PDA

View Full Version : Who was Jesus?



ishmael
11-12-2009, 11:51 AM
Fellow Christians, fellow infidels, who was this fellow? I don't know about all the miracle stories and such. They may be true, we don't know what strength is in this frame.

Here's my story and I'm sticken' to it. Jesus was a fellow human who took on his full human potential. Love of fellow, even when sick or obstreperous, was his metier. He's taken on a sort of Rock Hudson with a beard image, but what idiocy. He probably looked more like Anwar Sadat with a beard.

The important things are what he realized: Shun hatred of the other, don't do violence unless it's necessary, make peace and sit down to break bread together. That is the communion that is far out in the field today.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-12-2009, 12:09 PM
As a Christian I cannot answer that question.

I can take a pretty good stab at "Who is Jesus?" though.

pefjr
11-12-2009, 12:14 PM
The greatest fictional story ever believed. 33% of people alive today claim to be Christain. Wonder how many of those actually believe the story of jesus?:confused:

Rick-Mi
11-12-2009, 12:19 PM
As a Christian I cannot answer that question.

I can take a pretty good stab at "Who is Jesus?" though.

Hey Andrew, as a faithful Episcopalian, perhaps you would agree the Nicene Creed provides some answers:


We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.


.

Tealsmith
11-12-2009, 12:24 PM
I agree, it's who IS Jesus.

Do you know my Jesus?


Have you a heart that's weary,
Tending a load of care;
Are you a soul that's seeking
Rest from the burden you bear?


Where is your heart, oh pilgrim,
What does your light reveal;
Who hears your call for comfort
When naught but sorrow you feel?

Who knows your disappointments,
Who hears each time you cry;
Who understands your heartaches,
Who dries the tears from your eyes?

Chorus
Do you know (do you know) my Jesus?
Do you know (do you know) my Friend?
Have you heard (have you heard) He loves you?
And that He will abide till the end? (till the end?)

cbcc
11-12-2009, 12:42 PM
Fellow Christians, fellow infidels, who was this fellow? I don't know about all the miracle stories and such. They may be true, we don't know what strength is in this frame.

Here's my story and I'm sticken' to it. Jesus was a fellow human who took on his full human potential. Love of fellow, even when sick or obstreperous, was his metier. He's taken on a sort of Rock Hudson with a beard image, but what idiocy. He probably looked more like Anwar Sadat with a beard.

The important things are what he realized: Shun hatred of the other, don't do violence unless it's necessary, make peace and sit down to break bread together. That is the communion that is far out in the field today.

"Rock Hudson image with a beard"? Oh my. You're going to be some kind of disappointed when He comes again.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Hey Andrew, as a faithful Episcopalian, perhaps you would agree the Nicene Creed provides some answers:


We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.


.

Yes!

Thanks, Rick! :)

LeeG
11-12-2009, 01:01 PM
"Rock Hudson image with a beard"? Oh my. You're going to be some kind of disappointed when He comes again.

Jack is in love with the words. I don't think anyone conceives of Jesus as a closeted movie actor.

ishmael
11-12-2009, 01:37 PM
Put another way, if you feel compelled by any religion -- a good thing for the most part -- you stop caring about the "infidel." A child needs food, a fellow needs shelter. How can I give these? I don't care what anyone believes, they are my blood and are in need.

I'm not a pragmatist, I'm an emotionalist I suppose.

McMike
11-12-2009, 01:39 PM
Who Jesus was is for the faithful to realize through what is written in the Bible. He is not for those of us who are unfaithful to define . . . unless, he is put upon us as a weapon, and then his definition becomes worthy of our faith.

What I do know is he was a kind man who believed in redemption and scorned falsehood. When he attacked the moneychangers and disturbed the altar of the corrupt temple he created the bases for morality that few who claim faith in him truly practice now. It is said he would heal your blindness, cure your disease, and dispel your curse, but it seems he could not take away your free will, allowing you to take back your blindness, to spread your disease, and utter your curses.

Let those without sin cast the first stone. With this, how could any of his faithful start a war in his name or while evoking his blessing? Those who do are false.

Mike McKien

pefjr
11-12-2009, 01:52 PM
Put another way, if you feel compelled by any religion -- a good thing for the most part -- you stop caring about the "infidel." A child needs food, a fellow needs shelter. How can I give these? I don't care what anyone believes, they are my blood and are in need.

I'm not a pragmatist, I'm an emotionalist I suppose.I have been reading your posts for awhile now. I skip some folk's posts for various reasons, but I always read yours. IMO you are a "romantic thinker". I suppose :)

Upnorth1
11-12-2009, 02:11 PM
And once more the whackos come out of the woodwork ....:rolleyes:

LeeG
11-12-2009, 02:40 PM
And once more the whackos come out of the woodwork ....:rolleyes:

wordwork, no wood down here.

McMike
11-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Wasn’t the guy supposed to be a carpenter?

McMike
11-12-2009, 04:06 PM
Wooden Jesus (http://www.lala.com/landing/song/432627069325725950?fc=memberAffiliate.50516@74389&click=song)
by Temple Of The Dog (http://www.lala.com/landing/artist/Temple%20Of%20The%20Dog?fc=memberAffiliate.50516@7 4389&click=artist)
Hey wooden Jesus I’ll cut you in on 20% of my future sin . . .

pefjr
11-12-2009, 04:10 PM
Actually the Beatles are more famous.

Tom Galyen
11-12-2009, 04:35 PM
Rick-Mi,
There is also the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended in heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the dead,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

and to pefjr,
No, the Beatles are not more famous.

George Ray
11-12-2009, 04:37 PM
For me personally,
Jesus of Nazareth was and is and ideal, who with the help of Constantine and others has become an idol.

peb
11-12-2009, 05:05 PM
As a Christian I cannot answer that question.

I can take a pretty good stab at "Who is Jesus?" though.

Good response.

Cuyahoga Chuck
11-12-2009, 06:24 PM
There is a corner of religious studies called "historical Jesus". Like any legitimate intellectual pursuit it will take something beyond an internet connection to properly delve.
Get thee to a library!

purri
11-12-2009, 06:59 PM
According to Philip Roth he was a goy who wore a pink nightie.

Bob Cleek
11-12-2009, 07:03 PM
Yes!

Thanks, Rick! :)

Goodness, Andrew! Are you planning to defect to the "Dark Side?"

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000491.shtml

Paul Pless
11-12-2009, 08:20 PM
Carpenter eh?

not a fisherman though??

Vince Brennan
11-12-2009, 08:20 PM
He works around here mowing lawns and doing some odd-jobs. I think he's from El Paso.

McMike
11-12-2009, 08:29 PM
He sure knew which side of the boat to cast the nets, dude was a closet fisherman!!!

capt jake
11-12-2009, 08:30 PM
He works around here mowing lawns and doing some odd-jobs. I think he's from El Paso.

I know that dude, played a few gigs with him.....:)

ishmael
11-12-2009, 09:05 PM
I asked kinda in fun. He gets mentioned a lot, and I figured it was time to take the pulse. Thanks for all the replies.

Many would consider me an apostate because I don't believe in the bodily resurrection. If the man is dead, he's dead, and ain't gonna come back. I've only touched a dead body once, my father's, and there was no question he was dead. A tender caress of his forehead.

The image, however, is universal. The image of the dying and resurrecting god/man is rife at the time, throughout the Levant and beyond. Mustn't we as Christians, knowing it isn't literal, take it up? Die and be reborn?

brad9798
11-12-2009, 09:07 PM
I am still amazed by those that are simply afraid of Jesus Christ! (not talking about other world religions) ... I am talking about those that find it cool ... or 'in' ... or whatever to slam others' beliefs.

I don't care what others believe ... but I will not condemn another's faith because I simply cop out and make excuses.

SOMETHING started all of this ... whatever it may be.

SLAMMING others for believing in God ... or belittleing them for doing so is about reprehensible.

Don't believe? I've not problem with that-- to each his/her own!

Why bastardize YOUR position with trying to destroy another's?

Doing so only illustrates a true misunderstanding.

:D

Bob Cleek
11-12-2009, 09:09 PM
As an unmarried carpenter in his thirties who lived with his mother (who thought he was God) and hung out drinking wine with twelve of his buddies, Jesus clearly was an Irishman!

ishmael
11-12-2009, 09:27 PM
How do we know Jesus was a Jew?

He went into his father's business, and his mother thought he was god.

Glen Longino
11-12-2009, 10:21 PM
Jesus was a crackpot.
He flew in the face of the established religion and the government.
When the established religion and the government confronted him and told him to repent or die, he chose to die.
Case closed!

Bob Cleek
11-12-2009, 11:20 PM
Jesus was a crackpot.
He flew in the face of the established religion and the government.
When the established religion and the government confronted him and told him to repent or die, he chose to die.
Case closed!

Well, not exactly... after that, He came back from the dead and the face of established religion and the government were never the same again.

And if you doubt that He did, you have to explain how it was that such a preposterous fiction wasn't disproved and discarded immediately by the people of that time who were actually there. Hard to believe so many people would believe the otherwise unbelieveable without some solid eyewitness evidence. Hard to attribute to mass hysteria a story with a 2000 year run like that.

Or so it would seem.

Glen Longino
11-12-2009, 11:41 PM
"Hard to attribute to mass hysteria a story with a 2000 year run like that."

I agree! And I don't attribute the long run to mass hysteria. Rather, I attribute it to the powerful church and its Book, and to hordes of people willing to set aside reason in favor of the myth of immortality.
But that's just Christianity. Other religions have their own appeal to their hordes.
I can tolerate and live with hordes of religious people of all stripes, but they seem to have a hard time tolerating and living with one another.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
11-13-2009, 06:04 AM
Goodness, Andrew! Are you planning to defect to the "Dark Side?"

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000491.shtml

Well, Bob, much as find things to respect and admire in the Church of Rome (when not teasing you) I think I should let you know that we've been using the Nicene Creed since Saint Augustine landed in Kent, (and quite possibly before then; I don't know enough about the Celtic Church before the Synod of Whitby).

The idea of the Reformation, with great respect, was to return the Church to its primitive state.

I'm perfectly happy with women priests, I look forward to women bishops and I am quite delighted with the present Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Good article, all the same.

PeterSibley
11-13-2009, 06:18 AM
Well, not exactly... after that, He came back from the dead and the face of established religion and the government were never the same again.

And if you doubt that He did, you have to explain how it was that such a preposterous fiction wasn't disproved and discarded immediately by the people of that time who were actually there. Hard to believe so many people would believe the otherwise unbelieveable without some solid eyewitness evidence. Hard to attribute to mass hysteria a story with a 2000 year run like that.

Or so it would seem.

With a the greatest respect Bob ,you should read a few of the foundation myths of other religions .People will believe damn near anything !

McMike
11-13-2009, 07:33 AM
Well, not exactly... after that, He came back from the dead and the face of established religion and the government were never the same again.

And if you doubt that He did, you have to explain how it was that such a preposterous fiction wasn't disproved and discarded immediately by the people of that time who were actually there. Hard to believe so many people would believe the otherwise unbelieveable without some solid eyewitness evidence. Hard to attribute to mass hysteria a story with a 2000 year run like that.

Or so it would seem.


Faith is one of those things you can’t argue for or against, not your faith or mine.

Tylerdurden
11-13-2009, 07:53 AM
And the Shroud of Turin to boot, That's far from settled.

oznabrag
11-13-2009, 09:21 AM
I think there was a man named Jesus, born in Nazareth about 2,000 years ago, give or take. I believe he was the son of a woman named Mary and may have been the son of a Roman soldier or may have been the son of a carpenter named Joseph. I emphatically don't believe he was the product of a virgin birth.

I believe he worked as a carpenter; probably didn't bathe all that often; had garlic on his breath; glowed with a diet rich in olive oil; enjoyed a good laugh and a good B.M.; cussed a little when he ran a sliver under his fingernail or swatted his thumb with a hammer; fretted over the details in his work; tried hard to get tight joins and gluelines; marvelled at the amount of sawdust the human sinus could hold.

I believe he had some really good ideas, many of which I follow. I just don't believe there was any actual divinity involved. All of which is why I call my slef a "Christian atheist."

Hmmpff!

I'm old, boy. I do mean old!

I went to school with Jesus! We learned mortise and tenon joints together. They couldn't nobody stand that dude because he was never in class! He was always wandering around in the desert with the Devil, or some such, and when Friday rolled around his project would be standing there on the bench with no visible joints. The damned thing looked like it had literally grown that way!

Erraboddih knew his Daddy was helpin' 'im, so couldn't nobody stand that dude.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 11:06 AM
Well, not exactly... after that, He came back from the dead and the face of established religion and the government were never the same again.

And if you doubt that He did, you have to explain how it was that such a preposterous fiction wasn't disproved and discarded immediately by the people of that time who were actually there. Hard to believe so many people would believe the otherwise unbelieveable without some solid eyewitness evidence. Hard to attribute to mass hysteria a story with a 2000 year run like that.

Or so it would seem.

Now Bob, I liked ya better when you were my priest and you explained "somethings you take on faith" .
And you said, "Using ya thinker is encouraged".

But anyway, there is a younger sect that have millions believing in only a 200 yr old fantasy: Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets. So you can see how things get out of hand pretty fast when dealing with the masses, fleecing, and human gullibility. Just a reminder, I know you are aware.:)

SamSam
11-13-2009, 02:18 PM
And if you doubt that He did, you have to explain how it was that such a preposterous fiction wasn't disproved and discarded immediately by the people of that time who were actually there. Think of the times, where people had the ability to think very deeply about things and wonder, but were abysmally ignorant of "scientific" explanations and were wonderfully, terribly superstitious. Who's to say it wasn't disproved and discarded immediately? Paul apparently didn't write about it for 20 years and the Gospels didn't appear for 70 years.

Prophets wandering around decades before the year 0, utilizing scraps of other religions that been shown to be preposterous fictions and were no longer of any use, had prophesied Christs resurrection. According to religion, all the stuff they prophesied happened, but all the stuff they prophesied HAD to happen for the religion to exist. That's a very powerful reason for deception.


Hard to believe so many people would believe the otherwise unbelieveable without some solid eyewitness evidence.When Paul runs into doubters, he tells them
If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep


That doesn't sound like solid evidence, that sounds like a viscious threat that ignorant people might take very seriously.



(http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=1Cor%2015:12-20;&version=NRSV;)

Bob Cleek
11-13-2009, 02:51 PM
Well, Bob, much as find things to respect and admire in the Church of Rome (when not teasing you) I think I should let you know that we've been using the Nicene Creed since Saint Augustine landed in Kent, (and quite possibly before then; I don't know enough about the Celtic Church before the Synod of Whitby).

The idea of the Reformation, with great respect, was to return the Church to its primitive state.

I'm perfectly happy with women priests, I look forward to women bishops and I am quite delighted with the present Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Good article, all the same.

Of course, you know I knew there was no dispute on the Creed!

Quiet as it may be kept, a lot of us RC'ers are STILL trying to return the Church of Rome to its roots. It's hard, but slow progress seems to be made. Sad to say, I'm sure Henry VIII would have had little difficulty obtaining an annulment this day and age! Look what mixing the apples and oranges of church and state cost us.

As for the article, and the policy announcement, I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept of providing a "haven for the disaffected." I'd prefer people to "come home" (as the current church-speak calls it) because they want to be here, not because they want to be gone from there.

Bob Cleek
11-13-2009, 03:45 PM
Now Bob, I liked ya better when you were my priest and you explained "somethings you take on faith" .
And you said, "Using ya thinker is encouraged".

But anyway, there is a younger sect that have millions believing in only a 200 yr old fantasy: Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablets. So you can see how things get out of hand pretty fast when dealing with the masses, fleecing, and human gullibility. Just a reminder, I know you are aware.:)

Oh, yes, faith is a gift and, at times, a great burden. I'm just one of those people who found Christmas a lot more exciting when I believed in Santa Claus. Either you have faith or you don't. It seems to come in a lot of different versions, but don't ask me from where. If you have it, you have it. If you don't, by definition, it shouldn't bother you. Oddly enough, though, as the responses to my post might indicate, one affirmation of faith will get you ten denials. Now, I can understand those who do have faith trying to instill it in others (although I never saw faith as something that could be marketed), but I really remain mystified, and sometimes amused, by the so much apparently greater passion for non-belief exhibited by those who don't.

pefjr
11-13-2009, 04:04 PM
but I really remain mystified, and sometimes amused, by the so much apparently greater passion for non-belief exhibited by those who don't.

You don't have to be mystified any longer. It can't be helped. The cerebrum will not allow it, and since that is encouraged(your words), we will continue to think. You still can be amused though, humor is good for the soul they say. :)

Glen Longino
11-13-2009, 10:55 PM
They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt. 1:23

Bobby, don't you see that as ancient mythology?
If not, why not?

PatCox
11-13-2009, 11:24 PM
jesus was a poor jew living in roman controlled judea. He started as a disciple of John the Baptist, but when John was put down by Herod Antipas, he took over the Baptist's movement and started preaching a message which went against the Jewish established religious powers, the pharisees, rich men, who controlled access to God through the form of judaism at the time, Temple Judaism, which said that all access to God was through the temple in jerusalem, and which required money, for the mandatory sacrifices.

Jesus seemed to be trying to break a monopoly on access to God which the pharissees, who controlled the temple, controlled. He preached to the poor and hopeless, and accepted those who the pharisees would have cast out.

He seems to have excited a movement that was alarming enough to the pharissees and romans that they were in league with, to have them condemn and kill him.

You do not have to believe in fairy tales to believe any of that.

His followers seem to believe that he conquered death, rose from death, but the gospels, even, are ambiguous on this, if you read them all, and read them closely. And it seems to me that there is room to believe, without any need for believing in myth and magic, that they beleived he was resurrected in the sense that he lived on as a real presence in their lives as they continued his teachings, it was a time when people believed in magic, things we do not beleive in today. Its a difficult cultural translation, possibly impossible, to understand precisely how they could believe something that appears to us to be pure magic and myth, yet believe it as real and true.

Its clear from an analytical reading of the gospels that after his death, the memories of his followers were written down, but refracted through a lense, which tended to try to connect incidents which were real, with biblical prophecies, so that the stories finally written tended to portray him as a fulfillment of prophecy. Some of these parts of the bible, particularly the birth narrative, are widely acknowledged as fictions invented to connect him to prophacy. Not too far different from believing that Washington threw a dollar over the Potomac, or admitted cutting down a cherry tree.

Whether he was God, the son of God, is not a matter of history, its a matter of faith, and nothing in history will ever settle that issue.

But he certainly did exist, and founded a belief which, though of course changed and modified through the centuries by believers, nevertheless, he was as real as Buddha.

PatCox
11-13-2009, 11:32 PM
Why is it that in the gospels, noone ever says " we saw Jesus arise and walk from the tomb?" They never say this. If they wanted to lie, they could have just said this. Instead, there is a mysterious figure in white. Thats all. An empty tomb, and a figure in white. Then, later, as they wander about, a figure appears to them, and in almost every case, they do not recognize him as Jesus, he has to announce himself. He comes and goes mysteriously, they do not ever speak of the old Jesus being back amongst them and acting as he did, looking as he did, when alive. Only one story, the doubting Thomas story, tries to make a serious case that it was physically jesus, in physical form. But thats just one of, what, a half dozen accounts of his appearance among them, all the rest of which recount a creature not quite normal, not natural.

There is a coyness in the accounts of post-resurrection jesus, which, in all cases other than the doubting thomas story, leave it ambiguous, as to the nature of this appearance of jesus, whether it was a physically resurrected man, or some kind of shiny ghost. Go back and read the accounts, and reead closely, there is a coyness, as I said, its not so clear, the nature of this resurrection.

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 12:13 AM
Do you want to know, debate or argue?

I already know.
I don't want to debate or argue.
You seem to think that quoting scriptures is proof of something.
I'm willing to allow you that delusion.
In turn, please allow me to doubt the sanctity of scriptures.

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 01:10 AM
Hey Glen. Just dropping by to say hi. I don't really have time for this anymore........I hope you are doing good buddy!

Hi, Mike!
I think I'm doing good, my friend!
If I run short of time to argue with sanctimonius religious bigots, I'll quit building kayaks and tables to make more time.
This is important work, don't you know!;)
BTW, I'm lucky I can't play a guitar like you do, or I'd have been dead 20 years ago.
Best to you and Sue and Portia and the boys and all your friends!

B_B
11-14-2009, 01:12 AM
I don't think anyone conceives of Jesus as a closeted movie actor.
but that is the only way that story would make any sense to me...

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 01:20 AM
[quote=Bobby;2386908]You seem to think that I am convinced By this. Iam just answering the question that was asked. This is the only way I know how to do this. I dont think my delusion is any greater than yours.[/quote

Why did you post that scripture unless you thought it made some meaningful statement regarding the subject at hand?
It made absolutely no sense to me.
I know you don't think you're more deluded than I am.
I can live with that!:)

B_B
11-14-2009, 01:28 AM
Well, not exactly... after that, He came back from the dead and the face of established religion and the government were never the same again.

so what is the unbelievable part?
the "rising from the dead"?
starting with, say, Lazarus, would you care to guess how many resurrections there are in the Bible? ~8 FWIW.
it really was no big deal back then.

Assuming, of course, that the fiction is in the details, and not, as I suspect, in the story (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html) entirely [Jesus did not, therefore does not, exist]

bobbys
11-14-2009, 01:39 AM
Isaiah53.

Who has believed our messageand to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-2.htm)He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-3.htm)He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-4.htm)Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-5.htm)But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-6.htm)We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-7.htm)He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-8.htm)By oppressiona (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesa) and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.b (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesb)
9 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-9.htm)He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-10.htm)Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makesc (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesc) his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-11.htm)After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light [of life]d (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesd) and be satisfiede (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotese);
by his knowledgef (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesf) my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/53-12.htm)Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,g (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesg)
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,h (http://niv.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm#footnotesh)
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Nanoose
11-14-2009, 01:45 AM
so what is the unbelievable part?
the "rising from the dead"?
starting with, say, Lazarus, would you care to guess how many resurrections there are in the Bible? ~8 FWIW.
it really was no big deal back then.

Assuming, of course, that the fiction is in the details, and not, as I suspect, in the story (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html) entirely [Jesus did not, therefore does not, exist]

Braam - I did not read your entire article, but I did look and have a couple of comments.

First, if that is your authority, it is very dated. I would rely on more modern scholarship, as much as been done since 1922. In fact, currently, the fact that Jesus existed is not in doubt by any contemporary scholars, regardless of their religious views. This was not the understanding in 1922, but his existence is not doubted today.

Also, much has changed regarding his dating of the NT documents. Again, the article may be accurate for scholarship then, but no longer. I would suggest FF Bruce's, "The NT Documents: Are they Reliable?" for a more contemporary analysis.

Lastly, I was surprised your article made no reference to the non-Christian first century sources that validate both Jesus' existence and crucifixion, and that also refer to the resurrection.

I understand many decide Jesus was not whom he said he was, but at least do it based on good information, not outright false, unsubstantiated information.

Nanoose
11-14-2009, 01:50 AM
bobbys - why the Isaiah 53 passage? Is it to highlight this reference to Jesus made 700 years before his birth? Or....?

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 01:59 AM
"I would rely on more modern scholarship"...
Deb, more modern scholarship does not make gods out of mythology.
Why do you persist in this?

bobbys
11-14-2009, 02:33 AM
bobbys - why the Isaiah 53 passage? Is it to highlight this reference to Jesus made 700 years before his birth? Or....?.

Prophecy: Jesus would not open his mouth (defend himself) against false accusations Old testment Reference: Isaiah 53:7
New Testament Fulfillment: Mark 15:4-5, Matthew 27:13-14
"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. " (Isaiah 53:7)
"And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. " (Mark 15:3-6)
"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly. " (Matthew 27:13-14)

bobbys
11-14-2009, 02:40 AM
They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt. 1:23.

Prophecy: Christ to be born of a Virgin
Old Testament Reference: Isaiah 7:13-14
New Testament Fulfillment: Luke 1:26-28, 30-31
"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " (Isaiah 7:13-14)
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.... And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. . . . " (Luke 1:26-28, 30-31)

bobbys
11-14-2009, 02:50 AM
I asked kinda in fun. He gets mentioned a lot, and I figured it was time to take the pulse. Thanks for all the replies.

Many would consider me an apostate because I don't believe in the bodily resurrection. If the man is dead, he's dead, and ain't gonna come back. I've only touched a dead body once, my father's, and there was no question he was dead. A tender caress of his forehead.

The image, however, is universal. The image of the dying and resurrecting god/man is rife at the time, throughout the Levant and beyond. Mustn't we as Christians, knowing it isn't literal, take it up? Die and be reborn?.

Prophecy: Jesus would be resurrected
Old Testament Reference: Psalm 16:10-11; Psalm 49:15
New Testament Fulfillment: Mark 16:5-6
"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." (Psalm 16:10-11)
"Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah." (Psalm 49:14-15)
"And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. " (Mark 16:5-6)

bobbys
11-14-2009, 02:55 AM
I think there was a man named Jesus, born in Nazareth about 2,000 years ago, give or take. I believe he was the son of a woman named Mary and may have been the son of a Roman soldier or may have been the son of a carpenter named Joseph. I emphatically don't believe he was the product of a virgin birth.

I believe he worked as a carpenter; probably didn't bathe all that often; had garlic on his breath; glowed with a diet rich in olive oil; enjoyed a good laugh and a good B.M.; cussed a little when he ran a sliver under his fingernail or swatted his thumb with a hammer; fretted over the details in his work; tried hard to get tight joins and gluelines; marvelled at the amount of sawdust the human sinus could hold.

I believe he had some really good ideas, many of which I follow. I just don't believe there was any actual divinity involved. All of which is why I call my slef a "Christian atheist.".

Prophecy: Jesus to be born in Bethlehem
Old Testament Reference: Micah 5:2
New Testament Fulfillment: Luke 2:4-7
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. " (Micah 5:2)
"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. " (Luke 2:4-7)

bobbys
11-14-2009, 02:59 AM
Jesus was a crackpot.
He flew in the face of the established religion and the government.
When the established religion and the government confronted him and told him to repent or die, he chose to die.
Case closed!.

Prophecy: Jesus would not open his mouth (defend himself) against false accusations
Old Testament Reference: Isaiah 53:7
New Testament Fulfillment: Mark 15:4-5, Matthew 27:13-14

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. " (Isaiah 53:7)
"And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. " (Mark 15:3-6)
"Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly. " (Matthew 27:13-14)

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 03:00 AM
bobbys, do you have a brother named Jimmy Swaggert?
Or a cousin named Benny Hinn?

