Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[double helix]

Our book was written by Christians for Christians
Those for whom it was written did not have any problem with its
content. This book did not fall from the sky to make convert among
atheists. It was written by believers for believers. We understand why
you guys missed all the points and issues debated in it

I'm sorry, while wading through this nonsense I just had to interject.
The Old Testament of the Bible was taken from the Torah, which was written by the Jews, which is what the people of Jehovah were before Christ came along. Read your history books, literally, for Christs sake. After Jesus came along, Christianity took hold, which was a following of formerly Jewish peoples who believed in the message the Christ brought to Judaism.
Sorry, I cannot stand to see people who profess to know what they are talking about make themselves look so stupid repeatedly simply because they have been brainwashed into believing what their (Church) preaches.
You want to wear blinders and have blind faith in your church elders/leaders, whatever, thats a problem. As you get older you will understand, nothing in that book is based on a true God, but an imagined God that people were taught to fear in order to control the populace. We are not in those ancient times now, we know many many things we didn't know then...so..wake up and smell the coffee. Your a collection of molecules that have their origins in the explosion that created your universe, and when you die you become molecules once again. Nothing more occurs. Nothing more can. Science.

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 21 February 2007 7:56
pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>>
>> I gave a link to this several months ago. The author belongs
>> to one of two entire schools of biblical scholars in the last 70
>> years that have decided on late dates and in fact the non-
>> existence of a real individual named Paul. If you had followed
>> that link you would have seen a verse by verse explanation
>> for the reasons each epistle was deemed to be late. < CLIP >
>
> I believe I looked this site up when you first posted it. This site
> gave
> links to several other sites on the topic. If I recall the site said
> something about the theory being accepted by only a few scholars. So
> after
> 70 years, they have not been able to convince many people. Yet here
> you are promoting it like a fundamentalist preacher.
>
> There are other ideas, and other theories. Don't assume that people
> are
> stupid just because they disagree with you. Meanwhile, I'm not going
> to
> waste my time studying an offbeat theory. If you want to make
> arguments for it, you can, and I will read them.
>

You lie. You never read the site for which I provided a link. The site
gave verse by verse breakdown as evidence. The other links were to
complete dissertations from which he quoted so the reader could see if
what he said was out of context. So what is a "few scholars"? The
forty or fifty he mentioned in his paper. [You do know that the
website was a paper (expanded to a book) that had been submitted to
peer review, do you not?] Or is a "few scholars" the 100 to 200
scholars in the two schools he mentioned?

Can you rebut anything Hermann-Detering said in his dissertation? Can
you provide a rebuttal from ANY scholar who might disagree with him?

Just be honest and admit you are out of your league in dealing with the
subject matter and cannot understand the arguments.

> --Wax
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On the website the author a very prominent biblical
>> scholar also gave numerous footnotes on other independent (of the 2
>> schools) scholars who supported what he said about the verses.
>>
>> Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles
>> that supports any date, most especially an early date for their
>> composition. There is one phrase (one part of a sentence) in the
>> whole of Paul's
>> epistles that gives any approximation for a time period. That phrase
>> is charitably called an interpolation by most biblical scholars or
>> labeled as an outright lie on Paul's part by the less charitable.
>> Remember Paul calls himself a liar and hypocrite in his own epistles.
>>
>>>> The human Jesus was invented later.
>>>> The character Paul heard nothing of Jesus.
>>>
>>> There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus
>>> Christ our Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.
>>>
>>
>> Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or
>> actually dishonest) translations into your native language which I
>> assume is
>> English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of
>> the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the"
>> as
>> in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception
>> to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.
>>
>> Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and
>> Joshua for the OT one? You are being dishonest. Either they are
>> both
>> Jesus or both Joshua. The name was picked intentionally and
>> Christians are being horrifically dishonest by giving their god-man a
>> special
>> name. The spelling of the name is identical in both the NT and OT.
>> It was purposely meant to obfuscate by giving their hero a John Doe
>> name (an everyman, if you will).
>>
>> Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human. His theology
>> and "good news" revolves around a spiritual event which takes place
>> in the 7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens, and one that demons can
>> interact
>> between it and the material world. Big hint are Paul's explanation
>> of who crucified the oiled Joshua -- he names classes/divisions of
>> angels (mostly demons in his story) but falsely translated to hide
>> the fact
>> from the reader in common translations. If you were more familiar
>> with the Greek and could read the NT pseudepigrapha would would see
>> this
>> plainly. Paul mentions many divisions of angels and there are books
>> which explain the relationship and duties of these various division
>> as understood at the time of Paul's writing in the second century.
>>
>>>> Why is it so difficult for you
>>>> to understand the plain words the scribes
>>>> made Paul utter about hearing
>>>> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?
>>>
>>> Which words are they?
>>
>> These, for instance: apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi hina
>> euaggelizomai auton en tois ethnesin eutheos oo prosanethemen sarki
>> kai haimati oude anelthon eis hierosoluma pros tous pro emou
>> apostolous all anelthon eis arabian kai palin hupestrepsa eis
>> damoskon
>>
>> and these are part of the equation: to de dunameno humas sterezai
>> kata to euaggelion mou kai to kerugma iesou christou kata apokalupsin
>> musteriou chronois aionios sesigemenou phanerothentos de nun dia te
>> graphon prophetikon kai epitagen tou aioniou theou eis hupakoen
>> pisteos eis panta ta ethne gnoristhentos
>>
>> which is further reinforced by these words from Paul: kauchasthai de
>> oo sumpherei moi eleusomai gar eis optasias kai apokalupseis kuriou
>>
>> And lest we forget: oude gar ego para anthropou parelebon auto oute
>> edidachthen alla di apokalupseos iusou christou
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorcery
>> http://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:17:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>>> Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your
>>>> rationalisations.
>>>No .. its there is the epistles .. I'm not inventing things to back up my
>>>explanation. I am drawing plausible conclusions from what is said.
>> And where do they back up the reasons you rationalised?

