How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[John Martin]

Much of the differences between Jesus and Paul can be summed up thusly:

Jesus: Repent from sin!

Paul: Repent from unbelief!

And as I recall Paul never spoke of the Kingdom of God as Jesus did.

Paul and Jesus' sayings represent 2 vastly different religions that were awkwardly fused together in the Acts.

Jesus did not ask people to repent from sin.He asked people to grow from a dualistic relationship with God to a non-dualistic relationship with God, from God as creator to oneness with God, 'the Father and I are one'. Unfortunately the word 'repent' has been very badly and superfluously interpreted.
Yes, Paul insists on belief. He did not speak of the kingdom of God as Jesus did. Paul came to experience Jesus in his own unique spiritual path. His understanding of Jesus and his message is completely unique which we do not find in the gospels. Yet, for St.Paul belief is only a starting point. Our journey does not end with it. There are so many wonderful things that St.Paul said but people take one or two sentences and do not care others insights. We need to take spiritual journey in an entire way. Paul did not just believe in Jesus. He had a profound mystical experience of Jesus from which his teachings come. Yes it is true that the way Paul presents Christianity is not exactly the way Jesus presented. does Christianity really present Jesus message the way Jesus intended? I am not sure. I would say that Christianity is on the process of understanding Jesus Christ and his message and it is still far away from it.To know Christ means to break down all the barriers and create one God,one creation and one human kind. Any truth or any understanding that divides is far from the truth of Christ. Where there is no unity there is no Truth of Christ. Where there is unity there is the kingdom of God.

 

[fallingblood]

False again.

I know enough of his lies and guesses to avoid his personal fantasy of Davidic lineage to Jesus on both parents side, and the Lukan fantasy that JtB and Jesus were cousins he takes as fact.


Sorry his mistakes anre wide and varied and there are much better teachers to learn from. Above is the tip of the iceberg.


He should be avoided at all cost if one wants to understand a historical Jesus.

Everything you just mentioned is based on probably one TV special or the book it was based on. That is very little exposure. His work on the Branch Davidians in Waco was a great source that is used by quite a few on the subject. His work on Paul was also considered one of the ten best works on Paul. Obviously, many scholars think that his work is decent and quite credible. And I already provided a link that showed a good number of scholars who endorsed the book that you have critiqued.

Yes, he makes mistakes, everyone does. He also provides evidence and support for his claims. All you have provided is a biased opinion on an author you disagree with. More so, all you have done is provided an attack against a scholar. You aren't arguing against his views, but simply saying that his views are trash. That simply is not logical, nor it is a credible argument.

If one wants to actually progress in the field of Biblical studies, or any sort of studies, they can not rely on attacking scholars that disagree with them.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, he makes mistakes.

I agree.


I cannot say the same about

Candida Moss
John Crossan
Johnathon Reed
Marvin Meyers
Marcus Borg
E.P. Sanders
Elaine Pagels

and more


I have a difference of opinion, but not blatant mistakes due to faith or to sell TV shows.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree.


I cannot say the same about

Candida Moss
John Crossan
Johnathon Reed
Marvin Meyers
Marcus Borg
E.P. Sanders
Elaine Pagels

and more


I have a difference of opinion, but not blatant mistakes due to faith or to sell TV shows.

Come on now. We both know that isn't true. All scholars make mistakes. If you can't pick them out, that really doesn't mean anything.

I know you disagree with Sanders on a number of things. Unless you have radically changed your views, and now accept the New Perspective on Paul, you must think that Sanders has made mistakes.

In fact, I can tell you that Sanders accepts that he has made mistakes, which is why he has went out and even corrected them in later works. The same is true with pretty much all of these scholars. And all of them know they are not perfect.

Why not actually deal with the issues, instead of trying to throw out a scholar because you disagree with him?

 

[outhouse]

Come on now. We both know that isn't true. All scholars make mistakes. If you can't pick them out, that really doesn't mean anything.