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-14-2009, 03:22 AM
He's the Son of God.
What do I win?

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 03:44 AM
He's the Son of God.
What do I win?

A rusty draw knife, half a can of Three-And-One oil, and a tube of Arm and Hammer tooth paste.
You lucky devil!:)

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-14-2009, 03:58 AM
Wow!
Is my luck changin or what?

Glen Longino
11-14-2009, 04:09 AM
Wow!
Is my luck changin or what?
LMAO!
You are sooooo easy to entertain!

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
11-14-2009, 04:18 AM
I agree.
Especially at 4 in the freakin morning.

oznabrag
11-14-2009, 10:02 AM
Jesus was the marketing manager for the Nazareth carpentry company and he came up with several marketing campaigns.

Including selling wooden crosses to the Romans, Wooden training swords to several gladiator schools. He also sold several wooden boats to fishermen that were supposed to be guaranteed to find fish.He also developed a rather remarkable campaign in which he supposedly died and was resurrected just so that he could sell small off cuts of wood as pieces of the holy cross to gullible tourists. Apparently he also did quite well with a sideline in Iron nails and wooden chalices.

See post # 40.

Boston
11-14-2009, 10:38 AM
well this is kinda an interesting thread to find on a boating forum

ok I spent nearly 8 years as a history minor and many of those specifically studying religious history

so here's my take on Jesus
they guy was a traveling Rabi who at no point advocated abandoning Judaism, at no point advocated any new religion and at no point intended to get killed. What he practiced was a form of Judaism refereed to as pharisaic which was a newly revised liberal view of the basic Judaic theology. It was taught by the school of Hillale ( most likely by Hillale's son Gamilale ) and was considered kinda the Pentecostal movement of the day. Its also interesting to note that the book of Hillale ( which I am lucky enough to have a copy of ) which is written about 50+ years before Jesus came on the scene, contains most of quotes commonly attributed to Jesus. The principals embedded within many of the quotes would have been common to any pharisaic rabbi of the day.

It was Paul who invented Christianity ( which I will refer to as Pauline Christianity from here on out ) not Jesus. Paul used the popularity of Jesus to reinvent himself ( he had been a relative failure up to that point ) and fooled a lot of people in the process. One group he generally did not fool was the church of Jerusalem who were the actual followers, relatives and scribes of Jesus. Which makes them being the first declared heretics by the Pauline Christian's kinda one of the most hypocritical events in all history.

three absolute must reads in order to have any kind of inteligent and historically factual conversations along these lines are

Paul the Myth Maker ( H MaCoby ) professor emoratus religious studdies university of London

The Bible Unearthed ( Silberman/Finclestien ) editor of archiology magazine in cooperation with the director of archeological studies university of Jerusalem

Pagan Europe ( E Pagels ) department of religion Princeton university

essentially the majority of any particular religious dogma is typically not even remotely historically accurate

if anyone is conversant in the actual history of Christianity it might be enjoyable to trade views

cheers
B

pefjr
11-14-2009, 11:03 AM
well this is kinda an interesting thread to find on a boating forum

ok I spent nearly 8 years as a history minor and many of those specifically studying religious history

so here's my take on Jesus
they guy was a traveling Rabi who at no point advocated abandoning Judaism, at no point advocated any new religion and at no point intended to get killed. What he practiced was a form of Judaism refereed to as pharisaic which was a newly revised liberal view of the basic Judaic theology. It was taught by the school of Hillale ( most likely by Hillale's son Gamilale ) and was considered kinda the Pentecostal movement of the day. Its also interesting to note that the book of Hillale ( which I am lucky enough to have a copy of ) which is written about 50+ years before Jesus came on the scene, contains most of quotes commonly attributed to Jesus. The principals embedded within many of the quotes would have been common to any pharisaic rabbi of the day.

It was Paul who invented Christianity ( which I will refer to as Pauline Christianity from here on out ) not Jesus. Paul used the popularity of Jesus to reinvent himself ( he had been a relative failure up to that point ) and fooled a lot of people in the process. One group he generally did not fool was the church of Jerusalem who were the actual followers, relatives and scribes of Jesus. Which makes them being the first declared heretics by the Pauline Christian's kinda one of the most hypocritical events in all history.

three absolute must reads in order to have any kind of inteligent and historically factual conversations along these lines are

Paul the Myth Maker ( H MaCoby ) professor emoratus religious studdies university of London

The Bible Unearthed ( Silberstien/Finclestien ) editor of archiology magazine in cooperation with the director of archeological studies university of Jerusalem

Pagan Europe ( E Pagels ) department of religion Princeton university

essentially the majority of any particular religious dogma is typically not even remotely historically accurate

if anyone is conversant in the actual history of Christianity it might be enjoyable to trade views

cheers
BThank you sir, I agree (mostly)with your summary. :)But, then there is faith, and that attracts 2+ billion people.

Nanoose
11-14-2009, 12:49 PM
Hey, Boston! Some "views" to trade - thanks for the thoughtful dialogue



...a traveling Rabi who at no point advocated abandoning Judaism, at no point advocated any new religion and at no point intended to get killed.

Traveling Rabbi: check.

Abandoning Judaism: not abandoning, but fulfilling. He fulfilled Judaism's purpose (he was the climax of Judaism, as N.T. Wright puts it), and so, after him, it changed. He foretold the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the cornerstone of Judaism, because the old sacrificial system was no longer needed. Without that, Judaism as previously known was basically gone - no longer needed - fulfilled in him.

Regarding "intended to get killed," he says it was why he came, and foretold it on a number of occasions (although those listening were clueless and didn't get what he meant....too busy conceiving of him as their liberator from Rome). He definitely knew it was gonna happen.


What he practiced was a form of Judaism refereed to as pharisaic ...considered kinda the Pentecostal movement of the day.

I'd disagree here, as he sufficiently challenged and embarrassed the Pharisees such that they were among those pushing for his crucifixion.

Of the various sects within Judaism in first century Palestine, the Pharisees were the more moderate - vacillating between cooperation with and rebellion against Rome, but picking their battles with extreme care. They had seen the way Rome responded to uprisings; they had too much to lose. Yes, they were the most popular group with the people, but Jesus was highly critical of them, and from his teaching I don't think one can support this view that he was a practicing Pharisee. Again, had that been true, he'd have had a faction working for his release rather than his death.


It was Paul who invented Christianity ... Paul used the popularity of Jesus to reinvent himself ( he had been a relative failure up to that point ) ...

Yes, this gets spouted regularly, but I fail to find any substantiation for this view.

Paul was not a "relative failure" but a very successful Pharisee. Trained under Gamaliel, and a very passionate type "A" personality, he was noted for his zeal, and at a young age was rising up through the ranks. His dedication was further seen in his efforts to quash this rebellion against Judaism called the Way in it's infancy, traveling and killing those that were following Jesus.

Now, because of his extensive religious education, his knowledge of the texts, he was the one to understand and put together the implications of the resurrection, to realize who Jesus actually was and what it meant as the fulfillment of Judaism. He was the one to "connect the dots" as it were. It required a huge paradigm shift, one only predicated by the undeniability of his Damascus road experience. Anything less would not have moved one so passionate about God and his faith.

Lastly, Jesus was anything but "popular" at that point. Yes, he was popular when the populace thought he was going to lead a rebellion against Rome and get them freed; but with the crucifixion that all came to a crashing halt, and they moved on looking for the next messiah figure. His closest followers were left dumbstruck, not knowing what to make of it all...well, only for 3 days, that is. ;)


he did not fool the church of Jerusalem who were the actual followers, relatives and scribes of Jesus. Which makes them being the first declared heretics by the Pauline Christian's kinda one of the most hypocritical events in all history.

Actually, Jesus had no scribes. Some postulate the existence of a document Q, no longer existing, in which many of his sayings were recorded, but he had no official scribe to whom he dictated anything.

I'm not clear on what you're referring to re "he didn't fool the church of Jerusalem." He consulted with them to confirm he was preaching the correct gospel, which they did confirm. But, I'm not sure what you're meaning here.



three absolute must reads in order to have any kind of inteligent and historically factual conversations along these lines are ...
essentially the majority of any particular religious dogma is typically not even remotely historically accurate

And I'd add that to have an"intelligent and historically factual conversation" it is good to read from a broader, more rounded perspective, i.e. scholarship from a variety of positions. Therefore I find your list a tad one sided.

And to claim anything as "typically not even remotely historically accurate" is rather arrogant, don't you think? I think, again, as we read a variety of perspectives we are more likely to get an understanding of anything historical.

Boston
11-14-2009, 03:33 PM
politely put Nanoose
I often bail out right off the bat based on some peoples sensitivities concerning religious views

obviously your taking the more classic view of things and I will try and respond in kind

Ild like to point out that there is little similarity between the were the empirical evidence leads and what the theology says

one is based entirely on what is most likely to be true derived from the strength and preponderance of data

the other is a faith that one chooses to believe and generally not in step with known evidence; not all the time ( thats the confusing part ) but a healthy portion of the time

I dont want things to break down into an analyzation of each and every pericope however I more healthy way to engage in any discourse is to take paragraphs and concepts as a whole.
that way things tend to stay in context a little better



Abandoning Judaism: not abandoning, but fulfilling. He fulfilled Judaism's purpose (he was the climax of Judaism, as N.T. Wright puts it), and so, after him, it changed. He foretold the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the cornerstone of Judaism, because the old sacrificial system was no longer needed. Without that, Judaism as previously known was basically gone - no longer needed - fulfilled in him.

Regarding "intended to get killed," he says it was why he came, and foretold it on a number of occasions (although those listening were clueless and didn't get what he meant....too busy conceiving of him as their liberator from Rome). He definitely knew it was gonna happen.Judaism speaks of a savior and many self proclaimed saviors were in evidence at that time. Interestingly enough we know very little of what Jesus actually said and can only with any confidence atribute about 17 or so lines of text directly to him. The lords prayer and another the Golden rule ( one of the shining jewels of all religious thought ) beyond that the concept that jesus was any form of culmination of Judaism can be placed firmly at the feet of Pauline Christianity and is one of the many reasons Paul ran screening from Thessalonia being chased by a Jewish mob who had actually known Jesus and knew what he taught ( and that Paul's diatribe was not it ). If you remember the Roman militia was called out to quell the riot and Paul was "escorted" from town. From therer on out he was terified to go back and so coresponded in writing only. The only Verifiable claims that Jesus was any form of culmination to Judaism are made by the Pauline Church and not by Jesus himself. One reason in many the Ebonites ( actual relatives and followers of Jesus ) practiced Judaism long after his death.


Of the various sects within Judaism in first century Palestine, the Pharisees were the more moderate - vacillating between cooperation with and rebellion against Rome, but picking their battles with extreme care. They had seen the way Rome responded to uprisings; they had too much to lose. Yes, they were the most popular group with the people, but Jesus was highly critical of them, and from his teaching I don't think one can support this view that he was a practicing Pharisee. Again, had that been true, he'd have had a faction working for his release rather than his deaththis first part I would generally agree with however obviously this last not so much. The similarities and in many cases exact references to the book of Hillale make it far more likely that Jesus was a trained Pharasee than not, Doesn't mean he may have not have been critical of them at times but does seem to indicate a close agreement on far more aspects of Judaism than with the Sadducee's while at the same time implying where his education came from.

Im not so sure the Jews of the time saw Jesus as being out of step with the norm for a traveling Rabi, you must remember he appeared in front of the ruling body ( the sanhedron ) and was admonished as to his good work in the earliest report's of the event, subsequent reports written later by Pauline Christians claim there was acrimony involved in the meeting but earlier reports indicate no such tensions. A shining example actually of the attempt to alter the written history to more closely match a theological view. An empirical exam of the evidence would place the greatest likelihood of accuracy on the earliest writings.

in short I do not believe the Jews of the time were pushing for his execution. People got stoned to death regularly in what was one of the toughest areas of the roman empire and the Romans couldn't generally have cared less who was next as long as they were not a roman citizen. If the Jews wanted him dead they would have dragged him out, accused him publically and stoned him to death right then and there. Similar to what they tried to do to Paul In Thessalonia for his having misrepresented Jesus, who was after all well respected Rabi of his time with a huge following.



Paul was not a "relative failure" but a very successful Pharisee. Trained under Gamaliel, and a very passionate type "A" personality, he was noted for his zeal, and at a young age was rising up through the ranks. His dedication was further seen in his efforts to quash this rebellion against Judaism called the Way in it's infancy, traveling and killing those that were following Jesus.

Now, because of his extensive religious education, his knowledge of the texts, he was the one to understand and put together the implications of the resurrection, to realize who Jesus actually was and what it meant as the fulfillment of Judaism. He was the one to "connect the dots" as it were. It required a huge paradigm shift, one only predicated by the undeniability of his Damascus road experience. Anything less would not have moved one so passionate about God and his faith.

Lastly, Jesus was anything but "popular" at that point. Yes, he was popular when the populace thought he was going to lead a rebellion against Rome and get them freed; but with the crucifixion that all came to a crashing halt, and they moved on looking for the next messiah figure. His closest followers were left dumbstruck, not knowing what to make of it all...well, only for 3 days, that is. ;) this first paragraph is ( Im sorry ) completely wrong and not based in any way on a historical context but instead is a purely theological view once again attributable to the Pauline Christian church

if paule was a trained Rabi why did he not know how to write Hebrew. Not one document ( and there are many ) written by Paul is in Hebrew, all are either in Greek or Chaldean. All training in Hebrew theology at the time was done in written Hebrew. Paul could not read nor write Hebrew and it is often been suggested probably could not speak it well either. Paul was also born in tarsus a neighboring province annexed into Judea by the romans for purposes of consolidating roman rule and was a Hellenistic Pagan community, there is no evidence of Judaism found in Tarsus at that time. Paul was most likely a Pagan like most and if you listen to his writings on Jewish law its clear he was never formally trained in Jewish theology.

What is verifiable is that he worked for the Romans as a snitch and a bounty hunter and occasional killer as well, for something like 11 years prior to his "epiphany".

the life of Paul is well documented and I would strongly recommend reevaluating an unsubstantiated view based solely on theological dogma

the Damascus road affair is worth chapters had I only the time so I will save that episode for when I have the time

on this last I think you may have misunderstood me
I meant that during his life Jesus was very popular and believe he was extremely popular, by all accounts the sermon on the mount was one of the largest gatherings of people in that time ( barring wars and armies that is ) There is ample evidence to support his popularity.


Actually, Jesus had no scribes. Some postulate the existence of a document Q, no longer existing, in which many of his sayings were recorded, but he had no official scribe to whom he dictated anything.

I'm not clear on what you're referring to re "he didn't fool the church of Jerusalem." He consulted with them to confirm he was preaching the correct gospel, which they did confirm. But, I'm not sure what you're meaning here.I suppose my question would be if you suggest document Q no longer exists doesnt that imply that at one time it did.

another question would be if the Ebonites and the Pauline christians were in such agreement why were they considered separate churches growing farther and farther apart in theological beliefs until finally the Ebonites are declared heretics and hunted down and, all there writings burned, again remember the Ebonites were at this point descendants of the close friends relatives and disciples of the living Jesus and it would be highly unlikely that they had no written record of what the man himself had said.

Most Rabi's of the time had scribes and its more likely than not that Jesus did as well, given his popularity and fame. What is interesting is that even today there is a huge effort by the Pauline Christian church to suppress the writings of the time.

two well documented studies can be found in both books

"The Dead Sea Scroll Deception "
"The Dead Sea Scroll Conspiracy"

one of the most obvious examples of this type of censorship can be found in the burning of the temples and the libraries the very instant Pauline Christianity came to power with the death of Constantine.


cheers
B

Nanoose
11-14-2009, 05:00 PM
Thanks, B: we'll obviously choose to disagree. Your reference to '17 sayings' tells me you are familiar with the Jesus Seminar.

I must say, your paragraph on Paul made me laugh out loud! I don't know what your sources are, but again, in comparing a variety of sources, one usually ferrets out the more accurate from the wildly creative. I'd best leave it at that.

Tom Galyen
11-14-2009, 07:01 PM
I agree with Nanoose that Boston's reference to the "17 saying" indicate that he is familiar with the Jesus Seminar. This would also explain his other arguments. One thing Boston left out in his statement about Paul's writing is that a lot of it May have been written by scribes. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7-10 Paul writes that God had given him a "thorn in the flesh" and that he had prayed to God three times for it to be removed but that God had denied his request. Many scholars believe that this "thorn" was very poor eyesight. This can be attested to by his statement in his letter to the Galatians 6:11 where he writes "See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand." A person with poor eyesight would use larger letters when writing so they can see what they've written. It would have been a standard custom of the time to use a scribe, either public or one of Paul's followers to write the letters for him and he just signed them with the final greeting. This can be seen in his first letter to the Corinthians 16:21, and Colossians 4:18, and his second letter to the Thessalonians 3:16 where in each case he states "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand." This again points out that this final greeting in each letter was the only part that Paul wrote himself. The rest was written by someone else. The standard scribes of the day would have been well versed in writing Greek, the "lingua Franca" of the Roman world.

Also keep in mind who Paul was writing to. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. He was not writing to Hebrew churches but to gentile churches the recipients of those letters would be more likely to understand Greek than Hebrew. Paul was well versed in Greek as can be seen by his debating with Greek scholars in Athens (Acts of the Apostles 17:16 and following.)

I also believe that Boston is putting forth a personal opinion about Paul when he writes that "Paul used the popularity of Jesus to reinvent himself." Paul by his own admission "Preached Christ and him crucified." Paul does list what he has gone through for the sake of Christ only to show that he was sincere in his following of Christ. Most of what he lists is recorded in Acts. beatings, jailing s, etc. This does not sound like boastings of any sort.

Sorry Boston but I do not see anything of a substantial argument than those posted by other atheists and agnostics on this forum. No offense nor disrespect intended. The books you want to use for your arguments are those written by those with a pre-ordained anti-Christian bias.

SamSam
11-14-2009, 07:20 PM
Paul was not a "relative failure" but a very successful Pharisee. Trained under Gamaliel, and a very passionate type "A" personality, he was noted for his zeal, and at a young age was rising up through the ranks. His dedication was further seen in his efforts to quash this rebellion against Judaism called the Way in it's infancy, traveling and killing those that were following Jesus.

This just keeps getting better. A type A self-glorifying religious stalker/murderer who never met Jesus is a pillar of Christianity? I am continuously amazed by this stuff, please don't stop. Really.

B_B
11-14-2009, 07:42 PM
The books you want to use for your arguments are those written by those with a pre-ordained anti-Christian bias.
Agnostics, atheists and non-religionists will use the Bible and other pre-ordained pro-Christian writing to illustrate why believing in that fairy tale is wrong IF the Christians on the forum promise to only use pre-ordained anti-Christian writings to prove that Christianity is worth the effort.

Good Luck! ;)

B_B
11-14-2009, 08:02 PM
Braam - I did not read your entire article, but I did look and have a couple of comments.

First, if that is your authority, it is very dated. I would rely on more modern scholarship, as much as been done since 1922. In fact, currently, the fact that Jesus existed is not in doubt by any contemporary scholars, regardless of their religious views. This was not the understanding in 1922, but his existence is not doubted today.

Also, much has changed regarding his dating of the NT documents. Again, the article may be accurate for scholarship then, but no longer. I would suggest FF Bruce's, "The NT Documents: Are they Reliable?" for a more contemporary analysis.

Lastly, I was surprised your article made no reference to the non-Christian first century sources that validate both Jesus' existence and crucifixion, and that also refer to the resurrection.

I understand many decide Jesus was not whom he said he was, but at least do it based on good information, not outright false, unsubstantiated information.
1) it isn't my "authority" - just a quick google search for an article which encompassed many of the thoughts I have, and which presented them in a fairly non-rancorous way.

2)the fact Jesus did not exist is very much in doubt by many very highly accomplished contemporary scholars and the idea that the Gospels were written contemporaneous to the "life on earth of Jesus" is not in dispute by any reputable scholar - i.e. they weren't written contemporaneous to the existence of Jesus.

3)all early non-'biblical' references to 'Jesus of Nazareth' were, in fact, references to the early writings on which the Bible is based - i.e. there are zero independent references to Jesus; the only references are to the writings and attendant acolytes.

There are, however, many references in contemporary writings to people who claimed to be the Messiah - it was a fairly common experience back then - but none fit the Jesus of Nazareth narrative. It's strange that people would catalog people with Messiah complexes but fail to mention the actual Messiah. There is no evidence of a trial of Jesus and the Romans were quite good at keeping those records.

lastly - if I were you I'd not be too quick to throw accusations of disseminating false and unsubstantiated information - Hello six day creation! The Flood! 1,000 yr old men! Parting of the Red Sea! Captivity in Egypt! Wandering in the Dessert! I could be here all night...

perldog007
11-14-2009, 08:04 PM
I would say the Book of St. John is a good read for an overview.

Nanoose
11-14-2009, 08:26 PM
1) it isn't my "authority" - just a quick google search for an article which encompassed many of the thoughts I have, and which presented them in a fairly non-rancorous way.

Yes - an article, written in 1922, based on research available at that time, and no consideration of any other sources. The issue was simply finding anything that might agree with your preconceptions. Got it.


2)the fact Jesus did not exist is very much in doubt by many very highly accomplished contemporary scholars and the idea that the Gospels were written contemporaneous to the "life on earth of Jesus" is not in dispute by any reputable scholar - i.e. they weren't written contemporaneous to the existence of Jesus.

You'll need to list your "many very highly accomplished contemporary scholars."


3)all early non-'biblical' references to 'Jesus of Nazareth' were, in fact, references to the early writings on which the Bible is based - i.e. there are zero independent references to Jesus; the only references are to the writings and attendant acolytes.

"All"? Sorry. We have the writings of antagonistic ancient historians, both Jewish and Roman, verifying Jesus' existence.


It's strange that people would catalog people with Messiah complexes but fail to mention the actual Messiah. There is no evidence of a trial of Jesus and the Romans were quite good at keeping those records.

See above.


lastly - if I were you I'd not be too quick to throw accusations of disseminating false and unsubstantiated information - Hello six day creation! The Flood! 1,000 yr old men! Parting of the Red Sea! Captivity in Egypt! Wandering in the Dessert! I could be here all night...

Where did I say such things? You seem to be making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions, Braam. Wassup?

pefjr
11-14-2009, 08:44 PM
There are always problems when a Christian is faced with conflicting facts. Why can't the christian be a happy christian just on faith? The religion is based on impossible miracles. If those miracles were not included in the story of jesus, the story would fall flat. Its the miracles that hold it up and carry it thru time to grow to be the most believed impossible story.

The mormon religon is based on a lie, and covered up with more lies, but other christians can reconize this lie, but can't see the miracles of the story of jesus as impossible and keep begging for proofs.

B_B
11-14-2009, 08:50 PM
Yes - an article, written in 1922, based on research available at that time, and no consideration of any other sources. The issue was simply finding anything that might agree with your preconceptions. Got it.
hmm, trying to find an easily referenced article to help you understand something is "finding anything that might agree with your preconceptions" - coming from someone who's only primary reference is a work of fiction? Lovely.


need to list your "many very highly accomplished contemporary scholars."
Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great has an excellent index and bibliography - I believe you've mentioned you read it - read it again.



"All"? Sorry. We have the writings of antagonistic ancient historians, both Jewish and Roman, verifying Jesus' existence.
No, you don't. You may have antagonistic historians, but they only reference the Jesus of the writings.

Repeat: There are absolutely no contemporaneous writings or records of Jesus of Nazareth. None. Live with it.
by contemporaneous I mean written during the (physical) life (on earth), or very shortly thereafter, of this "Jesus of Nazareth".



See above.
yep, see above.




lastly - if I were you I'd not be too quick to throw accusations of disseminating false and unsubstantiated information
Where did I say such things? You seem to be making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions, Braam. Wassup?

but at least do it based on good information, not outright false, unsubstantiated information.
Wassup? Indeed. Forgetful are we?

Tom Galyen
11-14-2009, 10:38 PM
"hmm, trying to find an easily referenced article to help you understand something is "finding anything that might agree with your preconceptions" - coming from someone who's only primary reference is a work of fiction? Lovely."

Funny Braam, but I've never found the Bible in the fiction section of any library that I've ever gone to, nor any bookstore either. It seems more learned people than you have decided that whatever the Bible is, it is not fiction.

"Repeat: There are absolutely no contemporaneous writings or records of Jesus of Nazareth. None. Live with it.
by contemporaneous I mean written during the (physical) life (on earth), or very shortly thereafter, of this "Jesus of Nazareth"

Try the letters of Paul and the 4 Gospels, all written within the time period you specify. Live with it.

Longbow
11-14-2009, 10:54 PM
I am not a religious scholar, I have had some college religion classes and done some reading. I am a member of the United Methodist Church and I consider myself a Christian. It has taken me literally 30 years to decide what that means. I have some disagreements with the UMC, chiefly with the idea of the trinity which I see no basis for and reject as counter to the commandment that " thou shalt have no other god before me". I am disturbed by prayers that are made to Jesus, and what I see as a growing movement to treat Jesus as God. I'm not here to argue that point though. What I decided is that it doesn't matter to me whether the bible is historically accurate or not. If Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem, or if he rose from the dead doesn't detract from what is important and that is what he taught. I believe that Jesus existed but even if it could be proven tomorrow that he didn't it wouldn't matter, because I believe in God and all I have to do it look up at the sky and I find that faith confirmed. My degree is in Physics and I feel that I have a better understanding of how the universe works than most, and although we can seek to understand the mechanism, we cannot comprehend the maker. I feel that much of what is taught today in the churches both Catholic and Protestant has been made to fit a simplistic mold. Basically if you are good and you become a Christian, you go to heaven and if not you go to hell. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Again to me it's not important. As I said before what matters to me and what being a Christian signifies is a belief in and a willingness to follow the teachings that I believe were imparted by Jesus. To wit, love one another, live a life of service, value honesty, make the world and the lives of those around you better, be a good steward of the earth and the life on it. To those who reject the idea of Jesus Christ, I ask why? If you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't, but why try to tear down the beliefs of others? and to those who believe blindly in the dogma of the church I would say question what you believe and decide for yourself. I don't think that God will be angry at you for seeking the truth. There is one final point that I'd like to make. Every religion has an interest in presenting themselves as the one true path and rejecting all others. I believe that Christianity has probably changed greatly over the centuries and may be only fractionally related to what it once was, but I believe that it still retains enough of it's core message to be relevant. There is one God, if you would seek salvation (or enlightenment or nirvana) put aside the baser human emotions and serve others, live a good life while helping others to do the same. Value what is important, family, love, and peace and honor your creator. I have read and studied other religions and although I believe that Christianity comes closest to my beliefs, I cannot say that there is not another path that is just as worthy. I do strongly believe that anyone who claims that he is killing in the name of God is an abomination to the Lord whether he is Christian, Muslim or Jew. So to the original question, I don't think there is a definitive answer to who Jesus was or is, maybe he was the son of God, a prophet, maybe a teacher or just a carpenter regardless his message is holy and can give hope to us all.