The trouble is that they aren't conclusions. They are non sequiturs
that pluck information out of thin air.

>I've explained already what the epistles say that would back up my proposed
>explanation of there being nothing of Jesus life in Paul's epistles. he
>claimed in those epistles that what he taught came directly to him from his
>vision. He started preaching those teaching before he had met with any
>other apostles. So anything he had to say related to those teachings would
>not require information about Jesus life .. his teaching were only concerned
>with Jesus death and resurrection.

You're changing your story.

And`still rationalising instead of demonstrating.

>Its really not all the hard to follow.

There would be something to follow if you actually backed up your
rationalisations.

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:24:21 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12toefslkavr85b@corp.supernews.com>
>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:t68ot2todns0p83tqm3dvq8ju1tup8hoeh@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:26:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>> Why can't you learn to attribute your posts properly?
>
>I have taken your advise and are doing so now. I can learn (and do my best
>to do so). But I may slip up on occasion my accident

Thank you sir.
That is much imporved.

--

 

[Jeckyl]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:5448moF1ttqv8U1@mid.individual.net...
> Well if I were looking for something I wrote in the last 6 months on
> alt.atheism I would go to Google groups advanced choose alt.atheism for
> newsgroup, darrell stec as author, a date range during the 6 to 12
> months, and keywords such as: paul, 2nd century, dating, epistles and
> would end up with 5 articles with at least one with a link.

I'll have a look later on today. Thanks

> the scholars name in my post should hit you square in the face.

Perhaps it will, when I find it

> The trouble
> is that if one subsequently took the time to read a vast majority of
> those websites, one does not find any specific scholars named.

It does in the links I posted

> Everybody is copying everybody else.

That's how much research is done .. citing other peoples reasarch to help
support ones own propositions.

Of course, the other reason why they are all claimng the same data ranges
(and only a few are not) could be that the majority is acutally correct.

> You don't have the basic equipment to even start to evaluate the
> arguments.

I don't have access to the texts in the original languages and cannot read
them if i did .. if that's what you mean.

> In the case of the bard, you have another sense with which to
> distinguish the difference. Can you smell the difference between
> Joshuas of the NT and OT?

You misinterpret the meaning. He is saying no matter what the name is, it
is the thing being named that is important .. the name is not. Arguing over
whether the name should be written in English as Joshua or Jesus is of
little consequence.

> You are being dishonest because you are quoting dishonest translators.

Do you have any honest ones I can refer to then?

> I just wrote a post that shows the Greek passages. He definitely states
> he is not talking about a human being.
....
> Read those epistles again. He does not call Joshua the oiled one a man.
> In fact explicity states he is talking about a spiritual being in one
> of the epistles.

Which particular verse are they?. Do you have a translation (other than
your own) that I can refer to that is correct (as you say all the ones i am
refering to are dishonest)

>> He makes little reference that I remember reading about
>> who crucified him.
> Your lack of reading or understanding the bible is not my problem.