I know you disagree with Sanders on a number of things. Unless you have radically changed your views, and now accept the New Perspective on Paul, you must think that Sanders has made mistakes.

In fact, I can tell you that Sanders accepts that he has made mistakes, which is why he has went out and even corrected them in later works. The same is true with pretty much all of these scholars. And all of them know they are not perfect.

Why not actually deal with the issues, instead of trying to throw out a scholar because you disagree with him?

There are grey areas where opinion is open. Yes they have made mistakes but ive seen Tabor cross lines freely in what is or can be known, which to me amounts to a lie.

Tabor has done some work on nat geo that I liked, but he is never someone I would site as a source. I have not seen you use him either.

 

[steeltoes]

My impression was that his credibility and authority were in question, and he was trying to establish it with this reference. After all, he, like any preacher today, was seeking credibility for his message. The problem for historicism, I think, is that it relies largely on a record of sales pitches. That is why we look for independent corroboration. After all, Paul was not Suetonius, Tacitus, or even Josephus. His main job was to convince folks of his mission.

That could be. He talks about both, winning approval, Gal. 1:10Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. and also how he persecuted before Gal 1:13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

So he was either trying to win approval as you suggest or was not lying about his changed life. I don't know, maybe both. I guess one would try to seek approval if one were known to have tried to destroy the very church one is now supporting.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Jesus did not ask people to repent from sin.He asked people to grow from a dualistic relationship with God to a non-dualistic relationship with God, from God as creator to oneness with God, 'the Father and I are one'. Unfortunately the word 'repent' has been very badly and superfluously interpreted.
Yes, Paul insists on belief. He did not speak of the kingdom of God as Jesus did. Paul came to experience Jesus in his own unique spiritual path. His understanding of Jesus and his message is completely unique which we do not find in the gospels. Yet, for St.Paul belief is only a starting point. Our journey does not end with it. There are so many wonderful things that St.Paul said but people take one or two sentences and do not care others insights. We need to take spiritual journey in an entire way. Paul did not just believe in Jesus. He had a profound mystical experience of Jesus from which his teachings come. Yes it is true that the way Paul presents Christianity is not exactly the way Jesus presented. does Christianity really present Jesus message the way Jesus intended? I am not sure. I would say that Christianity is on the process of understanding Jesus Christ and his message and it is still far away from it.To know Christ means to break down all the barriers and create one God,one creation and one human kind. Any truth or any understanding that divides is far from the truth of Christ. Where there is no unity there is no Truth of Christ. Where there is unity there is the kingdom of God.

Are you saying Jesus never told people to sin no more?

 

[oldbadger]

Much of the differences between Jesus and Paul can be summed up thusly:

Jesus: Repent from sin!

Paul: Repent from unbelief!

Very interesting.....
Reports of Jesus saying 'Repent from sin' is probably an adaptation of 'Sin no more'. The Jewish working people were superstitious and believed that sin somehow lead to illness. Jesus being a healer often asked patients to 'Sin no more'; and make sacrifice (against further illness?). GJohn did not use the word 'repent' even once.

Paul's focus upon 'unbelief' figures, because all he wanted to do was manipulate and inject his new religion into others, and if they wavered.......!
.

Paul and Jesus' sayings represent 2 vastly different religions that were awkwardly fused together in the Acts.

Jesus's religion was the Jewish God of Israel and the Jewish Law and belief. Paul's religion was, as you wrote, not the same.... he just reversed his idea into Jesus's name. I don't think Paul was interested in the person of Jesus, or Jesus's beliefs, or Jesus's life.

 

[Copernicus]

That could be. He talks about both, winning approval, Gal. 1:10Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. and also how he persecuted before Gal 1:13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

So he was either trying to win approval as you suggest or was not lying about his changed life. I don't know, maybe both. I guess one would try to seek approval if one were known to have tried to destroy the very church one is now supporting.