PatCox
11-14-2009, 11:11 PM
Oh Bobby, Old Testament prophacy does not prove anything, as I said, the instances in which the new testament alters the story of Jesus for the specific purpose of making it fulfill old testament prophecy are actually very recognizable later additions, if you understand textual criticism. The Q document contains none of this after the fact work of fitting the story to the prophecy.

The figure in white, that was not Jesus. I mentioned that already, noone saw jesus walk out of the tomb, it was presented as a mystery, hey, where is the body? And then there are several stories of disciples mysteriously running into someone they at first don't even recognize as jesus, and then he says a few words, and disappears. Like I said, ambiguity, why so much ambiguity?

B_B
11-14-2009, 11:24 PM
Funny Braam, but I've never found the Bible in the fiction section of any library that I've ever gone to, nor any bookstore either. It seems more learned people than you have decided that whatever the Bible is, it is not fiction.
I have no doubt they're more learned; I also have no doubt they operate primarily by convention.

Besides Librarians and Booksellers mis-shelve books all the time. Just today I was in a book store and saw three titles in their "non-fiction" section clearly labelled "fiction" (and it's a tiny book section with only about 30 non-fiction titles...). What do you suppose they're gonna do with a book a lot of people think is the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I think, if they really thought about it, they'd pass out.


Repeat: There are absolutely no contemporaneous writings or records of Jesus of Nazareth. None. Live with it.
by contemporaneous I mean written during the (physical) life (on earth), or very shortly thereafter, of this "Jesus of Nazareth"

Try the letters of Paul and the 4 Gospels, all written within the time period you specify. Live with it.
not to nit pick but the snippet of mine you've quoted was in rebuttal to Nanoose's assertion that there were writings by people antagonistic to this 'Jesus of Nazareth' - i.e. to say: there is no contemporaneous recognition of 'Jesus of Nazareth' by anyone other than his acolytes; as an aside, the writings by his acolytes themselves were most probably written long after his supposed 'death and resurrection' and most probably not by the purported authors themselves.

I can live with it. Happily.

pefjr
11-15-2009, 02:03 AM
[quote=Tom Galyen;2387705
Funny Braam, but I've never found the Bible in the fiction section of any library that I've ever gone to, nor any bookstore either. It seems more learned people than you have decided that whatever the Bible is, it is not fiction.

quote]

Tom, bibles are found in the BS section of the Library. No Joke, I did not make this up. That's the Library of Congress classification. Dewey system , I think it is in the 200 section along with other non-fiction stories like "Fairy Tales". Its complicated as to why but you really are not saying its non-fiction are you. The Old and New T have some far out stories. Also some history.

McMike
11-15-2009, 08:31 AM
I am not a religious scholar, I have had some college religion classes and done some reading. I am a member of the United Methodist Church and I consider myself a Christian. It has taken me literally 30 years to decide what that means. I have some disagreements with the UMC, chiefly with the idea of the trinity which I see no basis for and reject as counter to the commandment that " thou shalt have no other god before me". I am disturbed by prayers that are made to Jesus, and what I see as a growing movement to treat Jesus as God. I'm not here to argue that point though. What I decided is that it doesn't matter to me whether the bible is historically accurate or not. If Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem, or if he rose from the dead doesn't detract from what is important and that is what he taught. I believe that Jesus existed but even if it could be proven tomorrow that he didn't it wouldn't matter, because I believe in God and all I have to do it look up at the sky and I find that faith confirmed. My degree is in Physics and I feel that I have a better understanding of how the universe works than most, and although we can seek to understand the mechanism, we cannot comprehend the maker. I feel that much of what is taught today in the churches both Catholic and Protestant has been made to fit a simplistic mold. Basically if you are good and you become a Christian, you go to heaven and if not you go to hell. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Again to me it's not important. As I said before what matters to me and what being a Christian signifies is a belief in and a willingness to follow the teachings that I believe were imparted by Jesus. To wit, love one another, live a life of service, value honesty, make the world and the lives of those around you better, be a good steward of the earth and the life on it. To those who reject the idea of Jesus Christ, I ask why? If you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't, but why try to tear down the beliefs of others? and to those who believe blindly in the dogma of the church I would say question what you believe and decide for yourself. I don't think that God will be angry at you for seeking the truth. There is one final point that I'd like to make. Every religion has an interest in presenting themselves as the one true path and rejecting all others. I believe that Christianity has probably changed greatly over the centuries and may be only fractionally related to what it once was, but I believe that it still retains enough of it's core message to be relevant. There is one God, if you would seek salvation (or enlightenment or nirvana) put aside the baser human emotions and serve others, live a good life while helping others to do the same. Value what is important, family, love, and peace and honor your creator. I have read and studied other religions and although I believe that Christianity comes closest to my beliefs, I cannot say that there is not another path that is just as worthy. I do strongly believe that anyone who claims that he is killing in the name of God is an abomination to the Lord whether he is Christian, Muslim or Jew. So to the original question, I don't think there is a definitive answer to who Jesus was or is, maybe he was the son of God, a prophet, maybe a teacher or just a carpenter regardless his message is holy and can give hope to us all.


Well said.

BTW Tom, I think Christ would have approved of Obama's bowing.;)

Boston
11-15-2009, 10:35 AM
Thanks, B: we'll obviously choose to disagree. Your reference to '17 sayings' tells me you are familiar with the Jesus Seminar.

I must say, your paragraph on Paul made me laugh out loud! I don't know what your sources are, but again, in comparing a variety of sources, one usually ferrets out the more accurate from the wildly creative. I'd best leave it at that.


actually I am not particularly familiar with the Jesus Seminar. What I was referring to was a Vatican study completed during my studies at university which concluded only 17 lines directly attributable to Jesus.

I dont think the study is available on line however I have reference to it somewhere here in my library ( Ill dig for it if I have to but Ild rather not )

I am not an atheist nor an agnostic

my references concerning Paul are however relatively handy if you need see them and we can make a list if you like and go over the validity of each statement in turn.

Paul was Saul from Tarsus

Tarsus was not a Jewish community

There is no evidence of Judaism being practiced in Tarsus

Tarsus was predominantly Zoroastrian / Hellenistic Pagan

Tarsus was not part of Judea until the Romans annexed it

Paul most likely left Tarsus in his teens

There are no Writings directly attributable to Paul in Hebrew

Paul was not born a Jew but rather what is referred to in Hebrew as a "Goyim"


It might benefit the conversation to actually address these first issues before moving on to the more difficult issues about Paul's life.
I have multiple sources and numerous references if you require them however faith is a matter of choice and you may chose to believe or not believe what history and science tell us about the time of Christ.

I would highly recommend reading the references mentioned and rather than think of them as having been written by unbelievers think of them more as information to be assessed rationally and critically from a neutral point of view

going at the subject with preconceived ideas will only muddle your ability to fairly asses what is most likely and what is least likely to actually have occurred

best
B

once we can establish the validity and agree on the previous I think you will find it becomes significantly easier to understand the life of Paul as presented through historical evidence

McMike
11-15-2009, 10:59 AM
I hope you two keep this discussion going without making it personal. Both your views are very informative and interesting.

Boston
11-15-2009, 11:18 AM
na Ill actually just bail out if it gets ugly

I am not feeling any burning desire to convince anyone of anything
just enjoy an informed discussion on a rather archaic topic seldom discussed in the empirical method using actual archeological and historical data

what you might find interesting is that once the imediately above is shown to be accurate it can then be easily shown that paul was not a trained Rabi, not a born Jew and not particularly well received by people who actually knew Jesus, instead he was chased from Tarsus by an angry mob.

if you really want to get into some interesting history lets look at how Paul purchased his roman citizenship
having been born in Tarsus and not a Roman Citizen how and where did he get the money ( cost something like 100,000 roman cestercies at that time to buy into all the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship )

now thats a conversation that will likely cause a ruckus

McMike
11-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Well, lay it on us!! I’m, at least, interested.

Paul Girouard
11-15-2009, 12:45 PM
if you really want to get into some interesting history lets look at how Paul purchased his roman citizenship
having been born in Tarsus and not a Roman Citizen how and where did he get the money ( cost something like 100,000 roman cestercies at that time to buy into all the rights and privileges of Roman citizenship )

now thats a conversation that will likely cause a ruckus




The city of Tarsus, birthplace of the apostle Paul (Acts 21:39), was the capital of the Asia Minor (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-of-aegean-sea-greece-asia-minor-region.html) province of Cilicia. Modern Tarsus is located in the country of Turkey.
Tarsus was well-known for its culture of Greek philosophy and literature, so much so that at one time its schools and number of learned men rivaled those of Athens (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/athenian-empire-at-its-height.html) and Alexandria. Paul referred to Tarsus' perceived importance in the Roman empire (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-roman-empire-when-jerusalem-temple-destroyed.html) when he said he was "born in Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city," (Acts 21:39).

As a reward for its exertions and sacrifices during the civil wars of Rome, Tarsus was made a free city by Augustus Caesar. Free cities were permitted in the Roman empire to use their own laws, customs, and magistrates, and they were free from being subject to Roman guards. Since Paul was born in a free city, he was entitled to the privileges of a free man and was considered a Roman citizen. Paul used his Roman citizenship to avoid being scourged by a centurion (Acts 22:25 (http://www.biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/life-epistles-of-apostle-paul/commentary/acts.html)). It was against Roman law to bind and scourge an uncondemned Roman citizen. He used the rights of Roman citizenship again when he appealed to have the case against him, instigated by the Jews, be heard by Caesar himself (Acts 25:10-12)

Bob Cleek
11-15-2009, 01:02 PM
Some one of my teachers once observed, "Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened."

Scripture is a whole 'nuther kind of literature that was common in the ancient world. We really aren't all that familiar with it in this day and age. It's a means of conveying concepts and meaning through metaphor and storytelling. The "moral of the story" is more important than the story itself. If you get hung up on historical accuracy and literal meanings, you're going to miss the whole point of it. For example, when Christ tells a blind man "your sins are forgiven" and the guy can see, the point of the story is the healing power of forgiveness in our relationship with God and each other. If you get that out of the story, you don't really have any need to lose sleep over trying to convince anyone else it was a "miracle."

Another example of this literary style is Aesop's Fables. Everybody is familiar with Aesop's Fables and in our culture even today they are regularly referred to for the sound philosophical propositions they illustrate. (The Fox and the Grapes = "sour grapes," The Tortoise and the Hare, The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Ant and the Grasshopper) Aesop's Fables are useful to us in our everyday lives, whether we are conscious of them or not. Nobody seems to argue endllessly over whether Aesop's animals actually talked to each other, though, do they? Something to think about when considering the Biblel, maybe.

SamSam
11-15-2009, 01:42 PM
McMike
I hope you two keep this discussion going without making it personal. Both your views are very informative and interesting. I agree, despite my sneeringly cynical, snidelyistic ways.


McMike
Well said.I agree again. Very well put, Longbow.

SamSam
11-15-2009, 02:06 PM
Nobody seems to argue endllessly over whether Aesop's animals actually talked to each other, though, do they? Something to think about when considering the Biblel, maybe.Well, if people professed that they did actually talk, you'd have plenty of argument. And, if believers said all the stuff in the Bible is metaphorical, it is just fables, you wouldn't have much argument.

What is objectional is the high rank and importance the Biblical fables have been elevated to, and the unreasonable power they have over human affairs. If the whole point of the Bible is the message, and the message is love, why, after thousands of years, are the three biblical religions so enmeshed in a shifting triangle of conflict? If belief in God is the answer, why does it present such a terminal danger to humankind?

B_B
11-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Some one of my teachers once observed, "Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened."

Scripture is a whole 'nuther kind of literature that was common in the ancient world. We really aren't all that familiar with it in this day and age. It's a means of conveying concepts and meaning through metaphor and storytelling. The "moral of the story" is more important than the story itself. If you get hung up on historical accuracy and literal meanings, you're going to miss the whole point of it. For example, when Christ tells a blind man "your sins are forgiven" and the guy can see, the point of the story is the healing power of forgiveness in our relationship with God and each other. If you get that out of the story, you don't really have any need to lose sleep over trying to convince anyone else it was a "miracle."

... Nobody seems to argue endllessly over whether Aesop's animals actually talked to each other, though, do they? Something to think about when considering the Biblel, maybe.
then it really doesn't matter to you whether or not Jesus actually lived? his life story could be allegory (self sacrifice, mans inability to see truth etc) and you'd be happy with it? the whole exercise, apparently, could be allegory and you'd be happy with it?

We're left then with a discussion of what is fact and what is allegory.
And it seems that with most Christian teaching, when the accepted Christian reality is proven incorrect it becomes allegory, that which hasn't been proven incorrect, yet, remains fact.

pefjr
11-15-2009, 03:09 PM
Some one of my teachers once observed, "Everything in the Bible is true and some of it actually happened."

Another example of this literary style is Aesop's Fables. Everybody is familiar with Aesop's Fables and in our culture even today they are regularly referred to for the sound philosophical propositions they illustrate. (The Fox and the Grapes = "sour grapes," The Tortoise and the Hare, The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Ant and the Grasshopper) Aesop's Fables are useful to us in our everyday lives, whether we are conscious of them or not. Nobody seems to argue endllessly over whether Aesop's animals actually talked to each other, though, do they? Something to think about when considering the Biblel, maybe.

I used that Aesop's Fables analogy once in a religious discussion and barely escaped with my life.:D

Maybe I just didn't present it right.

Bob Cleek
11-15-2009, 05:31 PM
Well, if people professed that they did actually talk, you'd have plenty of argument. And, if believers said all the stuff in the Bible is metaphorical, it is just fables, you wouldn't have much argument.

Folks only started worrying about whether or not this or that biblical "event" actually happened in the last 100 years or so. Before that, it wasn't an issue. In the late 1800's, with the advent of archaeology as we know it, "digging in the Holy Land" became a bit of a fad and many were eager to "unearth" "scientific proof" of various Biblical stories, places and events. Indeed, it was the Protestants in this period who did some of the important early archaeology in pursuit of "proving the Bible." Though not biblical, the high point of this phenomenon was Heinreich Schlieman's discovery of Troy based on his reading of Homer's Illiad, which, until then, most considered purely a work of fiction. In other instances, it was just a lot of inventive bunk. It still goes on today, as evidenced by the "James Ossuary" hoax.

Coincident with the "scientific" pursuit of Biblical "reality," literal historical interpretation of the Bible started in the United States among a school of Presbyterian theologians at Princeton around 1910 and was later picked up by other conservative Protestant denominations during the 1920's. It was a reaction to liberal theology and scientific theories, like Darwinism, that they believed were harmful to Christianity. Before that, none of the "historical realities" of the Bible were an issue.

So, all this argument about "did it happen" and "was Jesus a real person" and so on, is really a very new, and, theologically speaking, distracting endeavor, however interesting the history itself may be.

Boston
11-15-2009, 05:51 PM
The city of Tarsus, birthplace of the apostle Paul (Acts 21:39), was the capital of the Asia Minor (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-of-aegean-sea-greece-asia-minor-region.html) province of Cilicia. Modern Tarsus is located in the country of Turkey.
Tarsus was well-known for its culture of Greek philosophy and literature, so much so that at one time its schools and number of learned men rivaled those of Athens (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/athenian-empire-at-its-height.html) and Alexandria. Paul referred to Tarsus' perceived importance in the Roman empire (http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-roman-empire-when-jerusalem-temple-destroyed.html) when he said he was "born in Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city," (Acts 21:39).

As a reward for its exertions and sacrifices during the civil wars of Rome, Tarsus was made a free city by Augustus Caesar. Free cities were permitted in the Roman empire to use their own laws, customs, and magistrates, and they were free from being subject to Roman guards. Since Paul was born in a free city, he was entitled to the privileges of a free man and was considered a Roman citizen. Paul used his Roman citizenship to avoid being scourged by a centurion (Acts 22:25 (http://www.biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/life-epistles-of-apostle-paul/commentary/acts.html)). It was against Roman law to bind and scourge an uncondemned Roman citizen. He used the rights of Roman citizenship again when he appealed to have the case against him, instigated by the Jews, be heard by Caesar himself (Acts 25:10-12)


well done Paul, you do know your stuff, now the thing to do is take a detailed look at what we do know about Tarsus and what evidences we can derive from Paul's life to place him within the context of this time and place and consider his presumed citizenship by virtue of having been born in a "free" city. I would remind you of the tenants described of the Latin Rite initiated after the Latin War with Rome in about 340 BC. Im going to suggest that simply being born in a free city does not entitle one to Roman citizenship, and that the city was predominantly Pagan, that only certain leaders of a city granted free status were granted full citizen status and not the entire citizenry as specified in the Latin Rite. Rites were not granted to the general citizenry until after the institution of the constitutio antoniniana in about 200 something AD long after the time of Paul.

I maintain that Paul did not poses the knowledge common to a formally trained Rabi of that time.
Although Paul could write he is never known to write in Hebrew which is the language of the Judaic scholars and that when he quotes the Hebrew texts he does so from translations of the texts into a form of Greek called koine and not the classical Greek of literature from that time nor from the original Hebrew. There is ample evidence of this in that the translations he quotes from in his letters are worded in the exact manor of the Septuagint ( a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts common to this time ). By a careful study of the style and content of Paul's writings it becomes clear he could not have been a trained Rabi and certainly not the product of one of the most well respected rabbinical schools of its time, Hillale. History shows no evidence of Paul's ability to write or read Hebrew, the language of the Hebrew scholars.

I would first point out that as described in acts that Roman guard begins to beat Paul at which point Paul Protests, The guard then goes and checks, comes back is surprised that Paul is in fact a Roman citizen and argues with Paul that he has bean beaten before (there is evidence to suggest Paul was scourged about five times ) and that he ( the guard ) has been a citizen his whole life at which point Paul admits that he had purchased his citizenship ( see below for details and quotes )

if as a Roman citizen one can use his citizenship to avoid being summarily beaten (as you suggest and I agree ) by other Romans, how is it that Paul himself admits to having been "scourged" many times ( 2 Corinthians ). If only the Romans could punish a Roman and at that only after a prolonged trial as is evident in Roman law ( the twelve tables) Trials which Paul would later insist upon as a Roman citizen.
Would he not have used his privilege and avoided the previous beatings. All one has to do is make claim of ones citizenship and the beating suddenly becomes a crime, after all these beatings were administered on the whims of an individual Roman Guard and not subject to any kind of trial process, and those guards in turn were given the power to administer them with clarification. Paul did not invoke his citizenship to protect him in previous encounters most likely because he was not, at that time a Roman citizen. Paul could not have been punished in this manor without a length trial in Rome had he been a Roman citizen at the time or by virtue of his being from Tarsus.

the only logical conclusion is that Paul was not a roman citizen when he left Tarsus nor in his early career in Jerusalem but became a Roman citizen at some later time. The question is how and the answer to that is particularly unpleasant.

interestingly enough is the fact that Paul does not mention in any of his letters that he is a Roman citizen, almost as if he was trying to keep it quiet. If that is in fact the reason then it lends itself well to the circumstances of his acquiring his citizenship.

it might also be interesting to note that there are specific levels of Roman citizenship. The rights of the various levels of citizenship are clearly detailed in the Roman code of Law called the Twelve tables

one of which states


No Roman citizens could be sentenced to die on the cross. Roman Citizens were not crucified (Roman Crucifixion (http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-life/roman-crucifixion.htm)), they were beheadedas the story goes Paul was about to be crucified after his trial in Rome ( once again a contradiction with Roman Law governing Roman citizens ) when he protested and insisted on not being hung in the same manor as Jesus, so given the Roman sense of humor naturally they hung him upside down, this would seem to indicate Paul was either stripped of his citizenship, never had it, or was illegally executed. Given the levels of Roman citizenship it would appear likely that Paul had at some point purchased the lowest rank of Roman citizenship referred to as the Plebeian class, but because of its tenuous nature and likely having been purchased as Paul himself admits was either rescinded or ignored at his trial.

it is also interesting to note that Paul admits to having purchased his citizenship in acts 22-25/29
this is also the earliest incident where Paul claims rights as a Roman and he subsequently takes advantage of these rights often.


And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.” Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He (Paul clearly states) said, “Yes. With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.”

“I was born a citizen.” (Responded the Centurion as he untied him in what must have been an angry tone.) Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.this is getting rather lengthy and so I will have to address the issues of Tarsus in my next



cheers
B

Boston
11-15-2009, 06:05 PM
So, all this argument about "did it happen" and "was Jesus a real person" and so on, is really a very new, and, theologically speaking, distracting endeavor, however interesting the history itself may be.or as the English say "the truth will out"

personally I found the history of it all to be absolutely amazing in its revelations concerning who Jesus really was and how the church came into being

has helped me immeasurably in reconciling what is clearly religious dogma designed to defend a particular view with the actual person of Jesus.

who by the way is highly likely to have been a very real person in a very interesting time

our discussion on Tarsus will likely become detailed and it will take a few to really give the subject the time it deserves however the evidence to suggest the town was at any time a Jewish settlement is marginal at best. There is however ample evidence to suggest the town dates to the earliest times and was predominantly pagan. I am not aware of any Jewish temples or relics being found that date from the time of Paul but I need to check what the latest archeological information might say. That evidence by the way is fleeting given that there are about 2 million people now living on top of the old city.

Nanoose
11-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Man, Boston....your sources leave a lot to be desired...:rolleyes:
What bible are you using? or are you quoting some other source? Check it again (Acts 22:28 states Paul is the Roman by birth, and the commanding officer is the one who purchased his citizenship).


... if as a Roman citizen one can use his citizenship to avoid being summarily beaten (as you suggest and I agree ) by other Romans, how is it that Paul himself admits to having been "scourged" many times ( 2 Corinthians ).

Read the passage; it's pretty clear. :rolleyes:


Would he not have used his privilege and avoided the previous beatings.

irrelevant; context (non-issue)


Paul did not invoke his citizenship to protect him in previous encounters most likely because he was not, at that time a Roman citizen.

Refuted...but, I'm sure you've see the error having read that 2Cor. passage you referred to, combined with the Acts passage....



interestingly enough is the fact that Paul does not mention in any of his letters that he is a Roman citizen, almost as if he was trying to keep it quiet. If that is in fact the reason then it lends itself well to the circumstances of his acquiring his citizenship.

There are a lot of things he doesn't mention in his letters. He doesn't mention he's a tentmaker in them all; he doesn't mention his relationship with Peter in them all; he doesn't mention Timothy or his shipwreck in them all. Relevance?


..as the story goes Paul was about to be crucified after his trial in Rome ( contradictory with Roman Law governing Roman citizens ) when he protested and insisted on not being hung in the same manor as Jesus, so given the Roman sense of humor naturally they hung him upside down, this would seem to indicate Paul was either stripped of his citizenship, never had it, or was illegally executed. Given the levels of Roman citizenship it would appear likely that Paul had at some point purchased the lowest rank of Roman citizenship referred to as the Plebeian class, but because of its tenuous nature and likely having been purchased as Paul himself admits was either rescinded or ignored at his trial.


Where are you finding this? Whatever your source, its convoluting Paul with Peter - Paul, a Roman, was never threatened with crucifixion (the fact that he even had a Roman trial was by virtue of his citizenship), and as a citizen was beheaded. Peter, NOT a Roman citizen was crucified and tradition states he believed he was not worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord, and therefore requested to be crucified upside down. His request was granted.

Nanoose
11-15-2009, 08:53 PM
our discussion on Tarsus will likely become detailed and it will take a few to really give the subject the time it deserves however the evidence to suggest the town was at any time a Jewish settlement is marginal at best. There is however ample evidence to suggest the town dates to the earliest times and was predominantly pagan. I am not aware of any Jewish temples or relics being found that date from the time of Paul but I need to check what the latest archeological information might say. That evidence by the way is fleeting given that there are about 2 million people now living on top of the old city.

Perhaps to save you a lot of typing...who is saying Tarsus was anything but a pagan city, i.e. not a Jewish settlement? What is the relevance to Paul?, or to the thread? Thx.

Boston
11-15-2009, 09:31 PM
as I suggested lets not go line by line here or things tend to get out of context
I will address as many of your points as I can but please lets not do this line by line
its so boring

the relevance is to place within historical context the upbringing of Paul and the likelihood that he was a trained Rabi

I would suggest and have provided ample evidence to suggest he was not

Tarsus was predominately Pagan

not one image, name, or diety is of Jewish origin is contained in the following assessment of what is known of Tarsus at the time of Paul. A surprisingly revealing fact in itself

Tarsus was earlier named Parthenia
the name Tarsus is most likely derived from Tarsessos
coinage of Tarsus at the time of Paul bore the image of Hercules
legendary founders of the city include various pagan figures, Pegasus Demeter, Perseus and Sardon to name a few
earliest known rulers were the HIttites ( definitely not Jewish ) followed by the Assyrians and then the Persian empire, most notably shortly prior to Roman rule by the the Persian satrap King Syennesis ( also definitely not Jewish and not particularly friendly to Jewish law or customs ). By the time of allexander the great it was pedominantly a Greek culture with all its classic pagan beliefs and philosophical systems and later as part of the Seleucid empire it became even more Hellenized
in 171 BC the city revolted and its inhabitants were crucified in droves
in 66 BC was made capitol of the province of Cilicia and made a free city
in 41 BC Mark Antony did Cleopatra on the rooftops in what must have been a legendary performance as it does seem to be the stuff of legend
it wasnt untill 300 AD that there is any evidence to suggest a Pauline Christian presence in the city

there has been no jewish temple of that time ever found in Tarsus nor has any Jewish artifact of that time been reported, Although writings previous to Pauls indicate that there was a Jewish population it apparently was not large enough for them to afford to build a temple and not large enough to have left evidence of there existence behind.

I think it has been pretty firmly established that Tarsus was not a a bustling Jewish center nor was it likely, since most Jews of the day did not read or write at all let alone in the language of higher education, that Paul obtained any higher learning of Judaism there on the contrary in light of this Pauls inability to read or write in Hebrew begins to make a lot of sense.

