreats to the cliff edged logic just to toss down your gauntlet, its rather less compelling when the very ground you choose to make a last stand on does not feature all that much on the landscape of rationality

~

All people are fallible PHD, or not.

You do get that? Right?

Thiering's work is horrendous.

You're free to change my mind.

I'lL leave you to your pseudo intellectual games, and excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, MERRY DMAS said:

All people are fallible PHD, or not.

You do get that? Right?

Yes I do, what you are making it out to be is that to you, it makes all PHDs are, that there is where you lay your bastions of treacherous Trebuchets

~

Just now, MERRY DMAS said:

Thiering's work is horrendous.

You're free to change my mind.

To you, and what you make of it, thank you very much but it seems not too kindly of you on top of which I don't believe I need your permission one way or another.

~

Just now, MERRY DMAS said:

I'lL leave you to your pseudo intellectual games, and excuses.

Pseudorandom games and excuses ? I have a good one, wanna play ?

Did God ever speak to Adam and the girl that was created with Adam when 'both man and woman' was created before Eve was added to the tale from Adam's rib, before Eve was spoken with, by the Serpent ?

Its a good 'un ... ;)

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS
28 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Did God ever speak to Adam and the girl that was created with Adam when 'both man and woman' was created before Eve was added to the tale from Adam's rib, before Eve was spoken with, by the Serpent ?

Its a good 'un ... ;)

~

That’s one of the pieces of evidence for a celestial Jesus hypothesis. 

Did The first Christians see that the first "man and woman" created before Adam/Eve were Angels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
47 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

That’s one of the pieces of evidence for a celestial Jesus hypothesis. 

Did The first Christians see that the first "man and woman" created before Adam/Eve were Angels?

That depends, were the first Christians here that you are referring to Jews or Gentiles ?

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MERRY DMAS said:

For one thing the Gospel of John according to her is the first one written.

OK, not wishing to become the advocate of Thiering here (that's Doug's job), but disgareement about relative dating of the canonical gospels isn't fatal. It is very easy to say that they're all dependent on one another, but very difficult to sort out who copied off of whose paper. The conventional order Mark, Matthew, Luke, John is the tip of an iceberg of assumptions.

John  is tricky, since the last chapter seems later than the rest of the work. A lot later, or just a few years later? Who knows? So, let's just simplify and talk about John as if it were only the first 20 chapters. And let's narrow things down to two gospels, Mark and the now shortened John. Which came first?

Personally, I am delighted with the consensus: Mark preceded John. I even have a scenario in which John reads Mark, and is greatly dissatisfied with Mark's treatment of the miracles, especially the raising of Jairus' daughter which isn't even a miracle in Mark (Jesus doesn't restore a dead girl to life, he wakens a sleeping girl, really that's what's on the page). So John writes a real raising from the dead, after days in the tomb, etc.

Of course, you can't just change the story like that and leave it at that. If Jesus raised somebody from the dead, then that would attract attention, and Jesus was in the business of drawing crowds. OK, John thinks, that's what gets him killed, he's a real threat to the status quo, not a minor annoyance like the synoptics' version. But the Temple cleansing is a good story, too, so John places it out of the way, near the beginning of Jesus' career, and Jesus gets away clean. (In fact, Jesus' escapes when he wants to escape are a theme in John). Done.

That's a good story within which John must come later than Mark because John is correcting Mark's perceived shortcomings as a storyteller. I am "comfortable" that my beliefs about the order of composition is correct: first Mark, then John, it all fits. Plus, I don't have to buck the consensus on that point, which is just easier all around.

Alas, there's another possible world. Mark has available to him all three other canonicals, the two synoptics and John. He sees there are two versions of the raising miracle, the synoptics' weak girl-raising and John's showboating boy-raising. And Mark, master storyteller that he is, see that John's version simply doesn't work. If Jesus is being killed for raising Lazarus, then where's Lazarus in the rest of the story? He just disappears. No joint crucifixion for conspiring to use sorcery to mislead the people? No "questioning" of Lazarus for a plea deal?

And what about the disciples? In John's version, why do they run away? Their boss is the Lord of Life and Death. Why is Judas not on board (well, yeah, because it's a gay triangle thing, but what if Mark doesn't want to play it that way)?

So, coming last and having a straight-up choice, Mark goes with the synoptic storyline: Jesus gets it for being a minor seditious annoyance. In this world, Mark also sees that all three antecedents have a Jesus who's way too chatty, so he loses the holy walla and focuses on the action. Besides, who's going to sit through a three-hour performance? Two hours tops, one intermission.