No .. but you can assist in correcting me if you can point out where it is
acutally mentioned. As you seem to know where that is it would be much
easier than for me to go through what you describe as dishonest translations
to find it.

> As a start try The Other Bible edited by Willis Barnstone and The New
> Testament Pseudepigrapha edited by James Charlesworth, Then learn
> Greek. Follow that by an Internet search for the Greek manuscripts
> mentioned in the two books I mentioned. Note the Greek for the various
> divisions of angels (or demons). Follow that by a search for those
> same words in the Greek versions of Paul's epistles and the gospels.
> You will then have arrived at a basic understanding of the topic. Or
> you could do a Google search on alt.atheism for the detailed post I
> wrote on the subject with the Greek and other links to substantiate
> what I wrote in that article. One little hint: rulers and powers is a
> totally misleading translation into English.

Ill see what I can find .. Thanks.

>> Aha .. so you are talking about Pual's claim that his initial
>> knowledge was
>> from the his vision of Jesus. But he then goes on to say he later met
>> Peter and James.
> And where do you see that he changed his theology after meeting them?

I didn't say he did. He seemed quite proud of the fact that he got his
theology directly from God .. he didn't need anything else.

> That is completely wrong. His christos was not a man. He makes that
> very plain. He was not killed on earth. That too he made very plain.

Not in the bible translations I have access to. Unless I've missed
something. That's why some citations of verses where this appears would be
useful. The information you give above may help me find that. Thanks
again.

> And Paul knew nothing, absolutely nothing about the gospel stories of
> an earthly Joshua.

We do not know that .. that is supposition based on what he didn't say.
Paul appears a very arrogant character who thought himself better than other
apostles because of his divine vision. The only thing he needed to validate
what he said was that God directly gave him the information.

> Incidentally some of the early church fathers claim Paul
> was from Galilee not Tarsus. Yet none of the gospels
> makes mention of any Paul.

Some of the early church fathers could have been wrong then

> And Paul does not mention a single fact found in the gospels.

They weren't written when he was preaching. Does he mention anything that
contradicts what is in the gospels? Are the two inconsistent?

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ksrpt2p7te6dn35fpf9n3lpp7o5ams2gtr@4ax.com...
> There would be something to follow if you actually backed up your
> rationalisations.

I already have. If you can't follow them, then that is your problem, not
mine.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:firpt2to3srtfqlbtvgpn8qge7jh1q79q3@4ax.com...
> Thankyou for placing an attribution.
> It makes things a lot easier.

You're welcome.

> This is most definitely NOT evidence of any sort.
> If you accept that as "evidence", then I am able to provide you
> numerous written accounts attesting to the reality of Sherlock Holmes.

I was not using evidence in the sense of what counts as historical evidence.
Maybe a poor choice of working on my part. They are (some of) the
references I used when I repeated the claims made by others regarding dating
(which do seem to be the accepted datings).

The best we can do is give some earliest and latest possible dates.

> All the extant contemporary evidence available to date supports and
> enhance my proposition, yet denies yours.

Where is that evidence .. can you please provide links to it?

> The field is rife with fraudulent documents, fraudulent attributions,
> and you have been taken in by them.

Can't argue with that

>>I would definitely be interested in reading why they are corect and what
>>appear to be the generally accepted dates are incorrect.
> Then please do so.

Then please show me so I can. or are you just making this up to sound as
though you are knowledgable?

So far you talk a lot and make grand claims and have not provided any
evidence for what you are claiming.

> Many bible scholars, (most of them devout Christians), shudder when
> they have to explain that these G.A.D.s are fantastic.
> Talk to a professional bibical historian.
> Read a few books on the subject.
> Prof. Robert Oden (pron "oh-deen") has some excellent publications on
> the matter.

Ok .. that's a step in the right direction .. I'll see what I can find.
Thanks

>>> You have the original copies, do you?
>>Do you have original copies that show otherwise?
> Do you have any original documents from Dr. Watson to show that
> Sherlock Holmes is not real?
> Any original documents from Dumbledore to prove that Harry Potter does
> not exist?
> Do you realise how desperate you sound?

Do you know how silly you sound?

> Honestly mate, it is the VERY LACK of evidence where one would expect
> to find it by the tonne, that supports my proposition, and demolishes
> yours!