Boston
11-15-2009, 09:43 PM
I disagree completely
Paul admits he has purchased his citizenship and the Guard is claiming his by birth
it would have been illegal for Paul to have been beaten previously without trial if he had been previously a Roman citizen and here we have him about to be beaten again and he claims citizenship that he has purchased.

my second point is exactly relevant
Paul who used his privileged as a roman citizen to get out of a beating had been previously beaten and not invoked his citizenship
why
most likely because he was not a citizen at that time

your third point I am not seeing at all
please explain

your fourth point
granted but the omission of something he uses to his advantage regularly is telling in my view

fifth point
you are absolutely right I was confusing Peter and Paul
its been a long time since I bothered with any of this and Im mostly going on memory
all in all Ild say not a bad memory at that although I'm likely to make the occasional and obvious mistake as you just pointed out
although I did look up the passage in acts as its one I remember fairly well but not by rote which seemed necessary to the point being made

oh
and just because Paul or his cohorts may claim in multiple places his citizenship by birth does not make it so
after all Paul could not have been a trained Rabi as he did not know the Language of the Rabbinical schools and yet he claims to have been a trained Pharisee

basically its not hard to show Paul's Lying about a lot of stuff and its been glosses over in the telling
such as his difficulties with the Ebonites who clearly were practicing Jews
Paul was made to pay for the cleansing of four others including himself and forced to publically be seen obeying Jewish tradition by the church in Jerusalem
obviously they were not happy with him if they made him pay for the others sacrifices and made him parade around in ceremonial cleansing garb for a few days as an example to the people who he had told that they did not have to obey Jewish law any more

PatCox
11-15-2009, 10:18 PM
Well, Cleek, you are absolutely right, completely, in pointing out that biblical literature, including the new testament books, is a kind of literature that we have no modern equivalent for. It is not "history" as we understand it, its not concerned with literal truth, people in that day did not make the distinction we make today between myth and reality, reality was filled with mystery.

People here are arguing from selected quotes from scripture, for example, with no knowledge at all of the mythic and story-telling traditions that those quotes come from. Healing stories, exorcism stories, miracle stories, from that time, all follow forms and basic scripts, and these stories are not only told about Jesus, they are told about most powerful figures. Many of the Roman emporers were credited with being able to heal with their touch, and many were elevated to Godhood, on the basis of miracles they were said to have performed.

Many of the stories recounted of Jesus fall into identifiable genres and scripts of standard hero tales of the time. Attributing these things to Jesus, when done by someone writing 30, 40, 70 years after the fact, was not considered fictionalizing.

And its probably shocking to put it in these terms, but the best example I have ever been able to come up with to illustrate what the gosper writers regarded as "truth" when they were writing, was to point out that Aesops fables are "true," they do in fact reveal truths, even though foxes do not talk, for example.

Poetry is "true," even though it is not history or "fact."

But also, new testament exegesis is a very precise and rigorous intellectual system which recognizes all this, and uses enormous amounts of specialized knwoledge of the culture of that time, of story-telling conventions, of text analysis, language analysis, and text comparison analysis, and exegetes, almost all of whom are people of faith, nevertheless have developed a well-acepted analysis of the new testament stories, and their analysis is very cold and precise in identifying statements and quotes which are obviously interpretive, mythical, and religious, and not historical or "factual" as we use the terms, in the gospels.

bob winter
11-15-2009, 10:20 PM
What a total waste of time. Jesus is obviously a dead Jewish guy who had no idea he was founding a new religion. If somebody can convince me he rose from the dead they can also tell me pigs have wings;

Nanoose
11-15-2009, 10:32 PM
Boston:

1. no one is claiming Paul was a Rabbi.

2. we agree Tarsus was Pagan; that does not mean it was completely free of Jews, as you also note. Taiwan is predominantly Taiwanese, but Caucasians do live there. It is irrelevant - it may interest you historically, but no one is asserting Tarsus was a “bustling Jewish center.”

3. no temple will ever be found anywhere but Jerusalem. Israel had one temple - in Jerusalem.

4. about 10% of the population in first century Palestine was literate, which is not the same as all Jews were incapable of reading and writing.

5. the official language of the day was Koine Greek, thanks to Alexander’s Hellenization. Jews, in Palestine, knew their native Hebrew, some also Aramaic, and some Greek. It is like being Japanese and living here in B.C. today - the kids know 2 languages. That's really not all that hard to understand.

6. Paul, being Jewish, and from a privileged family, was sent to Jerusalem to study. He was recognized for his brilliance and his zeal. Being Jewish, he arrived knowing Hebrew (see #5 above).

7. You will need to substantiate a claim that Paul was illiterate. Source?

8. Paul was Roman by birth; I quoted the source. Did you look it up? What is your source? Thx. (just restating it without verification doesn’t really help a lot).

9. I also answered your misunderstanding about avoiding a beating previously. Did you bother to look it up? Apparently not.

10. What are you referring to when you say, “Paul didn’t know the Language of the Rabbinical schools”? Source?

11. You have yet to substantiate, from any source, Paul as a liar. You have made a lot of accusations, but at this point, they are merely fiction. Anyone can assert anything. In fact, some still say the earth is flat. Source, please.

Boston
11-15-2009, 10:36 PM
fair enough
go to any hospital today and just wait around some
people are zapped back to life regularly

the so called angels seen in the visinity of Jesus tomb were wearing white
there were only two groups to wear white in that day
the Roman wealthy and the assenes
the assenes specialized in medicine

need I go on

as for the relevance of Paul not admitting in his letters the place of his origin its relevance can be seen in the light of the following

as I said in none of Pauls letters does he admit coming from Tarsus, instead he gives the following pretty deceptive information.

“I am an Isrealite myself, of the stock of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin” ( Romans 11-2 ) and “circumcised on my eighth day. Israelite by race of the tribe of Benjamin a Hebrew born and bred in my attitude to the law a pharisee” ( philipians 3-5 )

it would seem Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere as remote from Judaism as Tarsus. Obviously the impression he wished to give that of coming from impeachable Pharisaic background would have been greatly impaired by the admission that he was from Tarsus a place were there was little likelihood of his having received such an education

nor would it do to have the readers realize he had purchased his Roman citizenship as he clearly never mentions it in his accounts other than the one often misrepresented to mean that the centurion had purchased his and that paul was born to into it

as has been pointed out Paul could not have been a Roman citizen if he had been scourged before without a trial in Rome, and certainly not multiple times.

its important to remember that Paul’s writings date back to about AD 50~60 and the first
Gospels in AD 70~110 and that Paul was a prolific writer. Therefor it is likely that the influence of Pauline christian views are likely to be evident already in these earliest known gospels. There is little doubt that the predominant outlook and shaping perspective of the new testament is that of Paul’s and that his successors would likely paint him in the best possible light while at the same time rival views which may have been at one time orthodox were now considered heretical as is the case with the Ebonites.

Nanoose
11-15-2009, 10:40 PM
No, you needn't go on, Boston, for you are merely repeating previously addressed fictions, and not supplying any sources for your statements. I'd hoped for a more interesting conversation. Too bad.
Have a good night! :)

Boston
11-15-2009, 11:01 PM
Boston:

1. no one is claiming Paul was a Rabbi.

2. we agree Tarsus was Pagan; that does not mean it was completely free of Jews, as you also note. Taiwan is predominantly Taiwanese, but Caucasians do live there. It is irrelevant - it may interest you historically, but no one is asserting Tarsus was a “bustling Jewish center.”

3. no temple will ever be found anywhere but Jerusalem. Israel had one temple - in Jerusalem.

4. about 10% of the population in first century Palestine was literate, which is not the same as all Jews were incapable of reading and writing.

5. the official language of the day was Koine Greek, thanks to Alexander’s Hellenization. Jews, in Palestine, knew their native Hebrew, some also Aramaic, and some Greek. It is like being Japanese and living here in B.C. today - the kids know 2 languages. That's really not all that hard to understand.

6. Paul, being Jewish, and from a privileged family, was sent to Jerusalem to study. He was recognized for his brilliance and his zeal. Being Jewish, he arrived knowing Hebrew (see #5 above).

7. You will need to substantiate a claim that Paul was illiterate. Source?

8. Paul was Roman by birth; I quoted the source. Did you look it up? What is your source? Thx. (just restating it without verification doesn’t really help a lot).

9. I also answered your misunderstanding about avoiding a beating previously. Did you bother to look it up? Apparently not.

10. What are you referring to when you say, “Paul didn’t know the Language of the Rabbinical schools”? Source?

11. You have yet to substantiate, from any source, Paul as a liar. You have made a lot of accusations, but at this point, they are merely fiction. Anyone can assert anything. In fact, some still say the earth is flat. Source, please.

1) Paul claims Paul is a trained pharisee ( sorry my spelling is so bad ) this is highly unlikely ( lets not argue semantics )

2) sounds like we are in agreement

3) there were many temples or places of Jewish worship ( synagogue ) found outside of Jerusalem if you need documentation of this please see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsamgrubersjewishartmonuments.blog spot.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fturkey-remains-of-ancient-synagogue.html&rct=j&q=jewish+temple+found+on+the+coast+&ei=kckAS-2hCNSOtgfxndGRDg&usg=AFQjCNHWNbhSMKkxP6CbsOVZ4qa8Tp39Pw&sig2=jtwNZsmecooYhC5c46AiZg
once again lets not argue semantics

4) at no point did I say all Jews were illiterate, buy the way there was no first century "palestine" the term Judea would be the accurate name during this time. Hadrian renamed the land Palestine in about 150 AD if I remember. If we are going to argue semantics we might as well get silly with it the place was called Judea in the time of Paul.

5) no its not hard to understand actually Paul knew three languages but could not read or write in Hebrew which would have been a requirment of any pupil in any Hebrew school of the day, therefor it is highly unlikely that Paul had actually been a Pharisee. Not usless he picked it up in the street that is

6) it is unlikely that Paul came to Jeruselam to study nor is it likely that he came from a privileged family. It's even less likely that he came to study Hebrew or attend a Hebrew school not having an ability to read or write the language. He was however brilliant in his own way and his followers often mention his enthusiasms.

7) I would note not a single known writing of Pauls in Hebrew and that his quotes of the hebrew texts are from the Greek translations
please feel free to find several as one could be a fake or otherwise anomaly of some kind
I could site numerous sources for this fact however will keep it down to one
The Myth Maker Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby

8) Paul's Claims to having been born a citizen are obviously not true as has been proven in my previous were you will find multiple sources

( your interpretation of acts is flawed it is Paul who claims to have purchased his citizenship and the Roman who boasts his by birth. You are ignoring the tenants of the Latin Rite regarding free cities
IE Roman law

9) I must have missed it please provide the information again and I will surely look into it

10) I have provided multiple sources concerning the likelihood that Paul is not telling the truth about a number of things. The logic path is sound concerning his inability to read or write in Hebrew and the incidence of his previous beatings lends significant weight to his having purchased his citizenship, exactly as he states in acts.

I notice your tone is getting a bit more terse
no reason for that
if you require sources for every sentence your in for a big disappointment. The occasional source is no big deal and I will make it a point to identify the translation and the text I am using in the future if it keeps you from getting bent.
I think you have obviously expressed an desire to not consider secular works as sources, that is going to put a damper on your source fix and in the end your interpretation of acts 22 whatever is out of context with the known realities of Roman law of the time
something you are so far ignoring

cheers
B

I might add that the building of an understanding of historical times must lie within the context of those times, It can hardly be considered repeating myself to establish those context and point out unlikelihood that Paul could either read or write Hebrew a skill absolutely necessary in order for him to have been accepted in any rabbinical school of the day, this is a key fact in understanding the dishonest nature of Paul's writing.

George Jung
11-15-2009, 11:20 PM
fair enough
go to any hospital today and just wait around some
people are zapped back to life regularly

the so called angels seen in the visinity of Jesus tomb were wearing white
there were only two groups to wear white in that day
the Romans wealthy and the assenes
the assenes specialized in medicine

need I go on

.


:p Oh, you must! You must!

1) Most 'Drs.' don't wait three days to attempt defibrillation; it stinks up the ER.

2) Where'd those Jewish Drs. get their 'juice'? Static electricity generators? (Good one, btw)

3) What's your background, Boston? Holland, per chance? :D

Boston
11-15-2009, 11:25 PM
what makes you think they waited three days

what makes you think electricity is the only way to revive someone

whats this about Holland
sounds like a nice place actually
great beer from what I hear

Tom Galyen
11-15-2009, 11:47 PM
Boston,
To get back to your assertions about Paul not being a Jew or not being a natural born Roman citizen. Nanoose correctly pointed out your error in reading Act 22:25, I would also like to point out that in 2 Corinthians 11:34 Paul writes "Five times I have received from the JEWS (capitalized for emphasis only) the forty lashes minus one." The floggings you attribute to the Romans were actually given by the Jews.
As far as your claim that he was not a Jew you may want to look at Philippians 3:4b-6 where he writes "If anyone has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

Circumcised on the eighth day and he was not a Jew from birth? Now that's rather hard to believe isn't it? He also knows his tribe he is descended from, and he is not a Jew? Again rather hard to believe. And a Pharisee who persecuted the church. Now that sounds like a total Jew to me.

Sorry, but I find your arguments to be very weak indeed.

Tom Galyen
11-15-2009, 11:55 PM
Boston,

I see in your point #5 in your Post #118 that you keep coming back to your assertion that Paul could not be a Pharisee because his letters were not written in Hebrew. I would again point out what I posted earlier and I'll quote here so you do not need to go back and find it.

"One thing Boston left out in his statement about Paul's writing is that a lot of it May have been written by scribes. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7-10 Paul writes that God had given him a "thorn in the flesh" and that he had prayed to God three times for it to be removed but that God had denied his request. Many scholars believe that this "thorn" was very poor eyesight. This can be attested to by his statement in his letter to the Galatians 6:11 where he writes "See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand." A person with poor eyesight would use larger letters when writing so they can see what they've written. It would have been a standard custom of the time to use a scribe, either public or one of Paul's followers to write the letters for him and he just signed them with the final greeting. This can be seen in his first letter to the Corinthians 16:21, and Colossians 4:18, and his second letter to the Thessalonians 3:16 where in each case he states "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand." This again points out that this final greeting in each letter was the only part that Paul wrote himself. The rest was written by someone else. The standard scribes of the day would have been well versed in writing Greek, the "lingua Franca" of the Roman world.

Also keep in mind who Paul was writing to. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. He was not writing to Hebrew churches but to gentile churches the recipients of those letters would be more likely to understand Greek than Hebrew. Paul was well versed in Greek as can be seen by his debating with Greek scholars in Athens (Acts of the Apostles 17:16 and following.)"

Again I think that your continued argument that Paul could not read nor write Hebrew is a very weak one.

Boston
11-16-2009, 12:28 AM
Boston,
To get back to your assertions about Paul not being a Jew or not being a natural born Roman citizen. Nanoose correctly pointed out your error in reading Act 22:25, I would also like to point out that in 2 Corinthians 11:34 Paul writes "Five times I have received from the JEWS (capitalized for emphasis only) the forty lashes minus one." The floggings you attribute to the Romans were actually given by the Jews.
As far as your claim that he was not a Jew you may want to look at Philippians 3:4b-6 where he writes "If anyone has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

Circumcised on the eighth day and he was not a Jew from birth? Now that's rather hard to believe isn't it? He also knows his tribe he is descended from, and he is not a Jew? Again rather hard to believe. And a Pharisee who persecuted the church. Now that sounds like a total Jew to me.

Sorry, but I find your arguments to be very weak indeed.


I would assert that the interpretation is incorrect
and I maintain that he was also beaten by the Romans
and that it is Paul who admits his purchasing his citizenship
after all the cost to purchase citizenship is huge and the idea that a man who could afford that would then end up a simple Roman guard unlikely

it would also have been illegal under Roman Law for paul to have punnished without appeal thus again Paul could not at that time have been a Roman citizen given that the only appeal made was after the incident reported in acts
Lex Porcia (2) 195 BC prohibits the scourging of Roman citizens without appeal ( look it up kids its basic Roman Law )


I also think it obvious that Paul embellishments in many cases boarder on lies in many instances and that his claims of having been born a Jew while at the same time Claiming to be of Pharisaic descent are not consistant with a person from Tarsus as he himself attempts to hide not only by specific omission when trying to establish his credentials but also by obviously leaving the fact out of his correspondence. While it is possible he was born a Jew it is unlikely he received the childhood instruction common to the Jewish faith in Tarsus a place that did not even have a Synagogue let alone of school of Rabinical teaching and if it did, that school would have taught the students in Hebrew from the outset which Paul did not know.

Boston
11-16-2009, 12:33 AM
Boston,

I see in your point #5 in your Post #118 that you keep coming back to your assertion that Paul could not be a Pharisee because his letters were not written in Hebrew. I would again point out what I posted earlier and I'll quote here so you do not need to go back and find it.

"One thing Boston left out in his statement about Paul's writing is that a lot of it May have been written by scribes. In his Second Letter to the Corinthians 12:7-10 Paul writes that God had given him a "thorn in the flesh" and that he had prayed to God three times for it to be removed but that God had denied his request. Many scholars believe that this "thorn" was very poor eyesight. This can be attested to by his statement in his letter to the Galatians 6:11 where he writes "See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand." A person with poor eyesight would use larger letters when writing so they can see what they've written. It would have been a standard custom of the time to use a scribe, either public or one of Paul's followers to write the letters for him and he just signed them with the final greeting. This can be seen in his first letter to the Corinthians 16:21, and Colossians 4:18, and his second letter to the Thessalonians 3:16 where in each case he states "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand." This again points out that this final greeting in each letter was the only part that Paul wrote himself. The rest was written by someone else. The standard scribes of the day would have been well versed in writing Greek, the "lingua Franca" of the Roman world.

Also keep in mind who Paul was writing to. Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. He was not writing to Hebrew churches but to gentile churches the recipients of those letters would be more likely to understand Greek than Hebrew. Paul was well versed in Greek as can be seen by his debating with Greek scholars in Athens (Acts of the Apostles 17:16 and following.)"

Again I think that your continued argument that Paul could not read nor write Hebrew is a very weak one.

and a lot of scholars would also suggest that it was only in his old age that Paul's vision began to fail him
yes some of Paul's writings are dictated to others however Paul did much of his own writing specially in his early years and none of it is in Hebrew

the size of the letters is irrelevant
the point is the letters were not ever in Hebrew the language of the Hebrew scholars therefore and for other reasons it is highly unlikely that Paul was a Hebrew scholar as is commonly thought

also important to note is that at this time in history the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideal in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of Jewish laws and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich.
It would have behooved Paul to have tried to convince people of his association with them . the fact that Paul never mentions having been to the school of Gamillale and never wrote in Hebrew make Luke’s claims of him having done so appear as embellishments to a narrative written some time after the writings of Paul. As is becoming apparent on closer examination the belief that Paul was a Pharisee begins to erode. The idea that he was born a Roman citizen also falters with a simple examination of Roman Law.

Nanoose
11-16-2009, 12:38 AM
Sources?

Boston
11-16-2009, 01:38 AM
you must have missed this one

Lex Porcia (2) 195 BC

if I really need to look it up for you you will find it here
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyerintl.com%2Flaw-dictionary%2F7850-lex%2520porcia&rct=j&q=Lex+Porcia+(II)+(195+BC)+&ei=f_YAS9L4BtT5nAftp_GZCw&usg=AFQjCNFesMwPr5A-AG7ekePAsbLV8uLFmg&sig2=1_hjuW8zVyYLsZUCa19P2Q (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawyerintl.com%2Flaw-dictionary%2F7850-lex%2520porcia&rct=j&q=Lex+Porcia+%28II%29+%28195+BC%29+&ei=f_YAS9L4BtT5nAftp_GZCw&usg=AFQjCNFesMwPr5A-AG7ekePAsbLV8uLFmg&sig2=1_hjuW8zVyYLsZUCa19P2Q)

simple really
the hard evidence of tangible and verifiable history takes precedence within the empirical system over anecdotal evidence of questionable authenticity from theological dogma

Paul was highly unlikely to have been born a Roman citizen and more likely to have purchased it at some point prior to his use of its privileges to avoid being punished as recorded in acts

nor would the Jews been able to punish him had he actually been a Roman citizen at that time

I might have cited Corinthians 11:25 but I figured you were aware of what it says concerning Paul having been beaten with "rods" on three separate occasions, a punishment typical of the Roman lictor's called striping

encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law page 765
"Vincula"
clearly states
"fettering a free citizen is considered a crime"

the Acts account of the origin of Paul's citizenship
there are several contradictory elements of this account
one account being that the Romans had not known Paul was a Roman citizen and the other that he was rescued because he was a roman citizen

new English bible
Acts 22: 22-29


22:22 The crowd73 was listening to him until he said this.74 Then75 they raised their voices and shouted,76 “Away with this man77 from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live!”78 22:23 While they were screaming79 and throwing off their cloaks80 and tossing dust81 in the air, 22:24 the commanding officer82 ordered Paul83 to be brought back into the barracks.84 He told them85 to interrogate Paul86 by beating him with a lash87 so that he could find out the reason the crowd88 was shouting at Paul89 in this way. 22:25 When they had stretched him out for the lash,90 Paul said to the centurion91 standing nearby, “Is it legal for you to lash a man who is a Roman citizen92 without a proper trial?”93 22:26 When the centurion94 heard this,95 he went to the commanding officer96 and reported it,97 saying, “What are you about to do?98 For this man is a Roman citizen.”99 22:27 So the commanding officer100 came and asked101 Paul,102 “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”103 He replied,104 “Yes.” 22:28 The commanding officer105 answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.”106 “But I was even107 born a citizen,”108 Paul replied.109 22:29 Then those who were about to interrogate him stayed away110 from him, and the commanding officer111 was frightened when he realized that Paul112 was113 a Roman citizen114 and that he had had him tied up.115the above clearly indicates that the Roman commander was surprised and frightened to find out Paul was a Roman citizen and the parts about the manor of obtaining that citizenship are ambiguous at best


new English bible
Acts 23: 26-30


23:26 Claudius Lysias to His Excellency Governor97 Felix,98 greetings. 23:27 This man was seized99 by the Jews and they were about to kill him,100 when I came up101 with the detachment102 and rescued him, because I had learned that he was103 a Roman citizen.104 23:28 Since I wanted to know105 what charge they were accusing him of,106 I brought him down to their council.107 23:29 I found he108 was accused with reference to controversial questions109 about their law, but no charge against him deserved death or imprisonment.110 23:30 When I was informed111 there would be a plot112 against this man, I sent him to you at once, also ordering his accusers to state their charges113 against him before you.The above clearly indicates that Paul was rescued because the Commander had been informed that Paul was a Roman citizen

point being that the obvious inconsistencies lead to a need to lessen the value of the particulars of this story under the empirical method. When placed in context with other stronger evidence exigent in Roman Law, Roman custom and Paul's previous experience of having been beaten without the benefit of Roman citizenship it becomes likely that the passage concerning the purchase of citizenship is in reference to Paul and not the Roman guard.

it is also important to note that a source for the large sum of money it took to buy citizenship had recently been available to Paul and that previous to this point Paul at no time is recorded enjoying the privileges of Roman Citizenship. Other than I suppose a single dubious report in acts 16:37 where a claim of citizenship is made by both Paul and Sillas, but strangely enough not until after they get there beating and not ever referred to by paul himself in any of his known writings of 40 or so years earlier.

new English bible
acts 16:37

16:37 But Paul said to the police officers,134 “They had us beaten in public135 without a proper trial136 – even though we are Roman citizens137 – and they threw us138 in prison. And now they want to send us away139 secretly? Absolutely not! They140 themselves must come and escort us out!”141
sounds more like a tantrum in the imagination of an overzealous Luke than an historically accurate event

I might also add on a slightly different note that Pauls time working under the high priest as persecutor of the Jerusalem church presents its own set of difficulties in the light of claims Paul is a Pharisee. Im sure you are aware that the High priest was a Sadducee and bitterly apposed to the Pharisees and yet Paul claims to be "a pharisee of pharisee's". The contradiction is obvious.
its common knowledge Ananias was appointed by Herrod in AD 47 was the high priest at the time and that he was an avowed Sadducee http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flatter-rain.com%2Fearlychurch%2Fananh.htm&rct=j&q=the+high+priest+Ananias&ei=XwgBS8bQFs_gnAex1rmhCw&usg=AFQjCNEWbcNHgtbjGO1TEIOtJyjzy8-fug&sig2=cM759L4A9hTCp5_17h3Icg
Paul was not likely to be a Pharisee if he was acting on behalf of the Sadducee high priest who was directly assisting in the roman occupation. Something the Pharisee's were vehemently apposed to.

SamSam
11-16-2009, 08:03 AM
Folks only started worrying about whether or not this or that biblical "event" actually happened in the last 100 years or so. Before that, it wasn't an issue. .........
.......So, all this argument about "did it happen" and "was Jesus a real person" and so on, is really a very new, and, theologically speaking, distracting endeavor, however interesting the history itself may be.So you're saying disbelief is only a recent distraction to the unproven truth of Jesus as God or the concept of God itself. So I guess all the smiteings and smoteings, burning at the stake, the feeding of Christians to wild animals at the coliseum, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Crusades, religious wars, very early writings,......etc...., don't count. So why has the Church always been so agressively active against such a non issue? What's up with Gallileo?

Tom Galyen
11-16-2009, 05:02 PM
Boston,
I copied this from your Post #125, and note that you use the New English Bible. I don't know what the extra numbers are in the verse, but have left them in. My question to you is, how is the subject of Paul's Roman citizenship at all ambiguous? If I told you that I was born an American citizen in New York would you consider that an ambiguous statement? What part of this verse do you find ambiguous or do you not understand?

"The commanding officer105 answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.”106 “But I was even107 born a citizen,”108 Paul replied."

It appears to me that I am trying to debate with someone who simply sets his own rules and has his mind set in concrete. If you are going to question such a clear statement as this and claim it is in anyway ambiguous, then there is no reason to continue because you are not intelligent enough to see the truth when it is right in front of you.

George Jung
11-16-2009, 06:22 PM
I'm not so sure about the 'smarts', but...

the Agenda seems to jump out at ya.

I still think Boston is from Holland.

pefjr
11-16-2009, 06:34 PM
I'm not so sure about the 'smarts', but...

the Agenda seems to jump out at ya.



Unraveling the truth from the fiction ain't easy.:D

Boston
11-16-2009, 07:24 PM
might be a good time to look at it from the point of Roman Law

my point is that all evidence is to the contrary and that the editors of the biblical text seem to have manipulated the statements as to who purchased there citizenship and who was born a citizen.

The Roman guard would have been granted his as a right of service so he would not have had to purchase his citizenship as I will show in subsequent posts.

for now lets just look at basic Roman law specific to this time period and see what it has to say about citizenship granted due to ones location, we can move on from there to citizenship by virtue of birth and then by virtue of service.

