LOL....uh...did you say..."some-what"?...Paul wrote some 50 years after Jesus died
Completely wrong. Paul wrote about 20-30 years after Jesus had died. And, more importantly, he joined the sect a few years after (as in around 4 or 5). His letters are THE EARLIEST christian texts we have.
...I would say more like "grossly" inaccurate, and that goes for the poker faced (but red nosed)
idea that the NT was written in Greek, too!
Once again, you base the idea that the Pe****ta is not a translation on the greek on your wishes, not evidence. There is a mountain of scholarship by any number of aramaic and NT experts, which you ignore. Instead, you find a few non-experts who can at best read the texts, and use them over the massive numbers of far more qualified experts who disagree. Your desire predetermined the result.
especially when dear old Paul was making the whole thing up in his darling little head
"Yeah, '500' is a nice, round number...I think they'll fall for it...heh..heh"
Have you ever studied ancient texts? Even the best historians (like Thucydides) will exaggerate numbers. Paul is not the only one who attests to the experience of early follower of a risen Jesus. Maybe they were lying when they claimed they saw him, or delusional, or (for christians) actually seeing Jesus, but there is no doubt that a large number of early followers claimed to have experienced the risen Jesus.
I seriously doubt if THAT even occurred, as not a single oral or written word on the part of the participants has come down to us for THE single most important event in all of human history....nope...not gonna buy it....zilch....Certainly if you or I had had such a hallucinatory experience, we would have told at least 10 neighbors or so...but nada....as if it was all in a vacuum...a vacuum that exited in Paul's head, that is!
Paul's testimoney is the earliest we possess. It is earlier than any of the gospels. And although Paul is the only one who gives us the 500 number, it is clear from the gospels that there was a tradition of disciples experienceing the risen Jesus.
Sir, that is polite English tea time compared to the modern Christian vision of "washing in the blood of Jesus"..
This isn't a modern version. In fact, your quotation is of drinking the blood of the covenant.
Let's face it: the Crucifixion as a bloody affair...even to the last drop.
Yes, it is. But it was a roman form of torture, and how Jesus died. His death, and much more importantly his resurrection, are central to christianity.
I could not locate it, but I have somewhere in my library an old woodcut showing blood spurting from about 15 or 20 punctures in the body of Jesus as he hangs on the cross bleeding to death. All around him are the "faithful" with their mouths open, not missing a single drop!
Not a common christian theme. And drinking the blood of Jesus, as grotesque as it may be when one steps back and thinks on it, is (even if you consider it more grotesque) not akin to bathing in the blood of a bull.
Ah, so the doctrine was deliberately contrived! Hmmmm? This is sounding more and more like someone was trying to turn a bloody political affair into a religious one.
Politics and religions were not differentiated in the ancient world, and certainly not for the Jews of Jesus' day. Jesus made messianic claims, which were at the same time political AND religious, and died for them. Later, his death was reinterpreted (for whatever reason) not as the failure of a would-be messiah, but as the success of a resurrected messiah.
Excuse me, but we are speaking about what people generally believe to be true, and the idea that Jesus himself said that his own blood was to be shed for the remission of sin is the general consensus.
You are conflating Jesus' sacrifice with the taurobolium, which is nothing like the Jesus' sacrifice. Even linking in the "eat of my flesh, and drink of my blood," this does not equate nor is it remotely alike sacrificing a bull and bathing in its blood.
I have described exactly what the Crucifixion was supposed to do, namely, to re-open the Gates of Paradise which Original Sin had closed for all mankind. What could be more important than that? Now tell me, and quit beating around the bush: of what importance is the resurrection to man, in comparison to the Crucifixion? As I suggested to you, it is but a fancy concoction to lend credence to the story. If you are sober, you can see right through it; unfortunately, Christians allow themselves to be drugged by the idea. A powerful narcotic, to be sure!
Plenty of would-be messiahs died. Paul, attesting to the earliest layer of christian tradition, says virtually nothing about the crucifixion, but does make it a point to mention that the resurrection is the basis for christian faith. He is echoed by later christians, and of course his letters formed part of the canon.
Jesus' suffering and death were both important for christian theology in that the represented his sacrifice for the sake of the world. However, they mean nothing if he did not rise, because he would be no different than plenty of other Jews (like John or other messianic hopefuls) who died at the hands of the romans.
In addition, the resurrection represents Jesus' messianic triumph. As the messiah, his job was to restore israel, and probably the davidic kingship line. He failed, as did all other messiahs. However, his followers (whether out of delusion or despair or out of genuine experience or some other reason) believed that he did not fail, but rather triumphed by rising from the dead and assuming the messianic throne of the heavenly, rather than earthly kingdom.
Uh...yes?...do go on....important?...how so?...that is, in Christian terms..as the discussion is in context, OK?
Once more, the resurrection is Jesus' success as a messiah. Rather than fulfilling what the messiah was supposed to do (restore Israel as the new davidic king) Jesus arose as the king of the new heavenly kingdom. Without the resurrection, he is a complete failure as a messiah. With it, he did not succeed in establishing what the messiah was thought to be supposed to establish, but he did (according to christian belief) establish what the messiah was supposed to establish according to christian reinterpretation.
According to Christian doctrine, the entire episode was staged by God the Father. Jesus KNEW he was to be crucified, as evinced by his passion in the Garden:
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me. Yet not my will but yours be done."
Luke 22:42
You are missing my point again. According to apocalyptic and eschatological Jewish thought, the matrix from which christianity emerged, the messiah was supposed to restore the physical land of Israel, not die. Jesus DID die, but (again, for whatever reason) the messianic expectations were changed, and rather than restore a physical Israel/kingdom of YHWH, Jesus restored a spiritual realm and became the messiah of this realm via his resurrection.
Hearing voices is much more plausible than fleshy virgin births and resurrections, would'nt you say? Come, now!
Hearing voices is no more plausible than hallucinations. The idea that Allah spoke to muhammed is just as implausible as Jesus rising from the dead.
The point is that any sacrifice is made to please a potentially punishing deity. Ongoing sacrices are intended to keep the deity in good spirits, and you in his favor.
Pacification of deities is very different from absolution. Honoring and pacifying angry gods was the main reason for sacrifice in the Jewish, greek, and roman worlds. Absolution was much more rare.
i am afraid we will need to take up the matter in a separate topic; one that I will get around to posting, to discuss both Aramaic and Greek NT Primacy issues.
No problem. But I suggest you attempt to research the opposing view first, or at least find some actual scholarship (rather than a few people who happen to be able to read the pe****ta) before posting.