>>Could you please explain what it is you are really trying to say in
>>slightly
>>more verbose form than 'Exactly!!'
> No.

I didn't think you could.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:ksrpt2p7te6dn35fpf9n3lpp7o5ams2gtr@4ax.com...
>> There would be something to follow if you actually backed up your
>> rationalisations.
>
>I already have. If you can't follow them, then that is your problem, not
>mine.

You can't follow them yourself. Otherwise there would be no
non-sequiturs.

Like the "reasons" you gave for Paul not talking about the Jesus of
the gospels. These were rationalisations, that's all.

Like your claim that "At the very least he [Paul] dramatically changed
the emphasis on Jesus from being an earthly man into be a spiritual
being." which had no justification at all.

Like your claim that "He says little about Jesus as a person because
it was not relevant to what he was teaching." Which you "justified" by
reference to your own rationalisations.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8hvpt2tclirnmdp6e1r1anjtotmimgteb3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>> There would be something to follow if you actually backed up your
>>> rationalisations.
>>
>>I already have. If you can't follow them, then that is your problem, not
>>mine.
> You can't follow them yourself. Otherwise there would be no
> non-sequiturs.

I've given my explanation of what appears a plausible reason for why Paul
did not mention Jesus, an based it on what is said in his epistles and in
acts. unless you have something that show it not to be plausible, then
there is nothing much else for you to say.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:30:28 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:8hvpt2tclirnmdp6e1r1anjtotmimgteb3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> There would be something to follow if you actually backed up your
>>>> rationalisations.
>>>
>>>I already have. If you can't follow them, then that is your problem, not
>>>mine.
>> You can't follow them yourself. Otherwise there would be no
>> non-sequiturs.
>
>I've given my explanation of what appears a plausible reason for why Paul
>did not mention Jesus, an based it on what is said in his epistles and in
>acts. unless you have something that show it not to be plausible, then
>there is nothing much else for you to say.

Where "plausible" equals "rationalisation in the absence of evidence".

And of course your dishonest unmarked snip of your non sequiturs:

Like the "reasons" you gave for Paul not talking about the Jesus of
the gospels. These were rationalisations, that's all.

Like your claim that "At the very least he [Paul] dramatically changed
the emphasis on Jesus from being an earthly man into be a spiritual
being." which had no justification at all.

Like your claim that "He says little about Jesus as a person because
it was not relevant to what he was teaching." Which you "justified" by
reference to your own rationalisations.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ru3qt21etkuc11p3vgj7au4ovjk4of5djb@4ax.com...
>>I've given my explanation of what appears a plausible reason for why Paul
>>did not mention Jesus, an based it on what is said in his epistles and in
>>acts. unless you have something that show it not to be plausible, then
>>there is nothing much else for you to say.
> Where "plausible" equals "rationalisation in the absence of evidence".

As I said .. there is nothing else for you to say .. and you kept on saying
the same nothing..

 

[weatherwax]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote


> You lie. You never read the site for which I provided a link.
> The site gave verse by verse breakdown as evidence. The other
> links were to complete dissertations from which he quoted so
> the reader could see if what he said was out of context.
> So what is a "few scholars"? The forty or fifty he mentioned in
> his paper. [You do know that the website was a paper
> (expanded to a book) that had been submitted to peer review,
> do you not?] Or is a "few scholars" the 100 to 200
> scholars in the two schools he mentioned?

The site I came to consisted of only one page. It referred to an article
which appeared in a Journal which I have never heard of. I didn't bother to
go to the article.

I've have books on the Bible which cites literally hundreds of authorities.
Citations are used to obtain corroberation on certain points. It does not
mean that the other scholar agrees with the conclusion.

> Can you rebut anything Hermann-Detering said in his dissertation?
> Can you provide a rebuttal from ANY scholar who might disagree
> with him?

I wouldn't waste my time on an idea wish appearantly has no merit. If you
can give me something then I will respond, but I'm not going to do your work
for you.

> Just be honest and admit you are out of your league in dealing
> with the subject matter and cannot understand the arguments.

What degrees do you have which makes you a qualified biblical scholar?

--Wax

 

[Bible Believer]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:28:12 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:


>"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:i8jpt2lc5qcth7gapa0covc9kfqtrnjpmh@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:37:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>>>>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not
>>>>>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no
>>>>>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).
>>>> Galatians 1:1-2:10
>>>Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not
>>>said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting
>>>what I said or disagreeing with it?
>>
>> If you would have bothered to read it, you would see
>> what Paul said and his statement completely disagrees
>> with yours. But what do you care about truth?
>
>I did .. it seems to be totally agreeing with what I said.