I realize it is difficult for some to question the accuracy of the biblical text and notice even a few insults sneaking there way into the conversation, I'd prefer to maintain a civil attitude if that is possible however if some few are not able to handle the level of conversation I suggest you refrain from further posts in this forum

ok it seems some folks are getting confused concerning Roman law and its implications of citizenship for our subject Paul. Roman law at that time dictated through a group of laws referred to as the Latin Right defines qualifications for citizenship in the provinces
defines populations for which those qualifications apply and clearly states that this does no represent full Roman citizenship for provincials not holding specified public offices

The Latin Right (Latin ius Latii or Latinitas or Latium) was a civic status given by the Romans, intermediate between full Roman citizenship and non-citizen status

and this from

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.statemaster.com%2Fencyclopedi a%2FLatin-Right&rct=j&q=peregrines+the+Latin+Right+&ei=6ZoBS6fuH4mmnQfXvZQQ&usg=AFQjCNGV5b-VPItxDeOORKyXnamqubffQQ&sig2=5WE-yrN0LtubQLyhw5JCdA

The Latin Right (Latin ius Latii or Latinitas or Latium) was a status given to a Roman colony intermediate between full Roman citizenship and not being a citizen at all (peregrines or provincials). Some important tenets of the Latin right was the right to enter into legal contract under Roman law (commercium) and the legal right to intermarriage (conubium)..


The core right imparted by Latin status was the acquisition of Roman citizenship upon the holding of municipal office (ius adipiscendae civitatis per magistratuum),

as found in the following

The Cambridge Ancient History Volume XI: The High Empire A.D. 70-192, 2nd Edition. Pp. 139, 364-365
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA4QFDAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3Dm hNUGgG2eacC%26pg%3DPA365%26lpg%3DPA365%26dq%3Dius% 2Badipiscendae%2Bcivitatis%2Bper%2Bmagistratuum%26 source%3Dbl%26ots%3D_uADX63W6M%26sig%3Di_19JzOE5ZI e_meBFqIXkN51w5Y%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DG5wBS_2ONtD8nAf5 n-WWCw%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dbook_result%26ct%3Dresult%26r esnum%3D2%26ved%3D0CA8Q6AEwAQ&rct=j&q=ius+adipiscendae+civitatis+per+magistratuum&ei=G5wBS_2ONtD8nAf5n-WWCw&usg=AFQjCNEakB_ycnyLlit51QZfkJf4v083Gg&sig2=hz_WHyZPmwC-tuJTP30Kkw


also this which describes what populations are covered under the Jus Latii proclamation
"ius Latii" from Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1875.
the description expressly covers Tarsus

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2FEBchecked%2F topic%2F332017%2FLatium-maius&rct=j&q=Latium+maius&ei=DJ4BS6mdDdCkngesw5mhCw&usg=AFQjCNEcNo-6vaH80nuKPer8lX0YmRqDjA&sig2=xp8MBoK1p49wRJ758oIqJQ

Following the great spate of colonial settlements under Julius Caesar and Augustus, the Latin right was used more as a political instrument that aimed at integration of provincial communities via local leadership. The core right imparted by Latin status was the acquisition of Roman citizenship upon the holding of municipal office (ius adipiscendae civitatis per magistratuum), which presumed a trajectory of development that would carry at least the local elites along the path to the creation of a Roman-style community. In 123 AD, the emperor Hadrian made a key modification to the Latin right. This so-called "greater" Latin right (Latium maius), made all of the councilors in communities Roman citizens.
The Latin right was an acquisition that relied solely on an imperial gift. This beneficence could span the whole range from grants to individuals, to awards made to whole towns, and could even be applied to an entire population, as when the emperor Vespasian gave the Latin right to all of Spain in 74 AD. Although this decree could encompass whole cities, it is important to note that it did not necessarily entail the establishment of a municipium. Often, as in Spain, the constitution of formal municipalities might have followed some years after the initial grant.

and from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.questia.com%2Flibrary%2Fencyc lopedia%2F101268101&rct=j&q=Roman+Law+Free+City&ei=7rYBS-TqFYu9ngfe-Z2LCw&usg=AFQjCNENHAeVk6JAFgKsk3JcWL-6rAk8eA&sig2=1njZbYbtMEiupm8nqXbbfg

In the late 3d cent. b.c., Roman law could no longer limit itself to the inhabitants of the republic but was forced to take account of the surrounding non-Roman peoples. Thus, to the jus civile, which governed relations among the Romans and those admitted to Roman status, was added the jus gentium, the law applied in dealings with a foreigner.


Roman Law does not attribute citizen status to persons granted limited legal protection under the tenants of Jus Latii other than certain political figures holding specific offices.

I believe at this point it has been more than adequately shown that Paul was not a Roman citizen by virtue of his being born in Tarsus
any further discussion without being able to quote specific Roman law to the contrary is irrelevant to the point being made

under Roman law Paul was not granted citizen status by virtue of having been born in Tarsus

Boston
11-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Service guaranteed citizenship :D

from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CB8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.romancoins.info%2FMilitaryDip loma1a.html&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service++citizenship+&ei=rfQBS5G_N8TBngfi4YGWCw&usg=AFQjCNGcfMxmjYTcmQoK41UWeUE7tgcVpA&sig2=KYV5KjkmAyCgRc7H2Cj9Jg

Roman Military Diplomas / Diplomata (or better citizenship and/or military discharge certificates) are in some way the "greencards" of Roman times (green also being the dominating color of their bronze patina). (edit) In Roman times foreigners had to serve for minimum 25 years (army) or 26 years (fleet) or longer in the auxiliary military forces (infantry = cohors, infantry mixed with light cavalry =cohors equitata, heavy cavalry = ala, fleet = classis, or pretorian cohors). In contrast the Roman legions (up to 30 elite units mainly distributed along the borders of the empire, of ca. 5000 "legionaries" each) were reserved for Roman citizens. This distinction lost its importance when Caracalla granted Roman citizenship in the early third century to all living in the Roman empire (except to the slaves of course), known as the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 AD.

Methods to obtain Roman citizenship
from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CCMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.absoluteastronomy.com%2Ftopic s%2FRoman_citizenship&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service++citizenship+&ei=rfQBS5G_N8TBngfi4YGWCw&usg=AFQjCNFzgXoJECgUL--Fc_Tp_Nth6OO8WQ&sig2=pPAPw4dsX02r6x5LJKkquw

Roman citizenship was granted automatically to every male child born in a legal marriage of a Roman citizen.
Freed slaves were given a limited form of Roman citizenship; they were still obliged in some aspects to their former owner who automatically became their patron.
The sons of freed slaves became full citizens.
Auxilia (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Auxiliaries_%28Roman_military%29)Auxiliaries (Roman military)

Auxiliaries formed the standing non-citizen corps of the Roman army of the Principate , alongside the citizen Roman legion. By the 2nd century, the auxilia contained the same number of infantry as the legions and in addition provided almost all the Roman army's Roman cavalry and more specialised troops ....
were rewarded with Roman citizenship after their term of service. Their children also became citizens.
Only Roman citizens could enlist in the Roman Legion (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Roman_legion)Roman legion

The Roman Legion is a term that can apply both as a translation of legio to the entire Roman army and also, more narrowly , to the heavy infantry that was the basic military unit of the Roman army in the period of the late Roman Republic and the Roman Empire....
. However an enlisted Roman legionary (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Legionary)Legionary

The Ancient Rome legionary was a professional soldier of the Military history of ancient Rome after the Marian reforms of 107 BC. Legionaries had to be Roman citizenship under the age of 45....
was deprived of many of his rights. He could not legally marry, and therefore all his children born during his military service were denied citizenship, unless and until he married their mother after his discharge.
Some individuals received Roman citizenship as a reward for outstanding service to Rome.
One could also buy citizenship, but at a very high price.
People who were from the Latin states were gradually granted citizenship.
Rome gradually granted citizenship to whole provinces; the third-century Constitutio Antoniniana (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Constitutio_Antoniniana)Constitutio Antoniniana



from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CA8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.members.tripod.com%2F~S_van_D orst%2Flegio.html&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service+grants+one+citizenship+&ei=_PEBS6-VCY3anAfEzvEP&usg=AFQjCNEnb14oF7hRIHnI7jx_7xPuB_X45g&sig2=L3-SU730prGNk4Eqi2lQPA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CA8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.members.tripod.com%2F%7ES_van _Dorst%2Flegio.html&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service+grants+one+citizenship+&ei=_PEBS6-VCY3anAfEzvEP&usg=AFQjCNEnb14oF7hRIHnI7jx_7xPuB_X45g&sig2=L3-SU730prGNk4Eqi2lQPA)
1. Join the auxilia or classis for a minimum term of 25 years.
2. Join the auxilia or classis and perform heroic deeds on the field of battle.
3. Join Nova Roma (http://www.novaroma.org/) and enlist in the legiones for a minimum term of 25 years.

and from the following
service guarantees citizenship!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=7&ved=0CCAQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrank.org%2Fhistory%2Fpages%2 F3939%2Fcitizenship-Roman.html&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service+grants+one+citizenship+&ei=_PEBS6-VCY3anAfEzvEP&usg=AFQjCNGDQ_WNP__L7cxNCWPecpwm1wn78Q&sig2=_zplHoZ0--Toe8xDQayOLg

and this
were rewarded with Roman citizenship for there term of service
from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CCMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.absoluteastronomy.com%2Ftopic s%2FRoman_citizenship&rct=j&q=Roman+military+service++citizenship+&ei=rfQBS5G_N8TBngfi4YGWCw&usg=AFQjCNFzgXoJECgUL--Fc_Tp_Nth6OO8WQ&sig2=pPAPw4dsX02r6x5LJKkquw

once again Roman law is clear
service brings citizenship
the guard who was about to beat Paul was not likely to have paid a dime for his citizenship
it was his duty as a citizen to serve or it was a FREE ticket to citizenship

the truth will out my friends
the truth will out

B


a basic application of Roman law of the correct time period once again implies the implausibility that Paul was the one to be born a Roman citizen and more likely that he was the one to have purchase it.

also it becomes likely that the bible authors did a little creative editing to try and show the opposite
since the number of authors of Roman law the amount of first source data available is so vast and the oposite is true of the biblical text and its various authors bias towards Paul so obvious it is necessary through the consideration of the empirical method to consider the biblical text in error

under these considerations the probability of a little creative or over enthusiastic editing on the part of the Luke becomes obvious as it is inconcievable to think that a man would both pay for his citizenship and serve to gain it for free at the same time

if the Roman guard had purchased his citizenship he would not have been required to serve
if he were born a citizen it was his duty to serve

these well known and extremely well documented historical facts of Roman Law place the veracity of Luke's narrative in serious question :)

but it should be becoming obvious at this point that the likelyhood of Paul having been born a citizen is being steadily eroded through the use of basic well known Roman law and the argument need not depend on the use of information of questionable historical quality as defined by the empirical method of study.

the parentage of Paul becomes less of an issue although I can get into that as well
the simple facts are obvious
the guard would have been either fulfilling his duty as a Roman citizen by birth or would have not been required to serve having paid one whopping chunk of change for his citizenship.
Paul would not have been granted citizenship based on his being born is tarsus unless he had held a magisterial office and there is no evidence to support that.
Pauls father could have been a Roman citizen although I can show that to have been extremely unlikely however Pauls failure to use his citizenship to advantage in multiple encounters with the Roman or Jewish punishment process would indicate that he did not have this citizens right at that time but instead somehow acquired citizenship later

if the Roman guard had purchased his citizenship he would not have been required to serve
if he were born a citizen it was his duty to serve
it is highly unlikely that the Roman guard had purchased his citizenship and was then required to spend an additional 25 years or so in service

cheers
B

Tom Galyen
11-16-2009, 09:21 PM
Boston has by his semantic manipulations tried to subvert a simple verse. A Roman soldier claims to have purchased his citizenship and Paul claims to have be a born citizen. This exchange takes place in a book written by a possible physician who traveled with Paul. He was most likely paid to write this book and the Gospel of Luke by Theophilus (translation:Friend of God). The book was written, according to modern scholars in about 80 to 85 AD (or CE for atheists, agnostics, or those of the "political correct" persuasion). This was only about 50 or so years since the death and resurrection of Christ.

Now Boston is right when he says that Roman Soldiers earned their citizenship by serving in the army for 25 years. But, what he left out was that this was only granted UPON DISCHARGE! While he was serving he could not exercise a lot of Roman rights SUCH AS MARRY! Now here we have a SERVING CENTURION, had he earned his citizenship? NO, he was still serving in the army, even as a Centurion he was only considered as a citizen but could not exercise even the simple right of marriage. BUT, he could PURCHASE his citizenship and get around that little problem.

Centurions were called that because they were in charge of Centuries or groups of 100 men, they were equivalent to a company grade officer in our modern military. Since the Roman army system allowed him to accept bribes from the men under him for promotions etc as well as what he could extort from citizens in the cities where he served could this Centurion have gotten the means together to purchase his citizenship and circumvent the system? Certainly, even his own reference says so:

Auxilia were rewarded with Roman citizenship AFTER their term of service. Their children also became citizens.

Only Roman citizens could enlist in the Roman Legion. However an enlisted Roman legionary was deprived of many of his rights. He could not legally marry, and therefore all his children born during his military service were denied citizenship, unless and until he married their mother AFTER his discharge.

One could also buy citizenship, but at a very high price."

Now where did we see that last phrase before? Oh, yes, they were said by the Centurion in the verse in Acts that Boston does not believe. But his reference does not support his stance.

Now another phrase from his own reference:

"Roman citizenship was granted automatically to every male child born in a legal marriage of a Roman citizen."

Now where did we see something possibly like this before? Oh, yes, Paul in the same verse saying that he was a natural born Roman citizen. Is this possible? By Boston's own reference it seems to me that it is.

Lastly before anyone gets on me for my use of CAPITALIZATION in this post, I did not mean it as shouting but only for emphasis. I'm not that great at cut and paste and there is no other way on this forum to emphasize something. If your upset about sorry, but learn to live with life's little inconveniences. I have.

Boston
11-16-2009, 09:28 PM
so you are suggesting that the Roman guard not only payed a kings ransom for his citizenship
but then volunteered for 25 years of service in one of the roughest provinces in the Roman empire as well

now who is stretching it

it is far more likely that the guard is the born citizen spoken of and is fulfilling his duty as a born citizen as cited in Roman law




"Roman citizenship was granted automatically to every male child born in a legal marriage of a Roman citizen."

Im cool with discussing Paul's parentage and providing multiple pieces of evidence from multiple sources to support my position. Problem is the only evidence presented so far by the detractors of my view is all from one source. The Pauline christian church, which is highly likely to be biased in its reporting of events germane to the worlds view of there theology.

Ill work on it next

one exception I will take though
my arguements are not simply semantic
I have used multiple sources as I have been asked to do and cited numerous bits of Roman law
there is physical evidence to support the historic validity of our understanding of Roman Law and countless verifying texts and manuscripts
my detractors have done nothing of the sort but instead cited only certain questionable and individual bits of theology without making any attempt to justify there positions with other aspects of known history


oh
had you followed the references you would have found that I had not taken that from the biblical text but from an on line encyclopedia


Now where did we see that last phrase before? Oh, yes, they were said by the Centurion in the verse in Acts that Boston does not believe. But his reference does not support his stance.

PatCox
11-16-2009, 09:56 PM
ya know, this is kinda a side-track to the question of who was Jesus.

I know who Paul was, he was probably a homosexual, he was a prickly and insecure dude, who constantly "protested too much" at slights as to his bona fides as an apostle, which seems to me evidence he got a lot of criticism over his bona fides as an apostle.

He was clearly of a type I have seen among "religious" men, one of those who specialized in charming and insinuating his way into the lives of wealthy widows and neglected wives, after their money. He talks of it often enough.

He was an eccentric and strong personality, and unlike the gospel writers, who wrote with an authority that does not let one sense any individual personality or personal agenda in their writing, with Paul, you can clearly sense his own personal emotions, his weaknesses, his personal animosities, his insecurities, in everything he writes.

To me one of the most fascinating of all New Testament writings is Paul's efforts to deal with a most serious and difficult time for early christians.

It is very clear from Paul's writings that the early christians pretty much expected the second coming in their lifetimes. But during Paul's career, the time came when those who were alive during Jesus' life started to die, and as decades past, what of this idea that his coming was imminent?

I am referring to his statement that those who had "gone to sleep" would be revived and saved at the second coming.

It seems clear that the passage of time had produced a crisis of faith among the original believers, who believed Jesus would return again to them during their lifetimes ( I also wonder if this was a belief Paul fostered during the early years of his career).

Paul was forced to come up with an explanation for this, and he asserted that those who have "gone to sleep" would also be saved.

Reading Paul, what is so obvious so much of the time, is that he is arguing against people who disagree with him, and though he never states what they beleived, you can figure it out from what he is protesting too much against.

B_B
11-16-2009, 10:05 PM
who constantly "protested too much" at slights as to his bona fides as an apostle, which seems to me evidence he got a lot of criticism over his bona fides as an apostle...
I always saw that as evidence of one trying to convince oneself - the folks who bristle at being called something more often than not are it (coward, liar, etc).

b.t.w. Boston you're doing a great job banging your head against a wall - I'll send some aspirin. ;)

Paul Pless
11-16-2009, 10:07 PM
and there is no other way on this forum to emphasize something.

I'm not upset, but the forum editor does allow other forms of emphasis.

example

example

example

example

example

example

example

example

etc... etc...

Paul Pless
11-16-2009, 10:07 PM
Pat, you got a theory on Paul's thorn?

PatCox
11-16-2009, 10:13 PM
Please to explain the thorn, Paul Pless, I am not aware of it under that term.

Paul Pless
11-16-2009, 10:17 PM
2 Corinthians 12:7-9

7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Tom Galyen
11-16-2009, 11:03 PM
Boston,

I said no such thing in my Post. You are the one who is assuming that the Centurion was a natural born citizen and basing your whole argument on it. You base your argument for him being a natural born Roman citizen he was serving. However, the fact shown in your own reference to the fact that non-Romans could obtain citizenship after discharge of having served 25 years proves to me that this is not necessarily the case. And that the Romans were using citizenship to purchase foreign soldiers. A lot of modern scholars believe that the legion at Jerusalem at the time in question was from Syria. If this is true then the centurion was most likely not a citizen soldier doing his Roman duty but a Syrian gaining his citizenship by serving. If so he would not obtain his citizenship until after his discharge. I then state that he could by reason of your own reference short cut this system by purchasing his citizenship and had the means to do so. I believe I have laid out a scenario just as plausible as yours.

This scenario makes the statements by both Paul and the Centurion true.

Thanks Paul for the tip, I had to hunt to find out how to use it.

Boston
11-16-2009, 11:23 PM
and so you think this solder not only was required to serve but to also pay for his citizenship
its one or the other, but not both, and by your way of thinking, you got him doing both
sorry but that logic just doesnt hold water
do you have some historical precedence you can present to the group as supporting evidence or is this just wishful thinking to lend possibility to the Bible story
if this were so you would have one dam empty looking Roman military
purchasing citizenship was ungodly expensive
it was rare that the common man in those times could come up with the money

Tom you are absolutely correct and I am presenting innumerable evidences that support the theory
I am saying the centurion is a natural born Roman performing his duty of service
and that Paul is the one who has purchased his citizenship

and I think I have provided ample evidence in support

I think Ill begin our study of Pauls parentage by checking what the church of Jerusalem had to say about it, seems they would be a good source to look into as they did deal with Paul on a regular basis and Paul claims friendship and correspondence with them throughout the New Testament

( note the references within the following are so numerous I will only include them as such, the reader is welcome to do a little work of his/her own and determine for themselves the validity of my statements )

one of the most telling issues of Pauline Christianity is its persecution of the church of Jerusalem later referred to as the Nazarene and later still as the Ebonite’s. Who were these believers and what was it about them that might have elicited there being declared heretics by the Pauline sect. lets start with what we know of there beliefs and who they were

who where the Ebonite’s
The Ebonite’s were quite literally the disciples of Jesus, People like James and Peter the people who actually knew Jesus, walked with him, ate with him, talked to him and knew him best, were with him when he was arrested and at the sermon at the mount, practiced there religion together, and followed all of the law. They were the disciples who had followed him in life spoken about so often in the Bible text

what do they have to say of the parentage of Paul
The testimony of the Ebionites has been preserved in two forms.

Firstly, there are the summaries of Ebionite beliefs found in the writings of the Church authors Justin Martyr (second century), Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian (end of the second century and the first half of the third), Origen (middle of the third century), and Epiphanius and Jerome (fourth century). These all confirm that the Ebionites opposed Paul as a false apostle.

The second type of testimony is more indirect, depending on the detective work of modern scholars, yet it is very convincing. Certain texts which have been handed down from the ancient world and the early middle ages are ostensibly not writings of the Ebionites, but of other religious groups; but the painstaking analysis of scholars has shown that embedded in each of these works is a stratum written by an Ebionite author.

The Ebionites did not survive for the simple reason that they were persecuted out of existence by the Catholic Church. When this oppression was lifted for any reason (for example, when an area changed from Christian to Muslim rule), they sometimes came out of hiding and resumed an open existence. There is even evidence, from the works of the Jewish philosopher Saadia," that this happened as late as the tenth century. Mostly, however, the Ebionites were forced to assume a protective disguise of orthodoxy, and in time this led to complete assimilation. Yet, while they still retained their clandestine beliefs, they often had a profound influence on Christianity in general; there is reason to believe that many Judaizing heresies in Christian history, including Arianism, derived from underground Ebionite groups. Their influence was in the direction of humanism and this-worldly concern, and against the meek acceptance of slavery and oppression, and they had a restraining influence on Christian anti-Semitism. They represented an alternative tradition in Christianity that never quite died out.

The Ebionites are thus by no means a negligible or derisory group. Their claim to represent the original teaching of Jesus has to be taken seriously. It is quite wrong, therefore, to dismiss what they had to say about Paul as unworthy of attention.
the Ebonite’s describe Paul as
Greek 
the son of gentiles

had no pharisaic background

converted to Judaism in Tarsus

came to Jerusalem as an adult 

attached himself to the high priest as an low level enforcer 

was castigated and censured many times for subverting the teachings of Jesus

of questionable character ( lied a lot )

eventually removed from the church at Jerusalem and began a new religion 

( please see all references listed within the text )

Let us look, then, more carefully at the earliest extant formulation of the Ebionite view of Paul, found in the works of Epiphanius (fourth century). 'They declare that he was a Greek . .. He went up to Jerusalem, was assigned to the high priest they say, and when he had spent some time there, he became a proselyte and was circumcised. (earlier writers place this episode as happening in Tarsus ) he flew into a rage ( you would to if some fool with a knife was cutting away at your wang ) and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law' (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16.6-9).

On the more realistic level, the High Priest was indeed the key person in Paul's life: his employer when he harassed the Nazarenes, his enemy when he abandoned his attachment to the High Priest's collaborationist regime by his defection at Damascus, and again his deadly enemy when he escaped from the hostility of the Nazarenes into the custody of the Roman police.

Epiphanius's account is clearly incomplete, for it contains no reference to Paul's relations with the Jerusalem Nazarenes. The Ebionites of Epiphanius's day must have had some view about how Paul stood with James and Peter. Yet, incomplete and romanticized as Epiphanius' account is, it is in several respects more accurate than the account of Paul that was handed down by the Catholic Church or even than the account that Paul gives of himself in his Epistles. Instead of the respectable Pharisee of unimpeachable Jewish descent, the friend and peer of James and Peter, we can see through Epiphanius's account something of a very different Paul

In what ever light the accounts of the Ebonite's are placed it is clear that these early writers of events common to the Pauline Christian experience clearly believed Paul was Greek and not Roman or Jewish by birth, the son of gentiles, without Pharisaic background and found to be subverting the teachings of Jesus.

OK kids its movie time

popcorn, beer
and some fun 

thanks for the entertainment tonight
B

PatCox
11-16-2009, 11:26 PM
Well, Paul, I said I sensed that Paul was homosexual, its a gaydar thing. But, a homosexual who has committed his life to resisting his homosexual urges, that makes one much less sympathetic to the people he is asking to give up their heterosexual urges, no? And some homosexual men, they are able to charm and surround themselves with women who find them non-threatening, as Paul seemed to be able to court wealthy female patrons? He seemed to regard sexual relations with disgust, did he not? Heterosexual relations, that is.

Its better to marry than to burn? How much more hateful a thing can you say about women? Well, they are better than hell, I guess. Wow.

George Jung
11-17-2009, 12:03 AM
Hehe.... I gotta wonder, PatCox - what version of the Bible are you reading?

Mine isn't nearly so 'interesting' - or you're reading more between the lines.

Boston
11-17-2009, 12:09 AM
stop movie
I just remembered something

the comander of a centurion would have been either the Primus Pilus or the pillus prior, either rank comes from the centurion file and would have been attached to the Legio X Fretensis if memory serves me ( which it sometimes doesn't )

I did take a moment to look up this though

a non citizen could not join the legions where the centurions served
therefor it necessary that the centurion who was speaking with Paul be a the born citizen and it is Paul who must be the one to have purchased his citizenship

from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.romancoins.info%2FMilitaryDip loma1a.html&rct=j&q=what+rights+did+serving+in+the+roman+military+gr ant+&ei=CysCS_7HGcz8nAe4oshp&usg=AFQjCNGcfMxmjYTcmQoK41UWeUE7tgcVpA&sig2=sj227U6IssEeJUT0WXN7bg
Non-Roman Citizens could only join the Auxiliary forces, the Praetorian Fleets, and the Praetorian Cohorts, but not the Roman legions who were restricted to Roman Citizens. Major recruiting grounds for the legions seem to have been Italy, Spain, and also Gaul from which we find very few auxiliaries mentioned on diplomas

ok
back to movie

pefjr
11-17-2009, 12:13 AM
don't interupt my movie anymore tonight please, it was right in the middle of a love scene with Sophia Loren:Dhttp://www.raypfob.com/Images/Sophia%20Loren.jpg

George Jung
11-17-2009, 12:20 AM
I love that movie... *sniff*

McMike
11-17-2009, 07:46 AM
don't interupt my movie anymore tonight please, it was right in the middle of a love scene with Sophia Loren:Dhttp://www.raypfob.com/Images/Sophia%20Loren.jpg


uhhhh . . . What were you saying?:p

pefjr
11-17-2009, 04:15 PM
No bible school today?