That's a good story within which Mark must come later than John because Mark is correcting John's perceived shortcomings as a storyteller. I would be "comfortable" that my beliefs about the order of composition is correct: first John, then Mark, it all fits. Meh, I would have to buck the consensus on that point, but in the world we really share, there are scholars who put Mark late, so maybe if I shop around, I could find a possible world where I wouldn't have to buck the consensus much.

The moral of the story: There are a Josephan 10,000 reasons to dissent from Thiering; but that she likes an early John isn't much of one. The rigor of the ordering (any proposed ordering, including the current consensus) is flimsy, and necessarily so given the inevitably lopsided assumption-to-observed-evidence ratio involved in adding a specific order to the indisputable interdependence among the canonical gospels.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
29 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Personally, I am delighted with the consensus: Mark preceded John. I even have a scenario in which John reads Mark, and is greatly dissatisfied with Mark's treatment of the miracles, especially the raising of Jairus' daughter which isn't even a miracle in Mark (Jesus doesn't restore a dead girl to life, he wakens a sleeping girl, really that's what's on the page). So John writes a real raising from the dead, after days in the tomb, etc.

Problem is with this 'real raising' from the dead ...
 

Quote

 

~
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[18]

~

~

 

~

... and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb.

Either someone really ain't dead or its voices of the dead ... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
3 hours ago, eight bits said:

OK, not wishing to become the advocate of Thiering here (that's Doug's job), but disgareement about relative dating of the canonical gospels isn't fatal. It is very easy to say that they're all dependent on one another, but very difficult to sort out who copied off of whose paper. The conventional order Mark, Matthew, Luke, John is the tip of an iceberg of assumptions.

I am not in the business of defending Thiering.  Her dating of the gospels is very much at odds with mine (I'm still adhering to the Mark-first theory; she starts with John).  Also, my dates have the gospels being written long after hers.  That being said, I still have some conflicts that need to be examined.

Thiering proposes some things that need to be addressed:

1.  Is there a reason that Jesus couldn't have survived crucifixion and later moved to Rome?

2.  Thiering offers rational explanations of the miracles, which is a better solution than just dismissing them as myths.

3.  The great earthquake of 31/33 AD is mentioned in the gospels; damage it caused is still visible at Qumran, but not Jerusalem.

4.  Contemporary writers, including Philo of Alexandria, Herrod's chief tax-collector's brother, had no knowledge of Jesus.  They would have if the events had happened in Jerusalem - but Qumran was a small backwater place in the desert, a religious retreat, miles from anyplace important.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)

Ok, so Yeshua ordained James the Just as the leader of the early Christian community (Jerusalem Church), Saul of Tarsus aka Paul was his competition. James was of Jesus' personal circle preaching to the Jewish community, Saul was a Pharisee, connected to the Roman establishment, preaching to the Gentile community. Saul even was a prominent Christian hunter / murderer, prosecutor.. fighting against Christianity, and for the Roman Empire ( authorized by high priest Caiaphas, the one who organised the plot to kill Christ). It was an ideological battle between James and 'Paul' for the minds and souls of this emerging religion.

Besides the fact Saul/Paul was a Roman employ to actively hunt early Christians, Paul never met Jesus a single second in his life, yet proclaimed himself an apostle of Christ based on 'a vision' he had on the road to Damascus.. no one is obviously able to confirm or deny (which, I think we can all agree, is pretty convenient, laudable even given the importance of such an event - certainly calls for a ciritcal stance imho). Why would Christ appear to this mass murderer of Christians, and tell him to seek the advice of Caiaphas' relative, Ananais?

Paul preached against Mosaic Law (ie. 'everything is clean'), against Works (Faith alone is enough), and for the Divinity of Christ. James the Just preached to uphold Mosaic Law, for Works (Faith alone is not enough), and Christ as a Messiah send by God, but not God himself (which is explicitly and repeatedly confirmed in the Bible imho, if read without any presuppositions, prior conditioning, reading into words to confirm such a presupposition).

Peter, one of the true Apostles, even mentions a certain 'enemy' doing exactly what Paul did..

For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy....to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law (Mosaic Law); as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses...

Revelation 2, Christ speaking to the Church of Ephesus (Ephesians, whose apostles were Paul & Barnabas):

1: Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2: I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.