Only if you can't read.


>The Paul had no first-hand knowledge of Jesus .. his teachings were based on
>his vision.

Not according to what he said. The resurrected Jesus appeared
more than once to him.


>Paul makes no claim that he has no knowledge of Jesus at all, and that he
>had never spoken to any may about it.

That is not even close to true.


>He is talking about the story he was
>preaching of Jesus being cruscified, raised and being son of God

He said, "the Gospel". And he is talking about what
he preached to that church, which was a lot more
than, "Jesus died and rose", as the entire letters shows.

Condensed...

Galatians 1:1,11-12,15-19-2:2,6,7,9-10

1:1) Paul, an apostle (NOT FROM MEN NOT THROUGH MAN,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who
raised Him from the dead),
1:11) But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached by me IS NOT ACCORDING TO MAN.
1:12) For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS
I TAUGHT IT, BUT IT CAME THROUGH THE REVELATION
OF JESUS CHRIST.
1:15) But when it pleased God, who separated me from
my mother

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:46:43 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:ru3qt21etkuc11p3vgj7au4ovjk4of5djb@4ax.com...
>>>I've given my explanation of what appears a plausible reason for why Paul
>>>did not mention Jesus, an based it on what is said in his epistles and in
>>>acts. unless you have something that show it not to be plausible, then
>>>there is nothing much else for you to say.
>> Where "plausible" equals "rationalisation in the absence of evidence".
>
>As I said .. there is nothing else for you to say .. and you kept on saying
>the same nothing..

Again, the dishonest unmarked snip of your own non-sequiturs. Why
don't you admit you cannot back them up?

Like your claim that "At the very least he [Paul] dramatically changed
the emphasis on Jesus from being an earthly man into be a spiritual
being." which had no justification at all.

If he had done this should be easy. All you have to do is show that
the gospels were written before the epistles, and that he knew the
gospels.

Like your claim that "He says little about Jesus as a person because
it was not relevant to what he was teaching." Which you "justified" by
reference to your own rationalisations.

If this were true it should be easy. All you have to do is show that
he knew what was in the gospels in spite of showing no knowledge of
them.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:70rqt2l3kauhvshj2egalmack31vuqsi0u@4ax.com...
> Again, the dishonest unmarked snip of your own non-sequiturs.

I am not dishonest at all. If I choose to snip content I am not addressint
to shorten my post, that's my affair and has nothing to do with honesty.
What I've written is already there, quoting it over and over is unnecessary.

> Like your claim that "At the very least he [Paul] dramatically changed
> the emphasis on Jesus from being an earthly man into be a spiritual
> being." which had no justification at all.
>
> If he had done this should be easy. All you have to do is show that
> the gospels were written before the epistles, and that he knew the
> gospels.

The order of writing of the Gospels vs the epistles is irrelevant to what I
was proposing.

There is no need to show that the gospels were written before the epistles
... I accepts that they weren't, have have not claimed they were.

I am saying that Paul was not teaching the same things that Jesus himself
was teaching. Pauls teachings had a different emphasis (on a crucified and
risen son of god that would save us from our sins etc). I'm sure you would
agree that was Jesus was teaching is not the same as what Paul was. Jesus
life, and what he said, were not important to what Paul was teaching. (That
is all assuming one even believes that Jesus existed and Paul existed and
Jesus was saying the things the Gospels later describe).

> Like your claim that "He says little about Jesus as a person because
> it was not relevant to what he was teaching." Which you "justified" by
> reference to your own rationalisations.
>
> If this were true it should be easy. All you have to do is show that
> he knew what was in the gospels in spite of showing no knowledge of
> them.

Paul's knowing what was in the Gospels (or not) is irrelevant to what I was
proposing.

(Again assuming Paul and Jesus existed) Paul says little about Jesus because
he did not know him personally. There is no evidence that they ever met.
He almost certainly had heard of Jesus as a result of his persecution of
those Jesus followers. Paul was claiming his 'apostle' status on the basis
of vision(s) of Jesus and what was revealed to him. Those teaching did not
need any details of Jesus life or what he taught to support them, as they
were given to him directly from the vision and that was all the authority
they needed. It is certainly possible the, in his later meetings with other
apostles, he may have heard more of Jesus life. But that would not have
meant he would change his teaching to incorporate that; he was quite
boastful that he had not learned what he taught from other men.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:45:06 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:70rqt2l3kauhvshj2egalmack31vuqsi0u@4ax.com...
>> Again, the dishonest unmarked snip of your own non-sequiturs.
>
>I am not dishonest at all. If I choose to snip content I am not addressint
>to shorten my post, that's my affair and has nothing to do with honesty.
>What I've written is already there, quoting it over and over is unnecessary.