Boston
11-18-2009, 03:36 AM
sorry was out goofing off

will the real Jesus please stand up

The empirical debate I’ve initiated apparently requires some defense of reductionism and seems to have produced a polarization between the theoretical positions of reductionism and religionism, suggesting that no alternative exists. Personally I disagree and find that view unfortunate, empirical research is neither reductionist nor religionist, pro or con, but stands between the two as a mutually inclusive method of researching the roots of religious histories. The Empirical method however by definition can only be based on methodological agnosticism with regard to religious and philosophical "first principles ", and needs to fully recognize the historicity of religious phenomena. This empirical perspective is applied best by the newly emerging academic field of esotericism. Meaning (refering to Antoine Faivre's definition of esotericism) as a historically recognizable "form of logical thought" and hope it can lead to a discussion of the empirical status of not just the history of (religious) ideas, but also providing a detailed analysis of events as well, although to some this may seem a callus method by which to analyze what to some are considered sacred text. Consideration of the implications of the empirical method for the diachronic and synchronic study of esoteric histories is absolutely necessary if this group is actually interested in a discussion of who the historical Jesus was. Unfortunately this may alienate some of our more fervently biased readers and for that, I apologize,

nice boobs by the way

where was I
Paul or his authors claim he is 1) a pharisee, 2) born a Jew and 3) born Roman, three items hard to justify within both the philosophy and history of the times.

1) acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
(and also here specifically under the tutelage of Gamalliel)
acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day.

2) 2 cor. 11:22 Are they Hebrews? So am I Are they Israelites? So am I Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
( and also here specifying the house of Benjamin )
Philippians 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;

3) acts 22:27/28 The commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes." The commander answered, "I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money." And Paul said, "But I was actually born a citizen."



Paul is claiming his father was a Roman and a pharisee trained by Gamaliel and of the tribe of Benjamin

how do these claims stand up to an empirical review thus far

was Paul a Roman

A) Paul was born in Tarsus and would not have been granted full citizenship based on his birthplace but instead he would have been considered a provincial and held to the limitations and legal strictures of the Latin Right 

B) Paul claims his father was also a Jew/Pharisee and a Roman citizen, This would imply that his father was a person of some standing, yet there is strangely no mention of his father beyond this claim and there is the simple fact that Paul came to Jerusalem and ended up in a simple enforcers position working under the counsel priest, a lowly position about one step above alter boy, for a sadducee who was cooperating with Roman occupation persecuting Jews. Hardly a family tradition of Rabbinical principal nor in keeping with Pharisaic principals of the time.
C) Paul’s conversation with the Roman guard as reported in acts fly’s in the face of logic. Service guarantees citizenship, thus it was not necessary for the guard to have purchased his citizenship, in doing so he would have paid a kings ransom for his citizenship and then given up most of those rights by joining the military service ( for 25 years I might add ) only to then receive those rights for free once he completed his service whether he had previously been a citizen or not. clearly it was Paul who had purchased his citizenship and an error of Luke ( author ) in recording events of 40+ years earlier.
D) Paul was beaten numerous times without any pretense to his being Roman until the events described in acts. A situation of serious legal import for the persons doing the beating and not one taken lightly, Rome defended its few citizens in the provinces with a vengeance . Had Paul been a citizen previous to his return from Damascus he could not have been summarily beaten as is reported multiple times.
E) Paul’s own writings contain no claim of citizenship 
prior to the events of acts
F) Paul’s contemporaries the Ebonite’s make numerous references throughout the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4rth centuries of Paul being Greek ( the Ebonite’s, church of Jerusalem, the true disciples of Jesus, become the first declared heretics of the Pauline christian church in approximately 390 AD for there insistence that Paul was a false prophet and subverted the message of the Messiah. Declared heretics by the Temple Pharisees for there insistence in Jesus as the Messiah in 135 AD )

was Paul a Pharisee

A) Paul was originally Saul of Tarsus a city of predominantly pagan beliefs and with few Jews, there is no archeological record of any place of Jewish worship or jewish schools in Tarsus.
B) Paul was unable to read or right Hebrew the language of the Jewish scholars
C) Paul claims to be a Pharisee yet the Pharisee’s are unerringly opposed to Roman occupation yet Paul worked for the Sadducee high priest, who was appointed by Herod, in cooperation with the Romans, and apposed to the Pharisee's
D) Paul supports this occupation by assisting the Sadducee priest as an enforcer
E) Paul is favorable to Roman citizenship and after a certain point in the narrative begins to use its advantages regularly
F) Paul’s own writings do not mention Gamilliel

G) Paul’s contemporaries, the Ebonite’s, throughout the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4rth centuries make numerous references to Paul having no Rabbinical training

was Paul born a Jew 



A) please see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 bellow. Paul admits that he has “made himself a Jew” contradicting his previous statements of having been born a Jew

B) There is no verifying Paul’s being born a Jew, however there are numerous claims to the contrary by his contemporaries, the Ebonite’s. 

C) Paul’s inclusion of multiple pagan beliefs and symbols into the Pauline christian religion are a testimony to his Hellenistic background. From the assyrian legend of Inana we have three days dead and then a breaking of the gates of hell and a resurrection, also from the Zoroastrian contemporaries we have the virgin birth. To name just a few

in summary

it is highly unlikely that Paul was born a roman citizen
it is very likely that he purchased his roman citizenship at some time between his visit to Damascus and his return to Jerusalem and tried to conceal it for some reason that will be discussed in due time

it is highly unlikely that Paul was a pharisee

it is likely that he was embellishing his background in order to gain converts as specified in
see 1 corinthians 9:19-23 were Paul writes

“I am no man’s slave, but I have made myself a slave to all, in order to win the more for
Christ. To the Jews I have made myself as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those who live
under the law I have come as one under the law, in order to win those who are under the
law — not that I myself am under the law. To those who live without the law I have come
as one without the law, in order to win those who are without the law — not that I am
really under no law in relation to God, for I am bound by the law of Christ. To those who
are weak I have made myself weak, so as to win the weak; in fact, I have become all things
to all people, in order that, one way or another, I may rescue some of them. But I do it all
for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share its blessings with others”




it is less likely Paul was born a jew
it is likely that he was once again embellishing his background

Dam now I have Sophia Lauren's boobs stuck in my head
time for a movie

cheers
B

Boston
11-18-2009, 04:33 AM
Now Boston is right when he says that Roman Soldiers earned their citizenship by serving in the army for 25 years. But, what he left out was that this was only granted UPON DISCHARGE! While he was serving he could not exercise a lot of Roman rights SUCH AS MARRY! Now here we have a SERVING CENTURION, had he earned his citizenship? NO, he was still serving in the army, even as a Centurion he was only considered as a citizen but could not exercise even the simple right of marriage. BUT, he could PURCHASE his citizenship and get around that little problem.Ill have to do some digging on this one but I question the accuracy of the portion of your statement that I have enlarged
do you have any verifying references in Roman law or any precedence you might be willing to offer the group
any references to support this claim would be appreciated

please see post #129 were you will clearly see I included the qualification of citizenship upon completion of service
please also note that the legion serving in Judea was the 10th and the centurion an officer, it was necessary to be a Roman citizen to qualify to join the Legions. So it is misleading to suggest this man was not a citizen or was in the legion to earn citizenship. you are confusing the auxiliaries with the legions.

Rome in the time of Paul, to the best of my knowledge never instituted the draft although it was considered a duty for Roman citizens to serve if the need called for it, it was not compulsory, point being, no one would have purchased his citizenship and then been forced into service. While it is true that citizenship was granted upon completion of service it is also true that by joining the military you gave up certain rights had you been previously a citizen. There is no supporting evidence that I am aware of to suggest one could buy back these rights lost by virtue of service during the time of service, if you have such evidence and can verify it within Roman law with fully referenced sources I will gladly concede the point and appreciate having learned something. My present position on the issue is that if you are a Roman citizen when you entered the service you were still a Roman citizen while in service its just some of your rights are abrogated. If you were not a Roman citizen when you entered service you were granted the rights of service which were identical to those enjoyed by citizens in the service and all citizen or non-citizen were granted full citizenship upon graduation from service.

either way it is not logical that the Roman guard had purchased his citizenship and then volunteered to give those incredibly expensive rights up by entering or performing in service. what your proposing just doesn't wash

you will have to provide evidence within Roman law for any special considerations to purchasing citizenship during ones tenure in service as in all my years studying the ancient Roman Legal system I have never come across anything to suggest this is possible

cheers
B

you might begin your search here
http://www.historyteacher.net/GlobalHistory-1/Readings/RomanLaw&TwelveTables.htm
or here
List of Roman laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/List%20of%20Roman%20laws%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia%20%20-)

I would contend that the following is reasonbly accurate in describing the officers and men of the legions and that these men were citizens "before" entering service

from http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy.html (http://www.vroma.org/%7Ebmcmanus/romanarmy.html)


The legion was the basic unit of Rome's standing army of career soldiers, the legionaries, who were all Roman citizens and fought primarily as foot-soldiers (infantry). The number of legions under arms varied in different time periods (there were, for example, 28 legions under Augustus in 25 BCE), and each legion had both a number and a title (http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/milemarker.jpg), though some numbers were duplicated (we know, for example, of III Augusta, III Cyrenaica, III Gallica, III Italica, III Parthica). I would also note the following

from http://larp.com/legioxx/orgoff.html


TERMS OF SERVICE From the beginning of the Republic in 506 BC until about 100 BC, Roman legionaries were supposed to be landowners. This meant that they had enough income to equip themselves properly, and that they had a vested interest in fighting for Rome. Equipment was not supplied by the state, so any man who could not afford a certain minimum of gear was exempt from military service. Eligible men were drafted for service in the spring, and in the fall the army was disbanded and the men sent home. Any particular man might or might not serve in successive years, and he was required to serve in a total of ten campaigns before reaching the maximum age of enlistment. This made for a citizen army with no permanent units. By c. 100 BC, though, Rome's foreign holdings had spread, while the number of small farms (and their owners) had declined. In order to make up for the resulting shortage in manpower, Rome began to recruit non-landed and poor men into the army, equipping them at government expense, increasing their pay, and often promising them a land grant upon discharge. This marked the beginning of a change from a part-time citizen army to the full-time volunteer professional army of the Empire.
All legionaries were required to be Roman citizens, though this did not mean that they were of Italian ancestry. Citizenship was spreading through the provinces during the late Republic, and this accelerated in the early Empire as discharged auxiliary troops were often granted citizenship, which they passed on to their children. By the middle of the first century AD, nearly half of all legionaries were non-Italian, though the proportion may have been higher in the East, where it was common to grant citizenship to potential recruits upon enlistment. By the reign of Hadrian, Italians made up only about 5 percent of all legionaries.
At the beginning of the Empire, the term of enlistment was supposed to be 16 years, though there was no regular system of discharges and men were often kept beyond their nominal retirement point. This rose to 20 years, plus five years in the reserves, by the time of Claudius. Vespasian made the term of service a flat 25 years, though discharges still seem to be given only every other year. Soldiers were forbidden to be legally married while serving, though of course many had local girlfriends, common-law wives, and children. Upon discharge, a soldier's "marriage" was recognized as legal, and any children he had were recognized as legitimate and Roman citizens. This is not only a nice "perk", since illegitimate children of civilians generally could not become citizens, but it also made a growing recruiting pool for the legions. A steadily increasing number of recruits listed their place of origin as "in castris", "in the camp", meaning their fathers had been soldiers (not necessarily that they had actually been born and raised in a military fortress!).
how am I doing so far kids

ishmael
11-18-2009, 05:49 AM
Interesting discussion, sort of.

I'm with whomever(s) above said it doesn't really matter, will never be proved one way or the other. Maybe Jesus was a space brother stepped down to speak to us, or maybe a time traveling Shriner, gone back to find out why his hat and his car were so small.

I think of him as an enlightened human. I love the story of the Buddha. After his time in the wilderness people could sense he was transformed. They asked him, "Are you a god, are you the reincarnation of Krishna, who are you?" "No, I'm none of those, I am awake."

Thanks for not getting snippy on a question which lends itself to snippy.

Carry on.

purri
11-18-2009, 06:10 AM
So from the sundry verbiage and terse scholarship to date it appears that Saul was an opportunist of some note who appropriated Iesus' teachings to serve his needs. The "church" that followed was an abomination of the original teachings. Discuss.

skuthorp
11-18-2009, 06:15 AM
I have been interested in comments above re the modern necessity to 'prove' the historical accuracy of the bible. Apart from the technology angle, I reckon it's linked to the trend everywhere to prove, blame, allocate responsibility etc. It's the accountants influence on religion, which gives rise to the more aggressive attitudes of unbelievers. It may be that the 'scientific study' of religion to 'prove' it's efficacy will, in the end, be more destructive of it than if they'd left well enough alone and relied on blind faith.

pefjr
11-18-2009, 12:33 PM
Interesting discussion, sort of.

will never be proved one way or the other.
Carry on."What has been proved will never be believed, what is believed will never have to be proven" to the Christian.

Very interesting topic, thanks to Boston.:)

Boston
11-18-2009, 03:28 PM
Skuthorp ( interesting name whats the origin ?)

I tend to go with whats most likely to have occurred and whats least likely to have, Mostly based on a coherent assemblage of historical bits and pieces that in themselves may prove nothing but instead lend credibility into a more accurate reconstruction of the past. Naturally some forms of evidence hold more value than others but all should be considered in the final analysis as long as there veracity is also considered
for instance

the following two laws lead to the Pauline Christian riots which both destroyed the Temples of Rome and the outlying provinces but also lead to the burning of the libraries ( including at Alexandria )

the authenticity of the records is extremely well documented and the fact of the physical events coinciding precisely within the date of the edicts lends substantially to its veracity.


Although toleration was give to Christianity in 311CE by Constantine I, Christianity did not become the legal religion of the Roman Empire until the reign of Theodosius I (379-395). At that point not only was Christianity made the official religion of the Empire, but other religions were declared illegal.

Theodosian Code XVI.1.2

It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict.

from Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), p. 31 [Short extract used under fair-use provsions]and this


Law: Restoration of Goods only to Catholic Christians

380 (AD) Eusebius: Book 10, Chapter 5
Copy of another imperial decree which they issued, indicating that the grant [of free worship] was made to the Catholic Church alone.
"Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus.
It is the custom of our benevolence, most esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things which belong of right to another should not only be left unmolested, but should also be restored. Wherefore it is our will that when thou receivest this letter, if any such things belonged to the Catholic Church of the-Christians, in any city or other place, but are now held by citizens (15) or by any others, thou shalt cause them to be restored immediately to the said churches. For we have already determined that those things which these same. churches formerly possessed shall be restored to them. Since therefore thy devotedness perceives that this command of ours is most explicit, do thou make haste to restore to them, as quickly as possible, everything which formerly belonged to the said churches,-whether gardens or buildings or whatever they may be, -- that we may learn that thou hast obeyed this decree of ours most carefully. Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."
burning of the library at Alexandria


In the late 4th century, persecution of pagans by Christians had reached new levels of intensity. Temples and statues were destroyed throughout the Roman Empire, pagan rituals forbidden under punishment of death, and libraries closed. In 391, Emperor Theodosius ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria:

"Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict between the Pagans and Christians. At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt.
"And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum.

"Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for the relief of the poor.

"All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.the Pauline Christians later in history invented a story placing blame on the Muslims, specifically one named Calif Omar.


When Muslim invaders took over the city, a general allegedly asked Omar what should be done with the books contained in the library. His famous reply was "If they agree with the Koran, they are superfluous, if they contradict it, they are blasphemous, therefore destroy them." And then, according to legend, they used the books for fuel to heat the city baths for six months. However, most historians consider this story to be almost certainly false, primarily because while the invasion itself was real, there are simply no records that make any mention of a Muslim destruction of the library until 300 years after it allegedly happened. (Interestingly, despite the historical unreliability of this claim, the answer "Muslims" is listed as the "correct" answer to the question "Who destroyed the Library of Alexandria?" in the trivia book So You Think You're Good at Trivia by Patrick Downs.) so it is important to realize that through careful examination of the full evidence available fallacies like blaming the Muslims for one of the greatest tragedies in all history by the Pauline Christian Church which was instead committed by the Pauline Christians, can be undone.

I will through subsequent posts attempt to show that it was the Ebonite's who actually knew Jesus, actually spoke with him, Heard his words, loved his teachings, are best qualified to speak to his purpose and followed his path of poverty and peace.

Boston
11-18-2009, 06:15 PM
So from the sundry verbiage and terse scholarship to date it appears that Saul was an opportunist of some note who appropriated Iesus' teachings to serve his needs. The "church" that followed was an abomination of the original teachings. Discuss.

short but accurate :)

SamSam
11-18-2009, 06:49 PM
Very interesting topic, thanks to Boston.:)Sophia added a little dimension to it also.

Gerald
11-18-2009, 07:46 PM
Interesting!
I have a question about JC´s old man. The way I understand it the bible was written not by man but God directed the hand of man. Let us all believe that to be true. So God created heaven and earth blah blah blah. Why would such an all knowing and powerful God only write about such a small part of the universe? My real question is, why would God leave such things out of the bible such as, what was going on in the Americas, Australia. the pacific. Sure there are tidbits about what might or might not be those places. However, why is almost the entire story based on such a small piece of sand.
Gerald

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 07:50 PM
"However, why is almost the entire story based on such a small piece of sand."

Because the authors were sitting around a small camel dung fire writing about life on their small piece of sand?

Tom Galyen
11-18-2009, 08:04 PM
Well Glen,
Maybe it is because all the rest is not germane to the story that God wants to tell and wants us to know. If I write a story about people living in Atlanta, Georgia then I'm not going to include information about people living in Budapest. It is not needed.

What is the story that God wants to tell in the Bible? I would recommend that you read it and find out.

Gerald
11-18-2009, 08:24 PM
Yep!!!!!
That´s it then. God after manufacturing billions upon billions of stars and universes decided to dwell on one single little pin point in his architecture and base everything of that piece of dirt. That is what your saying?
Gerald

ishmael
11-18-2009, 08:47 PM
"Yep!!!!!
That´s it then. God after manufacturing billions upon billions of stars and universes decided to dwell on one single little pin point in his architecture and base everything of that piece of dirt. That is what your saying?"

I used to think this way, sort of. I believe there's an error of thinking involved, that god is out there somewhere, a discrete being. Sort of the Medieval images of a gray beard out there somewhere lording it over matters.

Rather, when my cat enjoys her food, or when I light a cigarette, there, everywhere is this omniscience, this omnipresence. You see then, there is no need to isolate this ball of light and darkness we inhabit as a focus.

That's my image. You may disagree and that's fine too.

"Called or not, God is there."

Some damn sage who's name escapes me at the moment.

Bob Triggs
11-18-2009, 08:58 PM
Quoted from A Course In Miracles "Clarification Of Terms"

Scroll down to item #5: "Jesus-Christ"

www.unitedbeings.com/acim/Clarification%20of%20terms.htm (http://www.unitedbeings.com/acim/Clarification%20of%20terms.htm)

Also see: www.facim.org (http://www.facim.org)

Nanoose
11-18-2009, 09:16 PM
Interestingly, this is the question Jesus asked of Peter, and indicated we must all answer....
Definitely some fascinating answers out there! ;)

Nanoose
11-18-2009, 09:18 PM
Yep!!!!!
That´s it then. God after manufacturing billions upon billions of stars and universes decided to dwell on one single little pin point in his architecture and base everything of that piece of dirt. That is what your saying?
Gerald

It appears that this particular pin point is suited to the development of life, and so far, science (for a ton of reasons) isn't sure any other place is....

Bob Triggs
11-18-2009, 09:43 PM
It appears that this particular pin point is suited to the development of life, and so far, science (for a ton of reasons) isn't sure any other place is....

This may have more to do with the definition of "life" than it does with interstellar geography.

Glen Longino
11-18-2009, 09:48 PM
Well Glen,
Maybe it is because all the rest is not germane to the story that God wants to tell and wants us to know. If I write a story about people living in Atlanta, Georgia then I'm not going to include information about people living in Budapest. It is not needed.

What is the story that God wants to tell in the Bible? I would recommend that you read it and find out.

I've read it, Tom, even studied it.
The stories in the Bible are obviously told by men, not God.
When Jesus was alive, he had no idea that real humans had been living in Texas for 10,000 years. I call that quite a gap in the story-telling. Why don't you?

Nanoose
11-18-2009, 10:06 PM
When jesus was alive, he had no idea that real humans had been living in Texas for 10,000 years.

He actually did...

B_B
11-18-2009, 10:10 PM
He actually did...
sources?

Boston
11-18-2009, 10:46 PM
I’ve always thought there is almost always some valuable truth to learn from just about any religion, specially the native religions. Funny thing is that most of the major religions are merely constructs of the local native beliefs and are far more mythos based than there native counterparts.

my guess is that the violence prevalent in religion is based of the concept that the charlatan knows he is full of **** and somewhere inside its frustrating to the point of violence in the exact opposite manor is the righteous man content to live a peaceful life knowing he walks in the spirit


oh
the Drake Equation clearly defines the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
almost no mater how you define the parameters the probability ends up 1
which equates to a certainty of intelligent life

cheers
B

oops
I just remembered
the drake equation shows the possible number of intelligent species in the universe
theres another equation called probability one that defines the likelihood of intelligent species
my bad

pefjr
11-18-2009, 10:50 PM
I'm going back to my Sophia Loren blow up doll, when Boston shows up call me.

pefjr
11-18-2009, 11:58 PM
He actually did...Could we get a voice recording on this phenomenon?:)

Boston
11-19-2009, 03:44 AM
not sure if Im beating a dead horse yet but what the hell ( so to speak )

The next little tidbit about Paul’s life is the trip to Damascus and why he says he went. Remembering Acts 9:1-2 Paul ( then Saul ok actually Luke concerning Saul ) claims

Acts 9:1-2
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

several things should jump up at you concerning these two passages. FIrst is that the High Priest had no authority over the synagogues as such because his jurisdiction in Jewish law was extended only over the Temple In Jerusalem.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DF l9dYJH_xUYC%26pg%3DPA190%26lpg%3DPA190%26dq%3Dhigh %2Bpriests%2Bauthority%2Blimited%2Bto%2Bthe%2Btemp le%2Bin%2BJerusalem%26source%3Dbl%26ots%3Dg8FAi3mF xe%26sig%3D7Uad0gNga2tKbNkXceaQcaPZ0w8%26hl%3Den%2 6ei%3DzEwFS8WpMdGlngfh3Pi8Cw%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dbook_ result%26ct%3Dresult%26resnum%3D1%26ved%3D0CAgQ6AE wAA&rct=j&q=high+priests+authority+limited+to+the+temple+in+ Jerusalem&ei=zEwFS8WpMdGlngfh3Pi8Cw&usg=AFQjCNFzPmL73KN29Utov9Np74xCr5MNmg&sig2=dI_ZShgLV0nvuDghpvNoGA
The synagogues were set up for prayer and study by the local populations both inside and outside the Holy land and did not form part of the temple organization, but instead were under Lay organization as they are to this day. The priests were given certain honors in the synagogue service but they had no role of leadership in the synagogue community at that time. The lay administrators of the synagogue were elected by its members and the spiritual guidance of the community was in the hands of the Rabbi which was not a paid office.

So what was the High Priest (Ananias) up to thinking he was going to send letters demanding anything. Time to remember the High priest was appointed. Appointed by who? Not by the Jewish community but by Herod who the Jewish population as a whole just hated with a vengeance and who worked in cooperation with the Roman occupation of Judea. Probably not likely to be real popular among the Jewish communities in exile in Damascus.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flatter-rain.com%2Fearlychurch%2Fananh.htm&rct=j&q=the+high+priest+Ananias+was+appointed+by+Herod&ei=rfkES9L_HYuNnQfZzsHACw&usg=AFQjCNEWbcNHgtbjGO1TEIOtJyjzy8-fug&sig2=MOouu9LA4X0VEIO0qD3VTQ

The High Priest acted with more of a Police authority than a religious one and had no legal right to be making demands that the synagogues be handing over devout Jewish worshipers. Outside Judea the High Priest had absolutely no authority and various enemies of his would certainly try and take refuge in Damascus. Damascus was in the Roman province of Syria, conquered in about 64 BC by Pompeius Magnus Gnaeus. However it was Ceded by Caligula in AD 37 and belonged to the independent Arab nation of Nabataea under the rule of King Aretas IV ( 9 BC-AD 40 ) which meant that is was not entirely even under Roman rule at this time. Lending even less validity to Lukes claim of why Paul is going there.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3Dj owNAAAAIAAJ%26pg%3DPA715%26lpg%3DPA715%26dq%3DDama scus%2Bwas%2Bceded%2Bby%2Bcaligula%26source%3Dbl%2 6ots%3Dv4DBcpccUe%26sig%3DrscFsBoMHyB9TZeLZMwgc7kl G60%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DSgAFS7TtHcPZnAeyx-zACw%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dbook_result%26ct%3Dresult%26r esnum%3D1%26ved%3D0CAgQ6AEwAA&rct=j&q=Damascus+was+ceded+by+caligula+&ei=SgAFS7TtHcPZnAeyx-zACw&usg=AFQjCNEWW1YBwpqwb5K8cjBKM4JCBCkM-w&sig2=s8ic1ecwS4-3l1VmzQHCqw

whoever Paul was supposedly after would likely if at all have taken refuge in Damascus and Paul would have had to go clandestinely in order to kidnap them rather than openly with letters of demand To the Jewish community who had just about Zero authority among the Arabs in a free Arab state. What Luke wants me to believe is that a Jew, working for the Romans, is expected to bind, gag an haul off a free Arab citizen or persons under Arab protection in an independent Arab state, because some foreigner of absolutely no religious or political authority told him he could in some letter.
Please.
Tell me another one but this time at least try and make it believable.

Paul’s stated reason for going to Damascus is therefore highly unlikely

so why did he go there
there are a number of political reasons but Ill try and stick to the incongruities in the text concerning Paul although Ill have to deviate from the Paul for a moment. 

basically the Hight Priest was unlikely a well loved character of the Jewish community and far more likely he was one of the more well hated members of the puppet Roman government of the time; seeing as how he employed people like Paul who were actively persecuting respected members of the Jewish community. Ananias likely had dissenters both in and outside Judea and it was Jesus who paid with his life for his subversive sermon on the mount. Various dissenters to Roman rule were likely being hunted down continually within the occupied provinces and Judea had a reputation for being a trouble spot within the empire. Damascus would have been a great place for these folks to run and hide. 

Paul was likely sent with a group of mercenaries to illegally enter Damascus and sneak off with political dissidents likely engaged in an underground conflict with Roman rule of there homeland.