I think that one needs to take the entire Galatians letter into account in order to interpret its pieces. Paul wrote it as an appeal to people who had hosted him when he had undergone some unspecified illness. He had preached his view of Christ's message to them and thought that they had received it well, but now he felt they were being led astray by others, who wanted them to conform more closely to Jewish law and become circumcised. It is hard for us now to understand all of the issues that underlay that letter, but it was clearly a very strong sales pitch--a plea to return to the teachings that Paul felt he had successfully pitched earlier. He made some disparaging comments about those he felt were stealing his erstwhile supporters back to the fold of "the law". Whether or not he had actually spent time with Peter and James is something we'll never know. However, he clearly felt that this information was an important part of his plea to his audience. Was he an agent of the Romans when he persecuted Christians, or was he an agent of Jewish authorities, who were operating under Roman approval? After all, Rome made special accommodations for Jewish religious traditions, and Christians weren't exactly considered to be in compliance with those. In principle, Jewish authorities were to blame for getting Romans to execute Jesus for his heresies. Where was Paul in all of this, and what experiences led him to repudiate his earlier opposition to the heretical movements that had no official sanction? Roman law did not allow the existence of unapproved associations of any sort, but Jewish "law" was officially recognized. So those cults that splintered off from it were officially illegal. Paul ended up as part of an illegal religious cult, and that put him at odds with both Jewish and Roman authorities.

 

[oldbadger]

And as I recall Paul never spoke of the Kingdom of God as Jesus did.

......... because he was at odds with Jesus. Paul actually guided (shoved!) people away from Jesus's life and values. For Jesus, the Kingdom of God seems to have been the Jewish land, its people, its laws, its beliefs, its ways. Jesus liked life. He enjoyed his food and wine, and living.

See Romans 14:17..... For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

How is that for a character assassination?

In fact, I don't think Paul was Jewish........ not Jewish like the working people. He might have been semi Jewish, half Jewish, Hellenist Jewish...... but Paul was no Jew. He set out to destroy Jesus's followers, and worked out a way to do that by redirecting their focus and beliefs.... oh..... everything.

And your sentence, above, pin-points it.

 

[steeltoes]

I think that one needs to take the entire Galatians letter into account in order to interpret its pieces. Paul wrote it as an appeal to people who had hosted him when he had undergone some unspecified illness. He had preached his view of Christ's message to them and thought that they had received it well, but now he felt they were being led astray by others, who wanted them to conform more closely to Jewish law and become circumcised. It is hard for us now to understand all of the issues that underlay that letter, but it was clearly a very strong sales pitch--a plea to return to the teachings that Paul felt he had successfully pitched earlier. He made some disparaging comments about those he felt were stealing his erstwhile supporters back to the fold of "the law". Whether or not he had actually spent time with Peter and James is something we'll never know. However, he clearly felt that this information was an important part of his plea to his audience. Was he an agent of the Romans when he persecuted Christians, or was he an agent of Jewish authorities, who were operating under Roman approval? After all, Rome made special accommodations for Jewish religious traditions, and Christians weren't exactly considered to be in compliance with those. In principle, Jewish authorities were to blame for getting Romans to execute Jesus for his heresies. Where was Paul in all of this, and what experiences led him to repudiate his earlier opposition to the heretical movements that had no official sanction? Roman law did not allow the existence of unapproved associations of any sort, but Jewish "law" was officially recognized. So those cults that splintered off from it were officially illegal. Paul ended up as part of an illegal religious cult, and that put him at odds with both Jewish and Roman authorities.

Where was Paul in all of this? As for "getting Romans to execute Jesus for his heresies" it does not appear that Paul is aware of such a thing :

Romans 13:3-4

• Rulers hold no terrors to those who do right. . . If you wish not to fear the authorities, then do what is good and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good. [NIV/NEB]

Paul is unaware of Pilate's role in all of this, the gospel story was a later invention.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

......... because he was at odds with Jesus. Paul actually guided (shoved!) people away from Jesus's life and values. For Jesus, the Kingdom of God seems to have been the Jewish land, its people, its laws, its beliefs, its ways. Jesus liked life. He enjoyed his food and wine, and living.