Yes you are. You snipped the point of the post.

>> Like your claim that "At the very least he [Paul] dramatically changed
>> the emphasis on Jesus from being an earthly man into be a spiritual
>> being." which had no justification at all.
>>
>> If he had done this should be easy. All you have to do is show that
>> the gospels were written before the epistles, and that he knew the
>> gospels.
>
>The order of writing of the Gospels vs the epistles is irrelevant to what I
>was proposing.

What do you think "he changed the emphasis on Jesus from being an
earthly man to be a spiritual being" means?

Which you still have to demonstrate.

>There is no need to show that the gospels were written before the epistles
>.. I accepts that they weren't, have have not claimed they were.

Then where do you get "he changed the emphasis on Jesus from being an
earthly man to be a spiritual being" from?

This is what needs supporting. And I doubt you can because itis
baseless.

>I am saying that Paul was not teaching the same things that Jesus himself
>was teaching. Pauls teachings had a different emphasis (on a crucified and
>risen son of god that would save us from our sins etc). I'm sure you would
>agree that was Jesus was teaching is not the same as what Paul was. Jesus
>life, and what he said, were not important to what Paul was teaching. (That
>is all assuming one even believes that Jesus existed and Paul existed and
>Jesus was saying the things the Gospels later describe).

Demonstrate that Jesus taught anything. All you have to go on for
this, are the gospels.

>> Like your claim that "He says little about Jesus as a person because
>> it was not relevant to what he was teaching." Which you "justified" by
>> reference to your own rationalisations.
>>
>> If this were true it should be easy. All you have to do is show that
>> he knew what was in the gospels in spite of showing no knowledge of
>> them.
>
>Paul's knowing what was in the Gospels (or not) is irrelevant to what I was
>proposing.

Then where did you get "he says little about Jesus because it is
irrelevant to what he was teaching" from?

>(Again assuming Paul and Jesus existed) Paul says little about Jesus because
>he did not know him personally. There is no evidence that they ever met.
>He almost certainly had heard of Jesus as a result of his persecution of
>those Jesus followers. Paul was claiming his 'apostle' status on the basis
>of vision(s) of Jesus and what was revealed to him. Those teaching did not
>need any details of Jesus life or what he taught to support them, as they
>were given to him directly from the vision and that was all the authority
>they needed. It is certainly possible the, in his later meetings with other
>apostles, he may have heard more of Jesus life. But that would not have
>meant he would change his teaching to incorporate that; he was quite
>boastful that he had not learned what he taught from other men.

Where do you get "he changed the emphasis on Jesus from being an
earthly man to be a spiritual being" from?

Demonstrate that he had something to change.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v7vqt2ti177ufk28dilqeob42rtkmmenng@4ax.com...
> Yes you are. You snipped the point of the post.

Whatever. You have no basis for making accusations about my honest.

>>The order of writing of the Gospels vs the epistles is irrelevant to what
>>I
>>was proposing.
> What do you think "he changed the emphasis on Jesus from being an
> earthly man to be a spiritual being" means?

It doesn't mean anything about the order or writing forthe Gospels or the
epistels. That is just sometihng you are incorrectlyreading into it
somehow.

It means exactly what I said. Pauls teachings were not about Jesus as an
earthly man. He preached about a risen Christ .. not about the man. He was
not interested in what Jesus said as a man, that was not important.

> Demonstrate that Jesus taught anything.

I don't need to 'proof' anything. Its in the gospels.

> All you have to go on for this, are the gospels.

And that is a problem because?

>>Paul's knowing what was in the Gospels (or not) is irrelevant to what I
>>was
>>proposing.
> Then where did you get "he says little about Jesus because it is
> irrelevant to what he was teaching" from?

Because it was irrelevant to what he was teaching. Paul was able to teach
what he wanted without any reference to what the human Jesus said and did.
It didn't make any difference to Paul's message.

> Demonstrate that he had something to change.

