Jesus:Real or myth?

[arcanum]

Who says that is convincing?


Its not. Paul tells us there were other teachers and other beliefs, and Paul did not write alone, most of his epistles were co authored.


Paul set up a few houses in the Diaspora, nothing more.

His views were not accepted by all, and many despised him.

Don't take my word for it, there are two great books that explore these ideas in depth: How Jesus became Christian and Paul and Jesus. Look them up.

 

[outhouse]

Don't take my word for it, there are two great books that explore these ideas in depth: How Jesus became Christian and Paul and Jesus. Look them up.

Just letting you know there are many obscure scholarships and authors out there.

As it stands today its not a credible concept, that's all.

 

[outhouse]

After his road to Damascus experience,.

That is only reported in Acts.

It contradicts what Paul himself tells us.

 

[outhouse]

But I think Paul didn't consider a physically risen Jesus. Rather Jesus, physical person, died and then resurrected only in spirit.

Correct.

he focused on the jesus he had to deal with, one he viewed that lived in heaven.

Paul focused on theology not history.

 

[Prophet]

Your so lost, im not sure this conversation will ever advance.

No, your and you're don't mean the same thing. Generally, when you choose to go the path of insulting your opponent's intelligence, try not to undermine yourself by using failed spelling or grammar.

Also, patients and patience do not mean the same thing. You saying earlier that you have "no patients for ignorance" was idiot irony.

Jesus in the flesh followers did not advance the movement, they were Galilean peasants who were illiterate and wrote nothing.

The message was spread by those gentiles and proselytes returning home in the Roman Empire after Passover was over.

The Jewish proselytes and Gentiles were part of a semi jewish movement that would become Christians.

Interesting theory. Yet, didn't the apostle Peter make it all the way to Rome before he was executed? What was he doing there? Advancing the Christian movement, or magically transforming into a non-Christian, Roman proselyte to validate your far-fetched theories?

Do you think Jesus died and they started calling a handful of followers Christians the very next day ?

What does what a bunch of people call you have to do with who you are? In the Bible, Christians were first called Christians in Antioch, and by Christian they meant "followers of the prophet Jesus Christ" and that meaning is fully established. This does not presuppose that followers of the prophet Jesus Christ did not exist before the word "Christian" was ever used. You're playing word games, changing the meaning of Christian to suit your far-fetched theories.

YOU ignore the fact, the movement stayed semi Jewish for quite some time.

It was started by a Jew, amongst Jew peers. Of COURSE, the movement stayed semi-Jewish for "some" time, whatever that vague statement means. What is your point? Are you trying to say that you can't be a Christian and a Jew at the same time? Perhaps following both religions at the same time would be tenuous, but Jew is a racial identity as well. One could easily be racially Jewish and religiously Christian. The only thing I can grant you is that Jews might have very well universally venerated Jesus as a prophet were his name not used to scourge them for the next 2,000 years. However, in the immediate aftermath of Jewish religious authorities being at least complicit with and likely fully supporting the execution of a respected teacher who was known to ***** on both the religious authorities and their customs, a temporary schism, if not permanent, is pretty likely.

Early Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish, either by birth, or conversion for which the biblical term proselyte is used,

So some of the first Christians were proselytes? Earlier you used Roman proselyte status to classify one as not Christian. Your theory is tripping over itself.

By the end of the 1st century, Christianity began to be recognized internally and externally as a separate religion from Rabbinic Judaism which itself was refined and developed further in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple.

So here it states it took some 70 years for the movement to separate from Judaism and be known on its own.

Internally and externally

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author wrote in Greek for a gentile audience

And let's not forget the author was, without a doubt, a Roman proselyte follower of Christ, but not Christian (LOL), who was covering up the atrocities that Rome was committing right in the middle of the Age of Martyrdom long before Christianity was adopted by Rome because he was apparently somewhat concerned with putting out the message of Jesus, but he was equally or more concerned about erasing the persecution he was right in the middle of from history on account of nationalism. Have I missed anything?

 

[outhouse]

Interesting theory. Yet, didn't the apostle Peter make it all the way to Rome before he was executed?

Did he?

It was started by a Jew, amongst Jew peers.

Paul a Roman citizen was not a Christian, and his Judaism is still debated as he mirrors a Proselytes belief and theology by perverting Judaism.

Earlier you used Roman proselyte status to classify one as not Christian.

States there is simple English since your such a pro!

The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish


many proselytes were considered jews

Have I missed anything?

As usual, everything. Including the point and context I used.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

After his road to Damascus experience, he thought he had came to know the risen christ. Apparently He wasn't all that interested in the earthly life of Jesus. It was all about the risen savior for him, and he thought his experience was if not superior than at least on par with the living disciples of Jesus.

So you believe that Paul knew all the details of Jesus' earthly life, but that he just never felt like mentioning any of it?

 

[Prophet]

Did he? :face palm:

Per usual, you've seen fit to respond to about a quarter of what I said, but also, per usual, I'll respond to your entire far-fetched, conclusion-in-desperate-search-of-evidence post.