See Romans 14:17..... For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

How is that for a character assassination?

In fact, I don't think Paul was Jewish........ not Jewish like the working people. He might have been semi Jewish, half Jewish, Hellenist Jewish...... but Paul was no Jew. He set out to destroy Jesus's followers, and worked out a way to do that by redirecting their focus and beliefs.... oh..... everything.

And your sentence, above, pin-points it.

If Paul was an actual historical person (or a derivative of one), he was likely an Herodian Edomite who "became" a Jew only by superficial conversion, Robert Eisenman makes a good case for this in his essay , an excellent read and a valuable resource for those who do not have the time to read his 1000 page books.
Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian"

 

[oldbadger]

If Paul was an actual historical person (or a derivative of one), he was likely an Herodian Edomite who "became" a Jew only by superficial conversion, Robert Eisenman makes a good case for this in his essay , an excellent read and a valuable resource for those who do not have the time to read his 1000 page books.
Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian"

Very interesting.....

Question:- Do you believe that Paul had Roman citizenship, in addition to his status as a convert-Jew?

I can't figure out why the authorities contracted Paul to put down early Christians. You get this Soldier(?)-tentmaker, Jewish convert with Roman citizenship, contract breaker or clever double-agent...... enigma.

I believe he existed, but beyond mentions of names fromthe gospels I have little interest in him. But I do believe that Christianity is all his.

 

[outhouse]

Very interesting.....

Question:- Do you believe that Paul had Roman citizenship, in addition to his status as a convert-Jew?

I can't figure out why the authorities contracted Paul to put down early Christians. You get this Soldier(?)-tentmaker, Jewish convert with Roman citizenship, contract breaker or clever double-agent...... enigma.

I believe he existed, but beyond mentions of names fromthe gospels I have little interest in him. But I do believe that Christianity is all his.

I believe wiki states it is factual now that he was a Roman citizen.

He was a Hellenist, and he did not adhere or preach to adhere to laws, [he just about contasdicts himself in this] and the first chance he had, he took his message to Proselytes, which in my opinion, were just like him.


His dad was a tent maker, he may have ventured into being a temple guard or headhunter for the Saducees. We just dont know.



There were two distinctly different Jews. Real Jews born into Judaism living in Israel, and Hellenistic Jews who for the most part, who either were proselytes or lived within a few generations of proselytes living in the diaspora.

 

[oldbadger]

If Paul was an actual historical person (or a derivative of one), he was likely an Herodian Edomite who "became" a Jew only by superficial conversion, Robert Eisenman makes a good case for this in his essay , an excellent read and a valuable resource for those who do not have the time to read his 1000 page books.
Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian"

Hang on..... Paul held Roman citizenship. He may well have posed as Jewish or been initiated as Jewish to increase local aid and Jewish assistance. Since he was so pro-gentile and so anti-Jewish I reckon he could well have been contracted by Rome to put down that new upstart group, and during the operation he had this blinding idea of how to utilise much of their belief to initiate a brilliant mass-control mass-mindset culture. The question of why he was executed could be answered with either: was he executed? or 'Hell, Nero was a b-stard', to 'it got out of control' etc.

And....... While the World blamed the Jews for millenia, that suited Paul's agenda...... very clever! IN fact, the Jews were not responsible, because the real Jews were the working people, all those above were pseudo Jewish, who set about Jesus's downfall.

 

[outhouse]

Hang on..... Paul held Roman citizenship. He may well have posed as Jewish or been initiated as Jewish to increase local aid and Jewish assistance. Since he was so pro-gentile and so anti-Jewish I reckon he could well have been contracted by Rome to put down that new upstart group, and during the operation he had this blinding idea of how to utilise much of their belief to initiate a brilliant mass-control mass-mindset culture. The question of why he was executed could be answered with either: was he executed? or 'Hell, Nero was a b-stard', to 'it got out of control' etc.