It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,
because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being
crucified and raised again.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:40:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:v7vqt2ti177ufk28dilqeob42rtkmmenng@4ax.com...
>> Yes you are. You snipped the point of the post.
>
>Whatever. You have no basis for making accusations about my honest.
>
>>>The order of writing of the Gospels vs the epistles is irrelevant to what
>>>I
>>>was proposing.
>> What do you think "he changed the emphasis on Jesus from being an
>> earthly man to be a spiritual being" means?
>
>It doesn't mean anything about the order or writing forthe Gospels or the
>epistels. That is just sometihng you are incorrectlyreading into it
>somehow.

It means you have some source of knowledge denied to the rest of us,
that tells us what no historical documents mention.

>It means exactly what I said. Pauls teachings were not about Jesus as an
>earthly man. He preached about a risen Christ .. not about the man. He was
>not interested in what Jesus said as a man, that was not important.

I'll remind you that you said he changed the emphasis, without any
justification. Without demonstrating that there was anything to
change.

We know that you believe in an historical Jesus, because you've told
us.

But you only offered rationalisation for this, not evidence.

Here you are again presuming that there was an historical Jesus, and
that Paul knew about him in order to change the emphasis.

>> Demonstrate that Jesus taught anything.
>
>I don't need to 'proof' anything. Its in the gospels.

Which you know are worthless as evidence for anything without the
corroboration neither you nor anybody else ever provide.

Books which describe things that don't happen, that describe legends
about earlier heroes retold about Jesus, that get basic facts wrong.

>> All you have to go on for this, are the gospels.
>
>And that is a problem because?

Without the corroboration neither you nor anybody else ever provide
they are worthless as a source of evidence.

>>>Paul's knowing what was in the Gospels (or not) is irrelevant to what I
>>>was
>>>proposing.
>> Then where did you get "he says little about Jesus because it is
>> irrelevant to what he was teaching" from?
>
>Because it was irrelevant to what he was teaching. Paul was able to teach
>what he wanted without any reference to what the human Jesus said and did.
>It didn't make any difference to Paul's message.

Yet you said that he changed the emphasis. Which implies there was
something to change.

Which you haven't yet demonstrated, because the gospels are not a
reliable source.

>> Demonstrate that he had something to change.
>
>It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,
>because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being
>crucified and raised again.

You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem
is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world
outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is
Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an
historical Jesus.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com...
>>It doesn't mean anything about the order or writing forthe Gospels or the
>>epistels. That is just sometihng you are incorrectlyreading into it
>>somehow.
> It means you have some source of knowledge denied to the rest of us,
> that tells us what no historical documents mention.

You have a theory with no suporting evidence that is inconsistent with the
gospels.
I offered an alternative theory, also with no supporting evidence, but that
IS consistent with the gospels.
You dismiss my theory simply because it contradicts your theory and demand
proof of mine while not supplying proof of your theory (that you use to
discredit my alternative).

 

[Michael Gray]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:51:45 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7tart2litl6d8rpe1ub7g3plej96akqr1v@4ax.com>
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:40:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
>wrote:

:

>>It was a change in emphasis from what Jesus and his followers were teaching,
>>because it did not involve what Jesus said etc, but only about Jesus being
>>crucified and raised again.
>
>You haven't yet demonstrated that he existed to do that. The problem
>is that you can't. You have nothing trustworthy in the real world
>outside Christianity. Even inside Christianity the earliest stuff is
>Paul's, which even you have admitted shows no knowledge of an
>historical Jesus.

You cannot "push" someone like this into learning.

He has started from the wrong end of the forensic trail: assuming, for
example, that there has been a murder, not because he has a body, but
in spite of the lack; based on ancient and utterly unsubstantiated
rumours from agressively biased sources, and then proceeds to pick,
choose and fabricate clues to point to a murder, and reject those that
do not, including evidence that SHOULD be there, but is entirely
absent. (Which is ignored for the sake of the 'case')

If he were to start from the other end; the way that all detectives
do, and work back from current evidence, researching it's provenance
until the trail dries up, or is revealed to be fraudulent, he would be
educable.
This much is both elementary, and vital.

Regrettfully, I have plonked the guy, as he seems genuinely unwilling
to vary from this perverse course, is indisposed to listen to those
who have actually done 'the hard yards' in Biblical research; and
instead of listening to knowledge, becomes combative and
self-protecting of his ignorance.

I'm sure that this has not escaped your attention!

--