Echo’s of this can be found in the Psuedo-Clementine Recognitions ( i-70 ) from about the 4rth century which chronicles the Ebonite’s views of this event. In that we are told that Saul went to Damascus to arrest none other than Peter who fled Jerusalem after an attempt to assassinate James. While the Ebonite account cannot be reconciled with events depicted in Acts it does fit within the political environment of the day; whereas once again the account in Acts does not. Instead 2nd Corinthians 11:32-33 actually verifies that Paul was not exactly received with hugs and kisses by King Aretas.

In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me,and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.

Sounds a lot to me like old Paul’s letters didn't work out to well for him, Acts also records that the Jews of the city were not all that impressed either. acts 9:23-5

When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Saul They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket.

this represents an obvious editing on the part of the Bible authors and which to me also represents a shift in blame from the King of Damascus ( the earlier words of Paul ) to the Jews of Damascus ( the later words of Luke ) but thats a whole other twist to the Pauline Christian demonization of the Jews and various incongruities which individually prove nothing but taken as a whole and considering there consistent bent towards placing blame on the Jews of the day can be taken as a deliberate attempt to bend the record to fit a theological agenda

Thus we have Paul sneaking back out of the city for several different reasons, just one of which is his having come as a agent of Roman intent, with out authority, acting illegally, in a sovereign state to persecute persons under that sovereigns protection.

and tomorrow Ill throw you onother dam good reason Paul might have bugged out in a basket over the wall

Glen Longino
11-19-2009, 08:01 AM
Could we get a voice recording on this phenomenon?:)

I must have missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about armadillos and horned toads.
If Nanoose sticks with her claim that Jesus knew all about Texas, she's losing whatever credibility she had.:rolleyes:

Boston
11-19-2009, 09:06 AM
Nanoose is bound to be talking about John 10:16 were Jesus speaks of needing to go tend other sheep not of this flock
A lot of modern day Pauline Christians believe this is a reference to the rest of the people of the world and that somehow Jesus would bring Paul's invention of "good news" to them as well. Thus a lot of Pauline Christians believe Jesus had multiple ministries all at the same time. Texas and armadillo's included :D
Not what I personally subscribe to, but to each his/her own.

SamSam
11-19-2009, 11:13 AM
my guess is that the violence prevalent in religion is based of the concept that the charlatan knows he is full of **** and somewhere inside its frustrating to the point of violence in the exact opposite manor is the righteous man content to live a peaceful life knowing he walks in the spirit


What about the duty or need or desire of the righteous man to chase and destroy Satan in all His forms, such as other religions, or gold in someone else's pocket, etc? I can hardly believe you're saying the religious don't start the majority of religious violence.

Of course, to me, charlatan describes the righteous perfectly.
a person who pretends to more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; Or maybe I don't understand what you are saying.

isla
11-19-2009, 01:34 PM
It appears that this particular pin point is suited to the development of life, and so far, science (for a ton of reasons) isn't sure any other place is.... I think the pinpoint referred to here is Palestine and the lands of the bible, not the world. I asked the same question in another thread a while ago. Why does the bible focus on lands in the middle east when, allegedly, God had created a whole universe?

pefjr
11-19-2009, 01:55 PM
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XjxZQd4MRvc/SwWUgJCr7EI/AAAAAAAAAog/T4pxrqpb0lM/download.jpg

Boston
11-19-2009, 02:47 PM
What about the duty or need or desire of the righteous man to chase and destroy Satan in all His forms, such as other religions, or gold in someone else's pocket, etc? I can hardly believe you're saying the religious don't start the majority of religious violence.ya I think you misunderstood me although maybe it is I who misunderstand you ( hows that for going round and round )

no Im saying the majority of people leading most religions are charlatans. Oh there are good people in all faiths but the biggest turd generally rises to the top.

Personally ( and faith is always personal ) I see no duty to chase anyone's concept of a Satan lest someone elses concept of Satan be me, or to inhibit anyone from following there faith, nor to relieve them of there wealth but instead ( at least if your following Jesus ) ones duty is to weigh our actions against the greatest law, which is to treat others as you would also like to be treated and love your neighbor as yourself Leviticus 19:18

nowhere in the definition of a righteous man do I see anything but a reference to ones own actions rather than an abrogation of someone else's ability to act

from Dictionary.com all definitions included

1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law.
2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation.
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous and godly person.
4. Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful: some righteous playing by a jazz great.from Miriam/Webster on line dictionary all definitions included

1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2 a : morally right (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right) or justifiable <a righteous decision>
2 b : arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>
3 slang : genuine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine), excellent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excellent)from the Dictionary by Farlex all definitions included

1.a. characterized by, proceeding from, or in accordance with accepted standards of morality, justice, or uprightness; virtuous a righteous man1.b. (as collective noun; preceded by the) the righteous

2. morally justifiable or right, esp from one's own point of view

SamSam
11-19-2009, 03:51 PM
Yes, I misunderstood you. I have always associated righteous with religious, and now I see that that is not necessarily the case.

I took the statement to mean that of all religious violence, it is non believers who start the majority of it.

How about this...of all the major sort of violence in the world, such as wars and things as opposed to muggings or beatings or murder, any rough guess/opinion on the percentage that is attributable to religion? It could be it's too vague a question to answer, depending on what time frame in history is covered or what is meant by violence- body count (actual or comparative) or disruption of society.

Boston
11-19-2009, 04:19 PM
interesting question
Im not really sure Ive ever seen a breakdown or tried to create one of religious tensions contributing to whatever else may be stated as the reasons various wars started. But Im betting religious differences played a huge role.

although it seems Religion is nearly always brought into the conflict in order to galvanize support. The Nazi attempts to design there own history and define it in terms of having been suppressed by the Jews and Pauline Christians. Or the spanish attempts to convert the natives of south America were all just excuses to subjugate ( Nazi ) or galvanize support for genocide ( Spanish ). I could probably go through every conflict and show a religious component except maybe the most recent and the majority of them are obviously for economic gain

interesting point though
basically I think its fair to say if you had never had organized religion, you would have eliminated a huge percentage of the worlds conflicts

B

Nanoose
11-19-2009, 07:27 PM
I must have missed the part of the Bible where Jesus talks about armadillos and horned toads.
If Nanoose sticks with her claim that Jesus knew all about Texas, she's losing whatever credibility she had.:rolleyes:

Hey, Glen! :)

....neither you, nor I, mentioned anything about "armadillos and horned toads." What you said was,


When Jesus was alive, he had no idea that real humans had been living in Texas for 10,000 years. I call that quite a gap in the story-telling.

Now, a number of points can be made, but I'll just go with one. I don't know whether Jesus knew about Texas - I can see a basis to argue either way (actually, Glen, you realize there was no Texas at that point, right? :rolleyes:), but it really wasn't relevant. He showed his love to even the Samaritans, prostitutes and tax collectors, so I'm sure he'd have loved you Texans too. ;)

Nanoose
11-19-2009, 07:28 PM
Nanoose is bound to be talking about John 10:16 were Jesus speaks of needing to go tend other sheep not of this flock
A lot of modern day Pauline Christians believe this is a reference to the rest of the people of the world and that somehow Jesus would bring Paul's invention of "good news" to them as well. Thus a lot of Pauline Christians believe Jesus had multiple ministries all at the same time. Texas and armadillo's included :D
Not what I personally subscribe to, but to each his/her own.

Boston - never presume to speak for anyone but yourself, least of all me. You have no idea what I think.

Carry on.

Boston
11-19-2009, 07:28 PM
At this juncture in what has turned into a diatribe I might make mention of what old Paul must have been feeling at this point in his life.
Not exactly a life of any great success. He probably came to Jerusalem with high hopes and its not to hard to imagine that those hopes may have been dashed. Generally one likes to paint themselves in the most favorable light possible revealing as little of ones faults while embellishing ones dreams and virtues. I suspect Paul did the same in his many letters. He obviously wanted to be regarded as a Pharisee because the people loved the Pharisee’s and Paul was nearly alone in a new city except for his nephew. For Paul it must have been an opportunity at a fresh start. Paul Instead he ended up loathed and feared by the Jewish community and working for the Sadducee high priest in conjunction with the Roman occupation of Judea.
I can imagine this led to some profound internal conflicts. Paul had to get a job working for the sadducee high priest which implies that his father was likely of little means and unable to support him in his quest for a Pharisaic education. He lacked the proper language skills generally attributed to the men of higher learning. (as do I if you’ve been paying attention to my spelling) It would also be easy to imagine that Paul desired to attain wealth, popularity and notoriety (as his oft stated enthusiasm might attest to) as a learned man in what was, at the time a popular religion, but instead was forced; if indeed he ever, attended Rabbinical school, to settle for a low ranking unenviable position in the High Priests employ. Essentially persecuting the very people he might have hoped to learn about. He was despised, poor, we hear of no close friends, had difficulty getting along with people and has poor social skills as we will soon see. With that in mind he is now sent on a thankless mission to bring in what might have been one of the most loved of all the apostles. I can well imagine he might be doing some hard thinking on that road to damascus. 

In contrast Paul would have learned about his victims philosophy’s to some degree in order to better accomplish his goals as an enforcer. He certainly must have been envious of there popularity and admiration among the people and its not only likely he desired these things for himself but that he actively pursued them as we are about to see and it is at this point in our story that Paul has had enough and attempts to defect from the employ of the High Priest and to join the Jerusalem church (Ebonite’s), without much success I might add.


The next important event in shaping Paul’s state of mind is his subsequent violent dismissal from nearly every town he preaches in during his mostly unauthorized travels after his defection from the high priest employ in Damascus. probably starting with Jerusalem itself (acts 9;26-30). Add to that his constantly being chastised and publicly punished/humiliated by the Ebonite’s virtually every time he returns to Jerusalem, that and his rejection by the Jewish community as a whole as we shall see. In a nutshell he may be gaining converts but hardly in a manor that could be called gracefully.
Now Im still working out the time line for all this and what I have so far ( feel free to correct me if Im missing something ) is that Paul heads off to sneak into Damascus and haul back political dissenters (remember the temple Jews don’t have issues with the Ebonite’s religious philosophy untill after about 150 AD), claims some kind of epiphany on the road, sneaks into town, kisses and makes up with at least some of the Jews in Damascus, spends some time gaining there trust then then heads off to Macedonia (or Arabia Galatians 1;10-17) but promises to come back through on his way home.

Luke describes the following debacle as Paul’s first missionary journey

At some point having escaped the mob in Damascus he makes it back to Jerusalem, but because everybody there seems to want to string him up by the short hairs as well he bugs out to Tarsus (acts 9:29-30). After Herod dies (acts 12:23) Paul tries to return to Jerusalem a second time which didn't work out again and he is forced to leave for Seleucia and Cyprus (acts 13:4) enrages the locals when he speaks there and leaves for Perga (Acts 13:13) where he is run out of town again (acts 13:50) and his next top is Iconium (acts 13:51) where Paul manages to aggravate the locals and gets run out of town, again, (acts 14:4-6) and heads this time to Lycaonia Lystra and Derbe or somewhere thereabouts (acts 14:6) where this time Paul gets stoned by an angry mob and at this point he turns around and goes through (apparently without incident) Pisidia, Panphy and Perga back to Antioch. Where Paul argues against circumcision at which point he is summarily sent back to Jerusalem to the church there in disgrace. Going back through Phoenicia and Samaria before finally arriving in Jerusalem for correction by the church elders.

At which point we have an interesting letter of public apology whish Paul is made to deliver himself being sent to the folks that Paul seems to have pissed off in his travels acts 15:24 by the apostles in Jerusalem to the people of Antioch


Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,I find it extremely Interesting that the apostle James claims Paul has no instruction in the faith and that his teaching have upset the faithful who knew Jesus, walked and talked with Jesus and followed his teachings to the best of there abilities. James is clearly unhappy with Paul and requires him to make amends publicly in no uncertain terms.

After personally being made to delivering the letter off apology Paul is referred to as being sent away from the brethren (acts 15:33) with (Barnabas to keep an eye on him ?) to Antioch (acts 15:35) (at this point Paul is apparently still unsafe in Jerusalem) a few days later (acts 15:36) Paul wants to leave Antioch. Barnabas seems a little hesitant to make the same mistakes twice ( going off without permission or instruction and possibly getting killed by another angry mob ) and insists on taking John/Mark a devout Jew of the Jerusalem church along with them, (acts 15:37) Paul argues bitterly with Barnabas because on there previous journey John had firmly disagreed with Paul’s teachings and abandoned them on the road. Paul and Barnabas go there separate ways (acts 15:39) in what is tersely referred to as a sharp disagreement.

At which point it might be noted that thus far Paul has been thrown out of numerous towns stoned on at least one occasion abandoned on the road several times by his compatriots sent back to Jerusalem in disgrace at least once and now wants to disobey the apostles again and head of on another unauthorized speaking tour. why? well one good reason may be that some of the Gentiles and some few of the Jews are fooled by what is obvioulsy a false message to the people who actually knew Jesus and his teachings and at some point he finds himself; since he claims affiliation with the church in Jerusalem, in a position to offer his assistance in delivering tithes to the mother church. Comunication was none to quick in those days otherwise the mother church would have likely called ahead a warning about this guy.

Paul left anyway despite Barnebas's objections on what Luke calls his second missionary journey

B

Nanoose
11-19-2009, 07:31 PM
I think the pinpoint referred to here is Palestine and the lands of the bible, not the world. I asked the same question in another thread a while ago. Why does the bible focus on lands in the middle east when, allegedly, God had created a whole universe?

Actually, by pinpoint I was referring to earth - pretty unclear, I know. Sorry about that.

Yes, God created it all and has shown his care for it all via acts that occurred in one location that are applicable to his entire creation.

Nanoose
11-19-2009, 07:37 PM
..mention of what old Paul must have been feeling at this point in his life.

And you would know this to be factual how, exactly? :rolleyes: You are the sole possessor of his personal journals? It would seem his letters are about as close as we can get and nothing you say is substantiated by Paul himself.

Anyone can make up any fantasy they like. You sure have an active imagination....not sure what's with your preoccupation with Paul though. Pity none of the scholars whom have spent a lifetime on the subject agree with you.

And your point about your diatribe - you notice no one is bothering to read your excessively long, rambling, fiction, right? You might wanna go get a drink, or an attavan, or something. :rolleyes:

ahp
11-19-2009, 08:12 PM
I will make some speculations about Paul's trips to what is now Turkey. He was a tent maker, not a lone craftsman but had a workshop employing a number of workers making tents for the Roman Army. He was essentially making business trips. That he had contracts with the Roman Army is not speculation.

While on his trips he visited a number of Synagoges and preached to the "God Fearers". These were pagans who attended Jewish services because they were attracted to the faith but did not want to go all the way to converting to Judiasm (circumcision and all that). The God fearers even had a special section in the synagoge, especially in Ephysius. Pardon my spelling. Paul told them they did not need to be circumcised to be Jews of the new testament.

Glen Longino
11-19-2009, 08:47 PM
Hey, Glen! :)

....neither you, nor I, mentioned anything about "armadillos and horned toads." What you said was,



Now, a number of points can be made, but I'll just go with one. I don't know whether Jesus knew about Texas - I can see a basis to argue either way (actually, Glen, you realize there was no Texas at that point, right? :rolleyes:), but it really wasn't relevant. He showed his love to even the Samaritans, prostitutes and tax collectors, so I'm sure he'd have loved you Texans too. ;)

Why can't you simply admit that the God you worship knew diddly squat about the Earth or the Universe, compared to what you know?
Hell, I love prostitutes and tax collectors too, but that does not make me worthy of worship.
You are pushing this beyond rationality, in my opinion.
But I still appreciate you and love you, although you're neither prostitute nor tax collector.;):)

ishmael
11-19-2009, 09:04 PM
Wow! As Yoda might say, "Late Fall legs, this thread has."

I opened it in the hope of reconciliation, and so far it's proving so. Different viewpoints, yet remarkably peaceful. May the peace of the Christ be with you.

Glen Longino
11-19-2009, 09:25 PM
Wow! As Yoda might say, "Late Fall legs, this thread has."

I opened it in the hope of reconciliation, and so far it's proving so. Different viewpoints, yet remarkably peaceful. May the peace of the Christ be with you.

You're no damn good, Jack, and everybody knows it.
Hey, Nanoose is no damn good either, but she's taught me to be more tolerant of God!:eek::rolleyes::)

PatCox
11-19-2009, 10:42 PM
Boston, you briefly brought up a topic that is of the utmost fascination to me; are most religious leaders sincere, or are they charlatans? This is the primary reason I have studied the New Testament as deeply as I have.

The jury is completely out, as far as I am concerned. I think it has to be a case by case analysis. I tend to think that religious founded prior to the enlightenment, when there was a major shift in the way humans regarded the world, are more likely to have been led by sincere believers. We might look at their beliefs as superstitions, but in that time, there was no such thing as superstition, because there was not yet a belief system opposed to superstition, they, I sincerely believe, did believe in the actions of supernatural forces in the world, all the time, day to day.

But, I also have my doubts about Paul, I do, I think he may have been an opportunist, the man had no humility.

Does the Pope believe? I do think so. There is a state of mind that comes with repeated ritualistic practices, which does create a different mindset from that of a sceptical observer.

And there is, I believe, a real magic in communal shared experience and ritual, which, somehow, does create its own reality, for the mindful. People who have taken part in a mass, shared, deeply felt event, feel something powerful, and I am talking about things religious and otherwise.

I feel a real power and real, palpable force in some rituals. Marriage ceremonies, funerals, if nothing else, they are a coming together of people for one purpose. I remember during my wedding, being so struck by what I was doing, I was making a formal, ritualized, promise and declaration, in front of witnesses, all of whom were the most important people in my life. Its one thing to say "I love you honey, and I will never leave you" in the darkness of your bed at night, its a whole nother thing to stand before 100 people you love, and declare to them as witnesses, "I love this woman, I am tying my life to hers, and making a vow before all of you, that I will be true to her, and honor and love her, forsaking all others."

Religion is, I think at the end, simply an expresion of communion with others, a primal thing, we evolved, apparently, as pack or troop animals, and our religion is our community.

The downside is, once you define "your community," by default you have defined the "other," those not in your community, and its also in our genes to compete against other bands and tribes, and our natural instinct of mutual cooperation and selflessness behavior when it comes to others in our tribe, is not operative when it comes to those we define as "others," not members of our tribe.

And thus, catholics and protestants fought wars, united by their religion and encouraged by their religion to moral conduct towards the other members of their "tribe," defined by them by their shared religious beliefs, but ruthless and murderous towards the "others," who did not share their religion.

I do not think that this is a phenomenon peculiar to religion, people I think have a genetic instinctive drive to define themselves as members of a group, religion is one way they do it, political ideology is another way.

In our society today, right wing conservatives define themselves as real americans, and define liberals as false, other, not real americans. They are setting out a definition of who is a person and who is not, who is worthy of being treated morally, and who is not, because they are "other," enemies, whom it is OK to kill. Pray for Obama, May his days be few, may his wife be a widow, his children orphans.

If we continue down this road, we will create a division which will produce violence as profound as any religious division ever has.

pefjr
11-19-2009, 11:07 PM
And you would know this to be factual how, exactly? :rolleyes: You are the sole possessor of his personal journals? It would seem his letters are about as close as we can get and nothing you say is substantiated by Paul himself.

Anyone can make up any fantasy they like. You sure have an active imagination....not sure what's with your preoccupation with Paul though. Pity none of the scholars whom have spent a lifetime on the subject agree with you.

And your point about your diatribe - you notice no one is bothering to read your excessively long, rambling, fiction, right? You might wanna go get a drink, or an attavan, or something. :rolleyes:You are wrong Nanoose, I am reading and enjoying all of Boston's Posts and yours too except this one. Practice a little of that Jesus love you speak about so often. :)and what about that recording of the voice of Jesus???? fiction?

Oh, what's an attavan?

SamSam
11-20-2009, 01:45 AM
....jesus .... Showed his love to even the samaritans, prostitutes and tax collectors, so i'm sure he'd have loved you texans too. ;)ohh noo you dih-ent! You inna lotta trubul now! :eek:

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 02:07 AM
ohh noo you dih-ent! You inna lotta trubul now! :eek:

:D:D

Boston
11-20-2009, 02:55 AM
On the contrary Nanoose, I seem to have some avid readers.

Very interesting views Pat.
I would tend to agree that the various galvanizing forces used by the mob mentality is not limited to Religious theologies. and you make several other excellent point as well ( at least to me that is ). My take on the Native religions or what you call (I think) pre enlightenment religions (is for a completely different set of reasons though) about the same. They tend to be honest and functional. Providing what the people who practice them tend to think of as a balance to the world. There intention seem to be about the opposite of the big three ( Islam Buddhism Pauline Christianity ) in that they are not pyramid based obedience systems buy rather based on individual belief and an individual relationship with a creator or spirit base.

you might read
the dead sea scroll deception
by
Michael baigent and Richard Leigh

will educate you a little on Ratzinger the present pope

Nanoose
I apologize, but you are completely mistaken that my view is unfounded within the comunity; the premise of my argument was first suggested by the Dean of religious studies university of London years ago, his work is considered a land mark event in the combining of historical context with theological claims and much of what I am writing about is a updated version of his work.

you might read the previously suggested and also
the day god laughed ( H Maccoby )
primitive christianity (R Bultmann )
Jesus a historians view of the gospels ( M Grant )
the hisorical figure of Jesus ( Sanders )
the Gospel of Marry

just to give some background as to what archeological scholars are saying
once again
the bible unearthed
is an invaluable tool in determining things like the lack of Judaic artifacts being found in Tarsus or Paul's wealth growing after the time of his defection and not before

I would be interested to read your sources concerning your claim Paul owned what you are describing as a thriving business. If Im remembering correctly that this is in his later years once he was basically laying back on the tithes sent him by his new religion.

The mental state of Paul has been a question among scholars for quite some time and it's believed that one major element of his ignoring all else ( including the teachings of Jesus and the people who followed Jesus ) is a "this is my last chance" attitude brought on by what amounts to a life time of failure. He escapes to Damascus and cannot safely return to Jerusalem until after Herod's death, there is never a mention of a girl ( other than the Ebonite's who claim he was shunned ) and he clearly is incapable of engaging in a mutually inclusive comunity. So he creates his own. As the later half of my previous makes clear. A simple read of Acts leaving out the hype and fluff is unmistakable as to the rejection he faces wherever he goes. The effect of this rejection is profound and as he is mistaken once again in his efforts to gain acceptance he reacts by a confusing mixture of attempting to appease the church in Jerusalem and blindly running off on his own to be somebody.

This general view of Paul's mental condition is hardly anything new and certainly not the lone construct of any late night typing on my part.

I am very well read on this issue and would suggest you give some of the suggested literature a try

cheers all
B

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 03:09 AM
Nanoose is a dead horse, Boston!
She has learned all she wants to learn about religion and is now a Teacher, not a Learner.
No use wasting a perfectly good whip on her.:)

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 03:37 AM
Are all you lazy bastids asleep?
Where are you, Deb, when I need a good whipping, er...I mean conversation?:)
Okay, I guess I'll go to sleep too! Buenas Noches!

Boston
11-20-2009, 03:55 AM
I got a girl and a whip
blind folds and cuffs to

so no worries, your Nanoose is safe

to continue following Paul through his journeys we need now consider what Luke refers to as his second missionary journey

Paul lends history a confusing set of actions as here is a man who was just publicly chastised for speaking against circumcision, circumcised the very next convert he made, (acts 16:3) after which he laid off preaching for a while until he got to Macedonia, (acts 16:10) were instead of circumcision he begins baptizing converts, (acts 16:15) but the first person he is reported to have converted began to annoy Paul (acts 16:18) and he becomes angry raising his voice to her (acts 16:18) at which point it is reported that her masters ( although she is not reported to be a slave so this moniker is likely an embellishment ) drag Paul to the authorities for creating a disturbance (acts 16:19-20), Paul was beaten with rods by the Romans chained and thrown into prison. There is a miraculous event that frees Paul from prison and he next travels to Thessolonica (acts 17:1).
In Thessolonica he again managed to create a violent mob and was again dragged in front of the city authorities (acts 17:3-9) and Paul was sent away to Berea. Once there again Paul’s teaching resulted in more angry mobs and again he is sent away this time under guard (acts 17:14-15) at which point his companions abandon him (acts 17:14) but are later forced also under guard to go meet him ( the guards escorting Paul away from Berea are commanded to go back and get them ) in Athens (acts 17:15). Where he was referred to as an “idle babbler” by the philosophers there (acts 17:18)
Paul was taken by unknown authorities to the open court at the Areopagus by the temple of Mars. Luke referred to this as the sermon on Mars Hill and it ends with a few snickers and mixed results (acts 17:32-34). After all this Paul is for once able to leave a town of his own accord and goes to Corinth. Where he got a job (acts 18:3). Eventually his previous companions caught up with him and as soon as they got there he quit his job (acts 18:5).
In Corinth his companions voiced there disagreement with his teachings. He cursed them and they abandoned him for a second time (acts 18:6). Paul moved to another residence, (acts 18:7) immediately adjacent to the local synagogue until “of one accord the Jews rose up against him” and he was again dragged in front of the proconsul where a riot ensued (acts 18:17) and Paul escapes to syria and shortly thereafter returns to Caesarea ( Tarsus ) and then Antioch (acts 18:22).

my guess is that Paul is no longer safe in Antioch and so Paul sets out on what Luke calls his third missionary journey
With generally the same results,
(acts 19:9) thrown out of town,
(acts 19:29) riot,
(acts 19:40) riot,
(acts 20:1) thrown out of town,
(acts 20:3) plot to kill him and runs away
Paul, eventually returns home to Jerusalem. Where he is immediately forced to recant his teachings by undergoing a public cleansing ceremony by the church elders in Jerusalem. He is required to not only pay for the costs of his sacrifice and clensing but also that of four others, (acts 21:21-26) specifically because of his spreading false doctrine among the people. The logic is that the people must now see Paul accepting punishment and acting in accordance with the same Jewish law he has flouted as being unnecessary.
Paul does this and after 7 days of public humiliation finds himself in the temple where he is again seized by a mob and dragged from the building (acts 21:30). The mob is working on killing him when the Romans arrive and drag him away from the middle of a riot for another beating, (acts 21:32). When the Romans tie him up for the beating he makes his famous claim of citizenship. A citizenship that he would most likely have purchased at some point between here and his initial trip to Damascus.

So where in all this mess did he get his citizenship, he’s been beaten, stoned, arrested and forced to leave under escort and in some cases by threat of death from to many towns to count and to many times to remember, not once until now did he ever claimed any rights of Roman citizenship.