After the death of Judas, Peter realizes from the Psalms that 'one should take his place'; and the real apostles again set 4 criteria to choose the replacement apostle (Acts 1:20-26):

1 The new apostle had to have been with them (the apostles, Christ, and the crowd which followed) from the beginning
2 The new apostle had to have seen the miracles performed by Christ
3 The new apostle had to have seen Christ crucified
4 The new apostle had to have seen Christ resurrected

Only the fourth criterium could possibly attain to Paul, and I stress possibly, because no one is able to confirm this as it was soully 'a personal experience'.

Paul, collectively, speaks of himself 'I, PAUL' and uses the personal pronoun 'I' more than the name of Jesus. Interestingly, the Greek word for 'I' is EGO. Christ stated: He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Christ came in His Father's name, and as seen throughout Paul's writings, Paul clearly came in his own name. Christ said: "if another come in his own name, he you will receive" (JOHN 5:43). And, received he certainly was.

We must readily realize the Roman Empire was absolutely rife with Paganism, Polytheism, and to make the new religion palatable to such a market, certain pagan elements were used to sell it (by the establishment, and thus Paul). What better way was there, to unite the (Sun cult) pagan rituals with Christianity, than Paul's 'revolutionary' writings? Remember that the church at Ephesus was previously the temple of Diana, what better way to try and 'convert' the paganistically inclined contemporaries to believe in a Dying God (an intrinsically Pagan concept), or to Paul's lawless version of Christ's message in general, claiming it is ok to continue to eat the meats sacrificed to Diana or any other 'Deity' for that matter.. This new religious movement constituted a clear and present threat to the ruling establishment, and needed to be dealt with. What better way to do just that but to hijack it, elevate the Prophet, the hero / protagonist, to Godhood level, inserting all sorts of Pagan elements as they gained the upper hand?

It absolutely astounds me to this day all those modern Christians believing in the Christ = God concept readily accept it was thesame 'God in the flesh' who was offered the world if he would only bow down to Satan. A more blasphemous notion I am hardpressed to imagine. This ofcourse besides the countless referrals by Yeshua that he is send by The Father, and can do nothing of himself but by leave of the Father. The Trinity concept is most certainly a later invention, every possible historical fact attests to that. James the Just's version is in complete accordance with the Septuagint / Old Testament teachings, as well as the Qur'an (Im sure just mentioning this Islamic scripture will make most modern Christians disavow everything stated here, but thats the present Zeitgeist, present reality.. Islam = Evil full stop, which is also conditioning). Pauls version doesnt fit with anything preached before, or after him. In fact, Pauls version of Christianity has the best fit with Paganism; Osirianism, Mythraism.

Apologies for the slab of text, its a complex but fascinating subject matter, I am still trying to wrap my head around.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, third_eye said:

.. and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb.

Either someone really ain't dead or its voices of the dead ...

Right. I wrote in some thread recently that that is a well-observed "Markan" touch, to leave open the possibility of a naturalistic explanation of the purported miracle. However, I think Secret Mark is a forgery.

 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Thiering proposes some things that need to be addressed:

OK.

1.  Is there a reason that Jesus couldn't have survived crucifixion and later moved to Rome?

"Couldn't" isn't the problem. On the assumption that there was a Jesus whom the Romans tried to crucify, is it likely that they would have missed?

2.  Thiering offers rational explanations of the miracles, which is a better solution than just dismissing them as myths.

Why better than recognizing them as myths? What's rational about coding a message and not preserving the key to the encoding?

3.  The great earthquake of 31/33 AD is mentioned in the gospels; damage it caused is still visible at Qumran, but not Jerusalem.

An earthquake is mentioned in the gospels; assuming that it refers to an actual earthquake, it suffices that somebody "in the general area" remembers that there was one was which was felt in Jerusalem. Jerusalem to Qumran is only 40-50 km.

4.  Contemporary writers, including Philo of Alexandria, Herrod's chief tax-collector's brother, had no knowledge of Jesus.  They would have if the events had happened in Jerusalem - but Qumran was a small backwater place in the desert, a religious retreat, miles from anyplace important.

The first sentence is guild-speak. Philo didn't write about Jesus; that is uniformative about what Philo did or didn't know. If there was a real Jesus, then we don't know whether or not a well-connected fellow like Philo would plausibly have noticed Jesus.

