• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't exclude the possibility that while the Gospel writers may not have known Jesus or the disciples, the root of their sources may have.

.

Definitely a connection IMHO

To many people were there at his death, some may have been very close to different parts of the action that helped build the mythology and legends.

We really have no need at all for his Galilean followers in any aspect, whom IMHO would have never been any part of a Roman or Hellenistic movement.

The socioeconomic divide in Galilee had split Aramaic Jews and the corrupt Hellenist in Sepphoris and the temple who had placed a heavy yoke on their lives. Even if Jesus was not a Zealot, he would have hated Hellenist and so would his followers. Antipas made their lives a living hell. Harris lines in all the children from the area showing widespread poverty and mal nutrition.

All the while the Hellenistic jews in Sepphoris were sitting in the lap of luxury with opulence surrounding them while Aramaic Jews 4 miles away were lucky to choke down a piece of bread in olive oil living in one lamp fieldstone rock house held together with feces and mud.
 

Shuttlecraft

.Navigator
..I don't exclude the possibility that while the Gospel writers may not have known Jesus or the disciples, the root of their sources may have..

Gospel-writers Matthew and John were ACTUAL DISCIPLES so I'd say they knew Jesus pretty good..;)
Mark was a friend of Jesus's right-hand man Peter, and Luke was a friend of Paul.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Finding the understanding of twisted scripture is not possible. If someone else misunderstood it and wrote it down (not the original, you understand) their way then the true understanding cannot be found in it. THAT IS MY POINT. If it can be twisted it can be untwisted. Ask any jeweler.

Ok... hence the necklass... I see. But I don't see it as being twisted. I think we understand incorrectly.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
If it were that obvious, people wouldn't be posting definitions from Webster's. And I would never see that in graduate papers. Want to see the wrath of Angellous? I'll come down on you with the wrath of the titans.
Why would you see them in graduate papers? What is your job? And what wrath. If you think you have a coherent answer... give it
Seriously. I email those to the admissions committee every time I get them - subject line - You aren't doing your job... again.

There will always be debate, that is how we learn who is who.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Some contexts that overlap:

Social contexts - including social class, status

Religious contexts - level of interaction between current religious teachings and practices

Philosophical contexts - level of participation in philosophical debate // use of technical philosophical terms

Empire - level of interaction with Empire - as an oppressed or oppressing people within the context of Rome and related structures

Judaisms - levels of interactions within the various trajectories of Judaisms

General lexical contexts - placement of the individual Greek words within the various shades of meaning from 750 BCE to 400 CE.

Specific lexical contexts - placement of individual Greek words within first century BC and CE // use of individual words and phrases within the corpus written by the author

Transmission history - how Christian scribes and communities interpreted these texts as revealed by how they changed them for clarity

Christian interpretation - where are the key changes in interpretation in Christian history - when did certain theologies first appear?

There's a lot more, but I'd have to charge.
But what is it that you think you've just said?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
The only possibility here is that "Timothy" was referring to the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet compiled when this text was written -- obviously -- this letter itself became part of the NT -- hundreds of years after it was written. The only existing body of Scripture that it it could refer to is the Old Testament, which itself just became a canon in about 96CE -- but unlike the NT, it was pretty much standardized in the LXX.

It matters not that he meant a certain scripture. It is scripture by its own right, so the NT and Gnostics are scripture... it is the word of God. Don't you understand this?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I cannot speak for my friend, but the critical difference between what I do and what fundamentalists do is simple:

1) My understanding of Scripture changes as I better understand it using critical methods

2) A fundamentalist can only change slightly inasmuch as it better promotes fundamentalism. There is no room for learning or better understanding independent of the ideology, no matter how far from the text its ideology actually is.
Number 1 though makes it sound as though education is important, which scripture says it is not. God's word says that it is 'spiritually discerned' and that we are all 'taught of the Holy Spirit'. Sure we have to study, but that is not how it is learned, even if it seems that way. To say it is (if that is what you are saying) is to lift oneself up and not humble
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
How was the text written in the first place? Everything they wrote about knowing God was "independent of the text".

Such a good point... i had to make note of it. Scripture came from a time when there was none. Good! So how did they learn. Perhaps they went to school..haha
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
No I follow education and knowledge, and have a passion for truth.


YOU however seem to have a conclusion your trying to shove the text into


That is defined partially as fanaticism

You have a 'passion for truth' (that is what Dawkins says) and he, like you, rejects truth for a lie. But that is what a powerful delusion can do... as is well documented.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Understood.

We have oral traditions that go back very early. I doubt these were his real disciples who more then likely fled to Galilee after his death. All the gospels sort of portray them as cowards. But early none the less. We may have Hellenist eyewitnesses who do have a place in the gospels, I do not deny this possibility. My break has in context to do with that of Aramaic Judaism and the inner circle, and what actually happened.

So what we see is Hellenist in the Diaspora who have collected these pieces and used them for possibly decades before compilation.



It is just my opinion, but the Galilean movement died the day he did. After his death he was martyred and mythology developed and people returning home all over the Diaspora took these legends and some early mythology with them.

We see Paul a Hellenist hunting in the diaspora and not a peep about Galilee, which leads me to believe Paul only hunted Hellenist.

Hellenistic Judaism had long wanted to divorce Judaism, and this was the perfect movement that absorbed it.