And....... While the World blamed the Jews for millenia, that suited Paul's agenda...... very clever! IN fact, the Jews were not responsible, because the real Jews were the working people, all those above were pseudo Jewish, who set about Jesus's downfall.

Paul is pretty clear on his conversion, I dont buy a Roman conspiracy to create scripture.

Unlike acts and the what many claim as a fictitious telling of Pauls conversion, Paul tells us himself he had a feeling within, and took it to heart.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Very interesting.....

Question:- Do you believe that Paul had Roman citizenship, in addition to his status as a convert-Jew?

I can't figure out why the authorities contracted Paul to put down early Christians. You get this Soldier(?)-tentmaker, Jewish convert with Roman citizenship, contract breaker or clever double-agent...... enigma.

I believe he existed, but beyond mentions of names fromthe gospels I have little interest in him. But I do believe that Christianity is all his.

As part of the Edomite Herodian family (and a kinsman [Romans 16:11] to Herodion, meaning little Herod according to Eisenman) he would be a Roman citizen).

As to Saul/Paul hunting down early Christians, IMO there were no normative Christians in the first century. He would be hunting down messianic Jews. Note also Nero threw messianic Jews to the lions not Xians.

'Paul' (or the author of the Pauline epistles) worked to create a Xian religion that was compatible with the Pax Romana. Isn't it amazing he said the earthly authorities were appointed by God, the very authorities who had so recently crucified Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

Paul is pretty clear on his conversion, I dont buy a Roman conspiracy to create scripture.

Unlike acts and the what many claim as a fictitious telling of Pauls conversion, Paul tells us himself he had a feeling within, and took it to heart.

Fair enough. So a Roman citizen converts to pseudo-Jewish, is contracted by either the Romans or (better) Senior Jewish officials to put down christian groups (Ha! The Jewish officials may have asked him to undertake initiation prior to the operation) sets about his work (Stephen) but has a life-changing epiphany later on. But Christianity is all Paul's.

I think that historic Jesus and Christianity separate here, for me. I am interested in historic Jesus, and so Paul, once his letters have been reviewed, can go his own way!

 

[John Martin]

Are you saying Jesus never told people to sin no more?

The teaching of Jesus was focused on the kingdom of God, which was an invitation to grow into a higher relationship with God. He invited Nicodemus to come out of his religious womb and enter into the universal presence of God.
On two occasions he says 'sin no more': to the woman who was caught in an act of adultery Jn.8.11 and after healing a sick man at the pool Bethesda.Jn.5.14.
Another two occasions he says 'your sins are forgiven': to the woman who anointed him with perfume and after healing a paralyzed person. These two occasions it was connected with the question of authority of forgiving sins.
These statements reflect more the mind set of his disciples to prove that that they had the power from Jesus to forgive sins and that those who have been forgiven should not go back into their former lives. I do not think they represent the mind set of Jesus. Jesus performed many miracles but never he said 'your sins are forgiven or sin no more'. Many times he said, your faith has made you well.
Hence basing on these rare statements of Jesus and conclude that Jesus came to ask people to repent from sins is building one's house on sand.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Fair enough. So a Roman citizen converts to pseudo-Jewish, is contracted by either the Romans or (better) Senior Jewish officials to put down christian groups (Ha! The Jewish officials may have asked him to undertake initiation prior to the operation) sets about his work (Stephen) but has a life-changing epiphany later on. But Christianity is all Paul's.

I think that historic Jesus and Christianity separate here, for me. I am interested in historic Jesus, and so Paul, once his letters have been reviewed, can go his own way!

I may have said this before, but the book How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson shows how the Jesus cult and the Pauline cult were merged together when the Church Fathers wrote the book of Acts as a means of harmonizing the two separate and antagonistic religions. Btw, this means James and the Jerusalem Church never interacted in any way as Acts falsely alleged. Acts was written to create the impression they did interact.