To all appearances, if there was a Jesus, then Jesus : celebrity :: Qumran : ancient tourist destination. That "Qumran was a small backwater place in the desert, a religious retreat, miles from anyplace important" offers no reason to expect to find Jesus there, no reason to find anybody in particular there, nor need Jesus have ever been in such a place in order to remain a nobody. A big city is a great place for a nobody to be overlooked and for important people to fail to record him.

 

8 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

its a complex but fascinating subject matter, I am still trying to wrap my head around.

Well, welcome aboard and good luck with your voyage. One helpful hint: I wouldn't assume that Acts is a reliable historical source. There's really no reason to think that it is.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 3/13/2019 at 12:26 AM, MERRY DMAS said:

For one thing the Gospel of John according to her is the first one written. That's a broken leg at the starting gate. Also I see her getting some of her ideas from an 19th century forgery.

Many more isues....

There's the possibility Jesus existed with, or without her work. Scholars see where most of the stories derive from, and no Dead Sea Scrolls needed.

There's more data than you think.

The Book of Jonas was really based upon an ambergris merchant, and perfume maker.

This has a very low probability of being true based on current evidence. See how it works?

You should consult bird watching databases. Migration patterns of birds could provide valuable fertilizer, and harmful pest deterrent for trees? Look at that... More data.

Show what you find so convincing about her work, and I will show you.

I sure hate to post something about Jesus in the future then you, and @third_eye respond with what boils down to being "Too long, did not read. Here's something that looks good. Someone with a PHD cannot be fallible".

As I said:  I am not in the business of defending Thiering.  Personally, I place John somewhere in the mid-second century, about the time of Justin, maybe even later.  That doesn't square with Thiering at all.  The big weakness in Thiering is her "decoding" of the pesher.  How do I know it was done correctly?  Seems to be a lot of assumptions in her decoding process.  One or two assumptions, maybe, but every additional assumption weakens the case still further.

But accepting that she has an idea or two that need to be looked at is not the same as taking her thesis in its entirety.  If that's how you do biblical research, I can pretty-much guarantee you're out in left field.  That's how fundamentalists do it.

 

Jonas is irrelevant.  Nice story, but the only "fish" big enough to do the job is the whale shark and it doesn't venture into the Med.  It's a filter-feeder anyway.   So you're talking about a whale.  Which whale?  There are eight species of cetaceans in the Med to choose from.  The largest two are the sperm whale and the fin whale.  The rest are dolphins.

The fin whale is a filter-feeder.  Couldn't swallow a human if it had to.  That leaves the sperm whale which couldn't swallow a human whole, but would have to reduce it to bite-sized pieces first.  Thus, Jonas would not have survived inside a whale.  The story is a myth.

See how it works?  Reason from facts, not guesses.

 

Thiering's ideas have to be reduced the same way, one at a time.  They can't be taken as is.  Most Bible stories reference physical details that can be checked.  So why don't Bible "researchers" check those facts instead of endlessly speculating?

"Moses" crossed the "Red Sea."  Is that true?  World sea levels were about the same during the Amarna Period (most-likely date) as they are now.  But when the story got written down about 900 BC, they were about six feet higher than now.  The "Red Sea" extended about 70 miles north of its current location.  I believe the writers knew the location, but as the water was much too deep to ford in their day, they created a "miracle" to get "Moses" across.  So, yes, it's possible that "Moses" crossed the "Red Sea" - but it was a different Red Sea and there was no miracle.  Physical facts explain the legend.

So that's what will have to be done with Thiering's ideas.  There was a channel and jetty at Qumran, as confirmed by archeologists.  The jetty was at water level.  A person walking on it would appear to be walking on the water.  There's a possible source for the legend, including the part about Peter missing the jetty with his foot and falling into the water.

Apparently it was possible for friends of a person condemned to crucifixion to give that person a drug to ease the pain or kill them to prevent further suffering.  The crucifixion story is consistent with this.  And that leads to lots of possibilities, of which The DaVinci Code is only one (The DaVinci Code flunks the test of authenticity on other grounds, like one of its hiding places being too small to hold it.),

Anyway, you're trying to say that I believe everything Thiering says and that just isn't so.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Which calendar being the more accurate remains the core of the problems or validation of Dr Theiring's pesher interpretations ...
 

Quote

 

~

Essene Sun Calendar versus Jewish Moon Calendar -- ... Dr. Barbara Thiering PhD, the lady professor of The University of Sydney (Australia) who discovered ...

 

~

 

I figure we can't really tell which documents were written by who and by which calendar they used

~

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.