How can there be any doubt? These were all Koine books. Mark writing to a Roman audience perverting Judaism, Luke and Matthew copies of Hellenist traditions perverting Judaism. John so late but very Hellenistic.

So we have Matthews book that as I see it by the time of completion of his compilation, was a sect of Hellenist who held more traditional values in Judaism then other Hellenist who may have had numbers of gentiles.


Part of the issue here is just defining Jewish, or Judaism. Hellenistic Jews were Jews. Even people who swore of pagan deities were considered Jews. It really depended on who was calling who a Jew. Im sure the Hellenist were much more liberal with their definition, as to say Galilean Aramaic Judaism. Also night and day different to Judaism practiced in Sepphoris.

I see the gospels as products of the Diaspora.

If say we had more transliterations showing Aramaic primacy, I might be more liberal myself.




Exactly.

And all coming out of the Diaspora. Its where the mythology was generated in my opinion.

Everyone thinks Paul wrote these alone, we know it was a community effort.

We also know there were other teachers and scripture as Paul tells us this. He sets up a few pater familias and his community has debates with their communities which he visits with the movement full swing all around him. He did not spread the movement through the Diaspora, he joined the movement in the diaspora.



I don't think so either but I don't rule common sources out.

I think the martyrdom spread the message and mythology with half a million people at Passover with the movement growing each year as people brought more to the oral traditions traded at Passover.

I think the 12 disciples is myth, I think he had his inner circle of Aramaic peasant fishermen who fled after his death.

I still do not believe the Jerusalem house contained the Aramaic fishermen. I think it was a Hellenistic house with people rhetorically using the word disciple and lord brother who held on to Judaism much more tighter being in Jerusalem then Hellenist in the Diaspora like Paul was.

Paul used a lot of rhetoric and we don't even know if he could have communicated with Aramaic Jews, or visa versa.


That's how I stand on it all, it could change tomorrow ;)
I find it interesting that there is a lot of opinion there and 'think' this and 'think' that. Where has all the history gone and education which you seem to think no one else has but you. Then when you speak on the subject, it is... think think think.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Gospel-writers Matthew and John were ACTUAL DISCIPLES so I'd say they knew Jesus pretty good

John 21:24 reads Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν {"this is the disciple the one witnessing these things and writing [concerning] these [things] and we know that the witness testimony of him is true"}

The ending of John is in the first person plural and refers to the source as someone other than the would-be "author" (i.e., the disciple John). Not only is the disciple referred to in the 3rd person, but the "narrators" or "authors" use the first person plural, indicating that there can be no way for the gospel to have been set down/written by any single individual.

If you wish to believe that Mark was written by John Mark, Luke by Luke, and Matthew by Matthew simply because of a tradition that was likely dependent upon Papias' report (which itself precludes the "Matthew" we have as being written by the disciple Matthew, as Matthew was composed in Greek), then there is obviously no logic or reason will trump blind faith. However, John at least contains internal evidence against the possibility of a single author, let alone the disciple John.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why would you see them in graduate papers? What is your job?

He received his PhD in Biblical Interpretation in 2012 (his ~500 page doctoral thesis concerned the interpretation of 1 Corinthians among educated women at the time) and his master's several years earlier. Currently he teaches on this subject.
 
Last edited:

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
John 21:24 reads Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστίν {"this is the disciple the one witnessing these things and writing [concerning] these [things] and we know that the witness testimony of him is true"}

The ending of John is in the first person plural and refers to the source as someone other than the would-be "author" (i.e., the disciple John). Not only is the disciple referred to in the 3rd person, but the "narrators" or "authors" use the first person plural, indicating that there can be no way for the gospel to have been set down/written by any single individual.

If you wish to believe that Mark was written by John Mark, Luke by Luke, and Matthew by Matthew simply because of a tradition that was likely dependent upon Papias' report (which itself precludes the "Matthew" we have as being written by the disciple Matthew, as Matthew was composed in Greek), then there is obviously no logic or reason will trump blind faith. However, John at least contains internal evidence against the possibility of a single author, let alone the disciple John.
There is more than faith to say they are the writers. But we might ask why it is that it was carried along as tradition anyway. Where did it come from? Perhaps they thought that because it was the answer.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
He received his PhD in Biblical Interpretation in 2012 (his ~500 page doctoral thesis concerned the interpretation of 1 Corinthians among educated women at the time) and his master's several years earlier. Currently he teaches on this subject.

Thanks for that.
Though i would add, seeing as we are talking about scripture, that it is 'spiritually discerned'. 'Where is the scholar, where is the wise man...' surely he would agree with that.

I wonder what he teaches.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
definitely

the authors were far removed from jesus life.


never witnessed him

never heard him.

didn't know any disciples



ALL YOU know, is what Hellenist wrote decades after his death that reflected the movement far away from Galilee at a much later date then Jesus lived.

And then due to your lack of education you butcher that as well NOT knowing any of the proper context to the daily lives and cultures they lived in.

You don't know what Jesus means! Haha

Why not get an education?

YHVH is salvation is the way, the truth and the life. The way. the truth and the life exists everywhere and for all time. So to believe Jesus existed as the story says and that society had everything to do with who he was is the least of my concern. His words are what he is. That his wonderful words have made it this far to rain wisdom down is a miracle. A miracle needs no "context". It is OK if context means everything to you but it is not OK to insist it should mean everything to me also.
 
Last edited:
Top