Yes Peter died while working in Rome according to my deep research on wikipedia:

Saint Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, Peter labored in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there his life was ended by martyrdom.[3] The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History III.1. Origen wrote: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[28] This is why an upside down cross is generally accepted as a symbol of Peter, with the interpretation that he would not have considered himself worthy enough to die the same way as his Saviour.[40]

Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter's reputed tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the "dies imperii" of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor (Nero) wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was 'as usual' accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.

Paul a Roman citizen was not a Christian, and his Judaism is still debated as he mirrors a Proselytes belief and theology by perverting Judaism.

States there is simple English since your such a pro!

The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish

many proselytes were considered jews

You say Christianity didn't part ways with Judaism for a long period after Jesus's murder. Yet Paul shamefully documented his past part in the Jewish persecution of Christianity, so yeah, Christians were part of Judaism like the Kurds were part of Iraq under Saddam. You're so right.

As usual, everything. Including the point and context I used.

Everyone misses your points because your entire context is crazyland universe where people do things that don't make any sense out of no sense of self-interest or recognizable rationale in favor of furthering vague goals like "evolving Christianity". Your theories are a joke.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In Galatians Paul is referring to James as Jesus' brother. I'm not sure if the letter is authentic or not though, but it would suggest him considering a physical Jesus.

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean, but I'm wondering why, if Paul knew all about the earthly life of Jesus, that he never mentioned any of it.

But I think Paul didn't consider a physically risen Jesus. Rather Jesus, physical person, died and then resurrected only in spirit.

OK, but I'm not asking what Paul thought of the resurrection. I'm asking your opinion about why Paul never talks about a contemporary, physical Jesus. If they lived at the same time, why didn't Paul talk about Jesus' actual earthly life... the details of it?

 

[steeltoes]

In Galatians Paul is referring to James as Jesus' brother. I'm not sure if the letter is authentic or not though, but it would suggest him considering a physical Jesus.

But I think Paul didn't consider a physically risen Jesus. Rather Jesus, physical person, died and then resurrected only in spirit.

Actually Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord.

 

[arcanum]

So you believe that Paul knew all the details of Jesus' earthly life, but that he just never felt like mentioning any of it?

We can't be sure how much he knew about the earthly life of Jesus, based on his writings either he didn't know very much or he simply didn't find it all that meaningful. He had found the risen christ, which he found much more important than the earthly Jesus. He claimed he learned about christ from no man, he met with the disciples years after his conversion and ministry.

 

[steeltoes]

We can't be sure how much he knew about the earthly life of Jesus, based on his writings either he didn't know very much or he simply didn't find it all that meaningful. He had found the risen christ, which he found much more important than the earthly Jesus. He claimed he learned about christ from no man, he met with the disciples years after his conversion and ministry.

Paul met disciples? Really? Can you show us where Paul claims to have met disciples?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We can't be sure how much he knew about the earthly life of Jesus, based on his writings either he didn't know very much or....

You don't believe that he met with Peter very shortly after 30 CE?

... or he simply didn't find it all that meaningful.

He seemed to worship Jesus. Jesus was his entire life, his lord. But you think he might not have cared anything about Jesus earthly life? He knew the details of how Jesus was taken by the Romans in Gethsemene, for example, but just didn't care to ever talk about that incident?

To me, that just seems impossible. Not the way human nature works, at least in my experience.

 

[Prophet]

In Galatians Paul is referring to James as Jesus' brother. I'm not sure if the letter is authentic or not though, but it would suggest him considering a physical Jesus.

But I think Paul didn't consider a physically risen Jesus. Rather Jesus, physical person, died and then resurrected only in spirit.

Or maybe the resurrection is something that is supposed to happen during your lifetime.

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

from the Gospel of Philip

Do not expect, therefore, the carnal resurrection, which is destruction; and they are not stripped of it (the flesh) who err in expecting a resurrection that is empty. They do not know the power of God, nor do they understand the interpretation of the scriptures, on account of their double-mindedness.

from the Testimony of Truth

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean, but I'm wondering why, if Paul knew all about the earthly life of Jesus, that he never mentioned any of it.

So? If he was referring to Jesus as a relative to a living person, he must've thought the relative believed he had a brother. In other words, Paul must've considered Jesus to have been real, even if he didn't meet him.

OK, but I'm not asking what Paul thought of the resurrection. I'm asking your opinion about why Paul never talks about a contemporary, physical Jesus. If they lived at the same time, why didn't Paul talk about Jesus' actual earthly life... the details of it?

Maybe because that wasn't what concerned him. Perhaps Jesus as a living person wasn't as much of a main point of his belief? If he didn't meet Jesus, he wouldn't have any details. I don't have any details about you, but I still am pretty sure (not 100% though) that you're a real person.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord.

The audience of the letter would have been people who considered Jesus to be their lord. Unless they had someone else considered their lord. Also, one should ask when Paul is using "the Lord" in other phrases, does he reference Jesus or someone else? (verse 3 in the same chapter: "the Lord Jesus Christ.")