There are several accounts of Paul having received large sums of money for instance, from the church in Damascus in trust that he will deliver this to the church in Jerusalem. There is no such accounts of it ever having been delivered as promised. There is however the sudden appearance of Paul now claiming to be a Roman citizen and from here on out using that Roman citizenship to his full advantage. Although it does look also like he tried to conceal his having purchased his citizenship for at least several years,

1st corinthians 16:1-4 Dated to about 57 AD and before Paul's claim of citizenship
Paul receives a large sum of money to give to the church in Jerusalem

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.
and when was this written

from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fcontrib%2Fexec_out lines%2F1co%2F1co_00.htm&rct=j&q=when+did+Paul+write+1st+corinthians&ei=vVEGS-_MFcW0ngeJntXHCw&usg=AFQjCNFpXSy4Nxly6XJRmK707-Vr35GfCQ&sig2=rYX5ppPyDXPNYEAH-DDupQ
TIME OF WRITING: Probably in the spring of 57 A.D., shortly before
the Jewish feast of Pentecost (16:8), during his third missionary
journey (Ac 19:1-41).(and before his claim of citizenship)

In Romans we have an account of Paul receiving monies from the believers in Damascus to take or accompany to Jerusalem which was written in about 56 AD also before his claim of citizenship
Romans 15:23-29 (New American Standard Bible)


but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you. whenever I go to Spain--for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while--but now, (I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ.acts 11:28-30 thought to be about 57 AD also shortly before Pentecost

One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.Obviously this event in (acts 11:28-30) is back when Barnabas was still willing to hang out with Paul so what we end up with is a Paul who defects in the middle of his mission to bring back dissidents from Damascus and after being taken care of for some time by the Jewish followers of Jesus in Damascus, long enough to gain there confidence, is apparently given traveling money and at some point is trusted with the donations from the church in Damascus to the Church in Jerusalem. Having had abandoned his stated mission and Probably fearing retribution and justifiably so from the High priest back in Jerusalem Paul at some point uses the money intended for the church in Jerusalem to purchase his Roman citizenship and gain the protection it offer's him from summary execution. He has essentially burned all his bridges and alienated himself from pretty much everyone except the these few in Damascus who help him flee the city as the local authorities obviously know he is in town and are searching for him

B

Gerald
11-20-2009, 04:49 AM
So lets see if I have this right?
God got Mary pregnant and she had a son that actually was the person, in the flesh, that got her pregnant. God in the flesh rattled some cages and made a few people mad. Since those folks had power they decided to kill him to shut him up. So God in the flesh goes to heaven and sits at his own right hand. Has to stay there until he puts enough enemies under his feet to release himself from his own right hand. Did I leave anything out?

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 04:54 AM
Rain woke me up!
Wonders never cease!
Nanoose Deb might not like your commentary, but I do.
But beware, or Sam F will get you!
I don't know how Sam F has resisted this thread so far.
Is he sick? Busy? Not interested?
Anybody in touch with Sam?
Don't make me PM Sam!

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 04:57 AM
So lets see if I have this right?
God got Mary pregnant and she had a son that actually was the person, in the flesh, that got her pregnant. God in the flesh rattled some cages and made a few people mad. Since those folks had power they decided to kill him to shut him up. So God in the flesh goes to heaven and sits at his own right hand. Has to stay there until he puts enough enemies under his feet to release himself from his own right hand. Did I leave anything out?

Left out the Holy Ghost!:D:rolleyes:;)

Boston
11-20-2009, 05:57 AM
oh I could have a field day with that one Gerald
mind if I modify that a little

Mary and Joseph had a thing going and just couldnt wait the prescribed one year before marriage
happened a lot among hot young lovers apparently cause they had a term common of pregnancies and births occurring during this traditional year long waiting period

Today it might be called a love child but then it was considered a Virgin birth so as to maintain the righteous nature of the mother during the later ceremony. I've always thought of it as a nice way to handle an honest slip up.

Seems that this particular family was part of a larger extended Royal family exiled from Judea at the time of the Roman invasion and as such had claim to the throne of Judea. Kinda made our boy Jesus a wanted man right off the bat. Kid grew up in a loving environment and had great people skills, also was a bright little bugger and his father, being of no mean parentage, taught him well, obviously giving the boy a great education. Eventually as he grew up he became a spectacular orator and wowed the crowds wherever he went. Didnt go over to well with the Romans as they were having trouble with Judea anyway and last thing they needed was some fool stirring up the masses. Jesus tried to lay low (found a great girl) but eventually let some of his more ardent followers convince him to do a sermon on this little hill out on the edge of town. Bad plan cause the Romans decided it was a subversive speech and that's where all the real running begins. Kid had friends and stayed on the lamb for quite a while but eventually got tired of runnin so his bro made a few arrangements for him to give himself up. Which he did, he got scourged, hung, the Roman guards were bribed to let him down after only a few hours and he was last seen in the company of people dressed as Assenes who also just happen to specialize in medicine, funny what a coincidence eh. Before you know it old Jesus is good as new and after that we dont hear much from him. surprise surprise.

except about 2000 years later when a tomb is found in a garden that just so happens to contain ten ossuaries of a bunch of people who, as chance would have it also just so happen to have the exact names of the immediate family of Jesus which in itself proves nothing. But consideration must be given that there is an average statistical probability of something like 1 in 97,280,000 that the tomb is NOT the tomb of Jesus given the incidence of each names popularity at that time

thing to remember about this little jewel is that everyone is fighting like cats and dogs at this point
no one is agreeing on much of anything
assessments of what was found and what it means are all over the map
my favorite part
this originally aired as a film
that film was only shown once and all subsequent planned airings were canceled
although the film is fully documented and contains no unsupported claims
no station would again air the film
it is now only available on the net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHBQz6GWJAI


Yeshua bar Yehosef, Aramaic for "Jesus son of Joseph"
Maria, written in Aramaic script, but a Latin form of the Hebrew name "Miriam" ("Mary")[8]
Yose, a diminutive of "Joseph" mentioned (in its Greek form ιωσης "Joses") as the name of one of Jesus's brothers in the New Testament (Mark 6:3)
Yehuda bar Yeshua, Possibly Aramaic for "Judah son of Jesus"
Mariamene e Mara. According to the filmmakers this is Greek for "Mary known as the master." The similar name "Mariamne" is found in the Acts of Philip: Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University has suggested based on his study of that work that Mariamene, or Mariamne, was the actual name of Mary Magdalene[8]
Matya, Hebrew for 'Matthew'—not claimed to be Matthew the Evangelist

Glen Longino
11-20-2009, 06:56 AM
I am so happy you showed up here, Boston.
This could be better than a bullfight or rassling if we can just lure Sam F in here.
Some may wonder why I'm awake at 5:30 AM.
I volunteered to make cornbread dressing for indigent Methodists in my little town, rain woke me up, so I decided to get up and make cornbread.
Call me weak and misguided!

Boston
11-20-2009, 08:07 AM
the Amish would have just planted more seed and let the indigent steal the extra crops in the night

Gerald
11-20-2009, 05:30 PM
You mention the Amish. What would you like to know about the Amish? I grew up in a little town that had 200 old order families. My ancestors arrived from Switzerland in that area the same time that the Amish arrived. Were they also Amish, well sure they were. There were four of us in the Amish grade school that were not Amish. The four of us got our asses kicked on almost a daily basis but the 16 year old Amish kids. Thank you Ellen Miller for not letting them kick my seven year old ass along with the others. You might not want to pick a fight with brother Mike cuz he was three years older and didn´t have Ellen´s protection.
However, that is not the subject here. In Sunday school the teacher taught us that Jesus was beside us at all times. Jesus was watching everything. The story about the footprints in the sand and the entire nine yards. So a very young man has the urge to play with his weenie. Can´t cuz Jesus is watching. What a bunch of hog wash to lay on kids. When kids grow up they should get a good Jew lawyer and go after the people that planted that stuff in their little brains. It still happens today and the bible thumpers let it happen. They even think it is OK cuz they lived thru it.

Boston
11-20-2009, 05:41 PM
I am laughing my ass off over here

pefjr
11-20-2009, 08:04 PM
Clic.i.ty,.click..i..ty, click..i ..ty,click..i..ty,click.i..ty, click..ity ..bang bang! click..ity, click..i.ty

Amish "drive by shooting"

Boston
11-20-2009, 11:01 PM
I actually know nothing of the Amish other than I bought a few horses from them a while back. Good horses though, seemed nice enough but drove a hard bargain, Amish that is not the horses. I never really had to deal with them or ever studied them much beyond the basics.

ishmael
11-21-2009, 02:11 AM
When I did stream survey work for the Ohio EPA a lot of our work brought us in contact with Amish folks. We were sort of Scarlet Pimpernels, here there, everywhere. The Amish were nice folks, for the most part. I'd say we encountered about equal resistance to us camping in the fields with the Amish and the "English." "Well sir, we need to go measure your stream." "Now what would you want to do that for?" He he.

John Smith
11-21-2009, 09:52 AM
Fellow Christians, fellow infidels, who was this fellow? I don't know about all the miracle stories and such. They may be true, we don't know what strength is in this frame.

Here's my story and I'm sticken' to it. Jesus was a fellow human who took on his full human potential. Love of fellow, even when sick or obstreperous, was his metier. He's taken on a sort of Rock Hudson with a beard image, but what idiocy. He probably looked more like Anwar Sadat with a beard.

The important things are what he realized: Shun hatred of the other, don't do violence unless it's necessary, make peace and sit down to break bread together. That is the communion that is far out in the field today.

If I had to bet, I'd bet he was just a simple illusionist. What people saw as miracles then would likely be simple parlor tricks today.

John Smith
11-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Wasn’t the guy supposed to be a carpenter?

He should have built the Ark; he'd a done it better and quicker.

John Smith
11-21-2009, 09:55 AM
With a the greatest respect Bob ,you should read a few of the foundation myths of other religions .People will believe damn near anything !
I'd suggest getting a DVD of "Religulous" which goes into this a bit.

Nanoose
11-21-2009, 10:51 AM
Who was Jesus....
Jesus showed that the ways of the world (all based on exerting "power over" others - power through fear) ultimately fail. He demonstrated another way, a better way, based on "power under" - serving, loving....grace, peace. He was the one who announced and brought the kingdom of God.

pefjr
11-21-2009, 11:25 AM
Who was Jesus....
Jesus showed that the ways of the world (all based on exerting "power over" others - power through fear) ultimately fail. He demonstrated another way, a better way, based on "power under" - serving, loving....grace, peace. He was the one who announced and brought the kingdom of God.through crusades?

ishmael
11-21-2009, 11:48 AM
"We are born without eyesight, we are born without sin."

Byrne

John Smith
11-21-2009, 11:57 AM
"We are born without eyesight, we are born without sin."

Byrne

Who, really, defines "sin"?

Nanoose
11-21-2009, 12:03 PM
through crusades?

...and therefore, at any point where those who claim to be his followers exert 'power over' instead of 'power under', they are living by the world's ways of doing things, not God's ways....they are not exhibiting the kingdom of God, they are not living as Jesus lived, nor as he said his followers would live....

John Smith
11-21-2009, 12:07 PM
...and therefore, at any point where those who claim to be his followers exert 'power over' instead of 'power under', they are living by the world's ways of doing things, not God's ways....they are not exhibiting the kingdom of God, they are not living as Jesus lived, nor as he said his followers would live....

Those who committ evil deeds in the name of God are, apparently, allowed to do so with the blessing of God.

It seems to me, that if God were ever to smite anyone, it would be those people.

If he should have control over anyone, it would be his "salesmen", no?

Nanoose
11-21-2009, 12:13 PM
Those who committ evil deeds in the name of God are, apparently, allowed to do so with the blessing of God.

It seems to me, that if God were ever to smite anyone, it would be those people.

If he should have control over anyone, it would be his "salesmen", no?

I do not think that evil is ever done with the blessing of God.

As to the other 2 points, agreed. In fact, Jesus' harshest rebuke was for the religious leaders of his time. They were operating by 'power over'.

Boston
11-21-2009, 12:20 PM
or we could lose the whole power over or under concept and just stick with walking a better path in harmony with our fellows regardless of there walking or not walking our way. It seems that intolerance is the key issue leading to conflict. I say Jesus was all about peace and made it a point to bring that to both Jew and non Jew alike. Its obvious once you leave off the fluff and hype, that it was a love of power and not the power of love that led things like the Theodosian code in XVI.1.2 which made all other religions illegal within the Roman empire. In a nutshell its this concept of power over or under that's led to so much disharmony, rather we should be, and it was taught to us by one of the greatest teachers, walking beside one another, not apart, not in front, or behind, but in peace whether they see things our way or not. One of my main points I'm driving at with exposing Paul for the charlatan he is, is that it is he who spread disharmony among the believers and not Jesus who suggested that we must live in conflict, on the contrary Jesus is suggesting that we are all the sons ( a part ) of God and in doing so made no exception to varying belief systems. There need be no religious distinction between people walking in the spirit so to speak, if that spirit is all a part of the great spirit. The traditions, concepts and ceremonies may be varied, but in the end we are one.

ishmael
11-21-2009, 02:02 PM
"If I had to bet, I'd bet he was just a simple illusionist."

More than once we had to confront a bull in a field. Like I said, we went everywhere. Ohio was conducting a survey of its streams and this crew of recent college graduates were the legs. Each week we'd get a list. We had a couple of state cars and off we'd go. Saw more of Ohio than most who live there. From the dirty dishwater industrial places to the pastoral. Around here somewhere I still have a laminated ID which gives me access to your property if you live in Ohio. But, back to the bulls.

We're standing on our side of the fence contemplating how to attack this one, a bull grazing peacefully with a bunch of cows. The property owner, Amish, steals up behind us and asks, "Whatcha doin?" After introductions he got a grin on his face about the bull."Aw, Elmer won't hurtcha, just don't go waving anything."

It was a great job.

pefjr
11-21-2009, 02:11 PM
...and therefore, at any point where those who claim to be his followers exert 'power over' instead of 'power under', they are living by the world's ways of doing things, not God's ways....they are not exhibiting the kingdom of God, they are not living as Jesus lived, nor as he said his followers would live....by missionaries then?

Boston
11-22-2009, 03:57 PM
was Paul a Pharisee

A) Paul was originally Saul of Tarsus a city of predominantly pagan beliefs and with few Jews, there is no archeological record of any place of Jewish worship or jewish schools in Tarsus.
B) Paul was unable to read or right Hebrew the language of the Jewish scholars
C) Paul claims to be a Pharisee yet the Pharisee’s are unerringly opposed to Roman occupation and still Paul worked for the Sadducee high priest, who was appointed by Herod, in cooperation with the Romans, and opposed to the Pharisee's
D) Paul supports the Roman occupation by assisting the Sadducee priest as an enforcer
E) Paul is favorable to Roman citizenship and after a certain point in the narrative begins to use its advantages regularly
F) Paul’s own writings do not mention ever having been trained by Gamilliel the local school of pharisaic doctrine 

G) Paul at no point before his defection from the employ of the Roman influenced sadducee high priest acted or spoke as a Pharisee
H) Paul’s contemporaries, the Ebonite’s, throughout the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4rth centuries make numerous references to Paul having no Rabbinical training, at which point they are declared heretics


was Paul born a Jew 



A) 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Paul admits that he has “made himself a Jew” contradicting his previous statements of having been born a Jew
B) There is no verifying Paul’s being born a Jew, however there are numerous and consistent claims to the contrary by his contemporaries, for instance the Ebonite’s. 

C) Paul’s inclusion of multiple pagan beliefs and symbols into the Pauline christian religion are a testimony to his Hellenistic background. From the assyrian legend of Inana we have three days dead and then a breaking of the gates of hell and a resurrection, also from the Zoroastrian contemporaries we have the virgin birth. To name just a few
D) Paul most likely came from Tarsus which had so few Jews they left no archeological evidence 

E) Paul claims to have been of the house of Benjamin yet fails at any time to mention his father by name or anything else about his heritage offering the reader no historical context within which the readers of the time could place the claim. This is in sharp contrast to numerous extensive lineage's recorded throughout both the new and old testament typically offered in evidence of heritage claims

F) Paul is at no point previous to his defection from the Roman influenced sadducee high priest ever recorded practicing Judaism in any way and immediately after his defection is run out of nearly every town he visits for speaking against the laws of Judaism. He is at no point in the historical record reported as being a practicing Pharisee or a practicing Jew.


Could Paul have gone to Damascus with letters demanding the arrest of persons there



A) Damascus was Part of the independent Arab country Nabataea in the time of Paul.

B) Damascus was Ruled by an independent Arab King. 

C) The temple high priest was appointed not by the religious leaders of the temple, but by the Roman puppet political figurehead Herod and had little if any authority over domestic and no authority over foreign synagogues.

D) each synagogue had its own court of elders who decided legal maters independently of other synagogues. Requests could be made of one to another but none were subject to demands.

E) Herod Rejected and divorced king Aretas’s of Damascus daughter and it was under his rule that Paul entered the city. Disputes concerning the divorce led to John the Baptists death. It was unlikely there would be cooperation between Herod and Aretas 

F) King of Nabataea at the time of the Roman emporer Titus, Malichus 2 Aretas’s son according to Josephus sent 1000 calvary and 5000 infnatry to assist in destroying the Temple in 70AD, a good example of the relationship between the temple and the kings of Nabataea at the time

G) Paul had to sneak into and out of the city, clearly he was not openly welcome 

F) there were orders to seize Paul given by the king Aretas 




Were Paul teachings in agreement with the beliefs of the Jerusalem church



A) Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem following his first unauthorized missionary tour ( 44~46 AD)results in him being chastised by the church and sent with a letter of apology for his teachings back to Antioch

B) Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem following his second unauthorized missionary tour ( 49~53AD) results in his disciple companions from Jerusalem twice abandoning him because they disagree with his teachings and his failing to practice Judaism 

C) Paul does not return to Jerusalem after this and instead stays in Antioch writing to Galations 

D) In 1st Galations Paul angrily rebukes the teachings of Peter, James and Barnabus for there following the Jewish law which the church in Jerusalem ardently adheres to 

E) Paul’s first visit following his third unauthorized missionary tour to Jerusalem results in his being forced to recant his teachings and undergo a Jewish cleansing ritual not only for himself but also pay for the cleansing of four others with him. 

F) The church of Jerusalem later called the Nazarene and later still called the Ebonite’s in all known historical records of the following 4 centuries report Paul is a false profit. 

G) The Ebonite’s were declared heretics by the Pauline Christian church in about 390 AD
H) the council of Jerusalem clearly defined that followers of Jesus could either be Jews practicing the whole Torah or Gentiles practicing the Noahide laws only, both in accordance with existing Jewish tradition. Paul was sent with a letter of apology to the people of Antioch for having not the training to understand what exactly Jesus had taught and for upsetting the faithful Jews there. 



was Paul a Roman citizen

A) Paul was born in Tarsus and would not have been granted full citizenship based on his birthplace but instead he would have been considered a provincial and held to the limitations and legal strictures of the Latin Right 

B) Paul claims his father was also a Jew/Pharisee and a Roman citizen, This would imply that his father was a person of some standing, yet there is strangely no mention of his father beyond this claim and there is the simple fact that Paul came to Jerusalem and ended up in a simple informant/enforcers position working under the counsel priest, a lowly position about one step above alter boy, for a Sadducee who was cooperating with Roman occupation persecuting Jews. Hardly a family tradition of Rabbinical principal nor in keeping with Pharisaic principals of the time.
C) Paul’s conversation with the Roman guard as reported in acts fly’s in the face of logic. Service guarantees citizenship, thus it was not necessary for the guard to have purchased his citizenship, in doing so he would have paid a kings ransom for his citizenship and then given up most of those rights by joining the military service ( for 25 years I might add ) only to then receive those rights for free once he completed his service whether he had previously been a citizen or not. clearly it was Paul who had purchased his citizenship and an error of Luke ( author ) in recording events of 40+ years earlier.
D) Paul was beaten numerous times without any pretense to his being Roman until the events described in acts after the third missionary journey. A situation of serious legal import for the persons doing the beating and not one taken lightly, Rome defended its few citizens in the provinces with a vengeance . Had Paul been a citizen previous to his return from Damascus he could not have been summarily beaten as is reported multiple times.
E) Paul’s own writings contain no claim of citizenship 
prior to the events of acts and after his third missionary journey
F) Paul’s contemporaries the Ebonite’s make numerous references throughout the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4rth centuries of Paul being Greek ( the Ebonite’s, church of Jerusalem, the true disciples of Jesus, become the first declared heretics of the Pauline christian church in approximately 390 AD for there insistence that Paul was a false prophet and subverted the message of the Messiah. Declared heretics by the Temple Pharisees for there insistence in Jesus as the Messiah in 135 AD )




Where did Paul get the money to buy his Roman citizenship 



A) Paul came to Jerusalem and got a job as a low level informer/enforcer suggesting he was not of particularly great wealth and not being supported by his family. 

B)At no point previous to his claim of citizenship is he reported to be a person of any great means
C) After his defection from the Roman influenced sadducee high priest and after being abandoned again by the apostles who accompanied him Paul apparently now destitute got a job in Corinth as a leather worker/tentmaker ( this is the only reference to paul having had this skill )

D) at no point is Paul ever said to possess any great wealth 

E) History records the amount of money required to buy Roman citizenship as typically being between 250,000 and 1,000,000 gold Roman cestercies, a huge amount of money at the time.

F) at least three times between 56 and 57 AD Paul is entrusted with large sums of money to be delivered back to the mother church in Jerusalem and all immediately before his first claims of citizenship 





all references may be found in my previous posts
Paul was the churches first charlatan who

1) never met Jesus

2) lied about being born a Jew 

3) lied about ever having been a Pharisee 

4) lied about why he went to Damascus

5) lied about being a Roman citizen 

6) did not practice or teach what the disciples of Jesus practiced and taught 

7) was consistently opposed, censured and on numerous occasions abandoned by the apostles

8) stole the money to buy his citizenship from donations intended for the church in Jerusalem 





B

pefjr
11-24-2009, 04:46 PM
was Paul a Pharisee


all references may be found in my previous posts
Paul was the churches first charlatan who

1) never met Jesus

2) lied about being born a Jew 

3) lied about ever having been a Pharisee 

4) lied about why he went to Damascus

5) lied about being a Roman citizen 

6) did not practice or teach what the disciples of Jesus practiced and taught 

7) was consistently opposed, censured and on numerous occasions abandoned by the apostles

8) stole the money to buy his citizenship from donations intended for the church in Jerusalem 





BSounds like a flim-flam man. :D

Boston
12-04-2009, 09:49 PM
If Paul were alive today he would have gone the way of Jim and Tammy-Fe Baker in a split second

nothing wrong with the Golden Rule and not sayin there aren't many beautiful teachings of the original church or that the Pauline christians have nothing to offer, they do and clearly almost every religion has its good point and its bad points. Its just that Paul sticks out like a sore thumb in the annals of church charlatans and its important to watch out for it in all ages and not just our own. I figure following the honest rather than the dishonest makes for an easier path to righteousness. I think, I got a long walk ahead of me ;)

Mrleft8
12-04-2009, 10:06 PM
He looked a lot like Bruce Hooke.

Bobby of Tulsa
12-05-2009, 04:29 PM
To Abraham he was Melchisedec, King of Salem; to Jacob he was Shiloh; to John the Baptist he was the Lamb of God; to Saint John he was the Word. Revelation 1:11 states he is the Alpha and Omega. I call him Lord.

Boat Nube
12-05-2009, 09:58 PM
Here is my favorite quote from C. S. Lewis:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God."
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldnot be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is,the Son of God,: or else a madman or something worse .... You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
-- From Case for Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.

John Smith
12-05-2009, 10:31 PM
Fellow Christians, fellow infidels, who was this fellow? I don't know about all the miracle stories and such. They may be true, we don't know what strength is in this frame.

Here's my story and I'm sticken' to it. Jesus was a fellow human who took on his full human potential. Love of fellow, even when sick or obstreperous, was his metier. He's taken on a sort of Rock Hudson with a beard image, but what idiocy. He probably looked more like Anwar Sadat with a beard.

The important things are what he realized: Shun hatred of the other, don't do violence unless it's necessary, make peace and sit down to break bread together. That is the communion that is far out in the field today.

Personally, I believe he was a scam. An early illusionist/magician. What were "miracles" then are simple parlor tricks today.

That would certainly explain a lot.

Boston
12-05-2009, 10:33 PM
Jesus was no scam but instead a genuine and respected teacher who has made a lasting impact on humanity

The Early church, The Disciples that he taught personally, The Church of Jeruselam, Later called the Nazarene later still the Ebonite's, all are consistently being reported to have not claimed Jesus as a divine being, nor of his ever claiming to be so, nor of his ever advocating abandoning Judaism, nor did he express any desire of beginning a new religion. All are constructs of Pauline Christianity a man who never even met Jesus and who was consistently corrected and eventually rejected by the early church.

to each his own but the history is consistent on this issue

cheers
B

Boat Nube
12-06-2009, 08:50 AM
"all are consistently being reported to have not claimed Jesus as a divine being, nor of his ever claiming to be so, nor of his ever advocating abandoning Judaism, nor did he express any desire of beginning a new religion.

cheers
B

I'm curious as to where you are seeing this "consistent" report coming from.

John Smith
12-06-2009, 10:12 AM
I'm curious as to where you are seeing this "consistent" report coming from.
Me too.

Must be Fox News.;)

pefjr
12-06-2009, 10:15 AM
I'm curious as to where you are seeing this "consistent" report coming from.You haven't read this thread have you?

Boston
12-06-2009, 12:07 PM
Ya I think if you were to take the time and read through you might just find your answer. There are numerous references to the early church's beliefs later being held as heretical by the Pauline Christians noted in the many previous pages; its not something generally debated as its pretty well documented. Even the Jewish temple community allowed the Ebonite's to worship at temple until something like 135 AD which would certainly not have been allowed if there patron Rabi Jesus had advocated abandoning Judaism or had made declarations of his own divinity. Jesus no more advocated Jews suddenly stop practicing than he did non-Jews suddenly start.

cheers and hoping all is well
B

Bobby of Tulsa
12-06-2009, 02:27 PM
Personally, I believe he was a scam. An early illusionist/magician. What were "miracles" then are simple parlor tricks today.

That would certainly explain a lot. Ya, that calling Lazarus out thing. I see so many doing that today. :)

ishmael
12-06-2009, 04:17 PM
Jesus, Paul, Lazarus aside, this talk of stream research got me remembering. Twice that summer we got called to do "time of travel" studies. TOT. It meant staying alert for a whole day. You injected a dye, and then waited downstream to pick it up with your meters. It seemed to typically arrive at two AM.

I seriously doubt any of that data went anywhere important.