I'm talking about likelihood and probabilities here. I think it's more probable that when he was referencing "the Lord", he was thinking of a "Jesus" (whoever it was). And someone being the brother (even if he wasn't a biological brother) means that there was someone to be "brother" to (regardless of what "brother" in that context actually would mean). It's said as a reference between two physical entities. One is someone who is likely to be the one he considered "the Lord."

What I'm saying is that I think it's likely there was a person that they thought of as a physical "Jesus" at some point. I doubt that he had supernatural powers and did miracles that are physically impossible. Those parts of the story, I believe, are embellishments.

 

[Ouroboros]

Or maybe the resurrection is something that is supposed to happen during your lifetime.


from the Gospel of Philip


from the Testimony of Truth

Sure. There are multiple ways of thinking of resurrection and salvation.

Personally, I think salvation, resurrection, heaven, hell, all that is really here, in this life, in our own time. We make it here. So be saved is to find our own inner being and be born again. We are to become Jesus. We have to die and be resurrected like Jesus (not literally, but as a metaphor).

 

[Prophet]

Sure. There are multiple ways of thinking of resurrection and salvation.

Personally, I think salvation, resurrection, heaven, hell, all that is really here, in this life, in our own time. We make it here. So be saved is to find our own inner being and be born again. We are to become Jesus. We have to die and be resurrected like Jesus (not literally, but as a metaphor).

Completely agreed. I believe disagreement on this topic of resurrection was at least one of the effects of the first schism in the Christian body, and the figureheads I place at the top of this schism are Paul and Peter whose basic difference is shown in the Incident at Antioch.

I would doubt a historical Peter, himself, would argue for a physical resurrection. That would be kind of cynical. I don't believe anyone purposefully makes their life about spreading lies. I have to believe this idea came into popularity some time later. However, there is evidence that there existed strong disagreements in the early church on the effects of "confessing Christ" and martyrdom, both of which were the biggest topics of the day when Christians were being torched to illuminate the gardens nightly by Emperor Nero.

The foolish - thinking in their heart that if they confess, "We are Christians," in word only (but) not with power, while giving themselves over to ignorance, to a human death, not knowing where they are going nor who Christ is, thinking that they will live, when they are (really) in error - hasten towards the principalities and authorities. They fall into their clutches because of the ignorance that is in them. For (if) only words which bear testimony were effecting salvation, the whole world would endure this thing and would be saved. But it is in this way that they drew error to themselves. ...
... (3 lines unrecoverable)
... they do not know that they will destroy themselves. If the Father were to desire a human sacrifice, he would become vainglorious.

But when they are "perfected" with a (martyr's) death, this is the thought that they have within them: "If we deliver ourselves over to death for the sake of the Name we will be saved." These matters are not settled in this way. But through the agency of the wandering stars they say they have "completed" their futile "course", and [...] say, [...]. But these [...] they have delivered themselves ...
... (7 lines unrecoverable)
... but they resemble [...] them. They do not have the word which gives life.

from the Testimony of Truth

 

[steeltoes]

The audience of the letter would have been people who considered Jesus to be their lord. Unless they had someone else considered their lord. Also, one should ask when Paul is using "the Lord" in other phrases, does he reference Jesus or someone else? (verse 3 in the same chapter: "the Lord Jesus Christ.")

I'm talking about likelihood and probabilities here. I think it's more probable that when he was referencing "the Lord", he was thinking of a "Jesus" (whoever it was). And someone being the brother (even if he wasn't a biological brother) means that there was someone to be "brother" to (regardless of what "brother" in that context actually would mean). It's said as a reference between two physical entities. One is someone who is likely to be the one he considered "the Lord."

What I'm saying is that I think it's likely there was a person that they thought of as a physical "Jesus" at some point. I doubt that he had supernatural powers and did miracles that are physically impossible. Those parts of the story, I believe, are embellishments.

Read the words in context, Paul states a few lines prior that the gospel he preaches comes from no human.

Galatians 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


Jesus Christ is not of this earth. Paul receives his gospel not from any man but directly from Jesus Christ in heaven, and oh by the way, let me introduce you to his brother who is standing right here. I don't think so.

Pauls' Christ is distinctly different than the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the gospels.

 

[Prophet]

Read the words in context, Paul states a few lines prior that the gospel he preaches comes from no human.

Galatians 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is not of this earth. Paul receives his gospel not from any man but directly from Jesus Christ in heaven, and oh by the way, let me introduce you to his brother who is standing right here. I don't think so.

A more accurate way to think of it: Jesus is of this earth. Christ is not of this earth. And by earth, they meant something closer to "physical dimension". Once you have reasoned to this other dimension, you discover that all living beings are one, connected at the level of their consciousness (minds) by God, Christ, love, or whatever word is least offensive to you. Jesus, himself, had to receive a revelation from the Christ to become such. Paul claimed to experience the same revelation from the Christ within himself on the road to Damascus.

Pauls' Christ is distinctly different than the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the gospels.

Maybe so, but maybe they dealt with distinctly different problems. Do you have any instance where you feel Paul's and Jesus' advice would differ hugely?