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

[Tabb]

Yes, the thread title is 'The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians' and we've certainly showted n that not to be the case..

In fairness, there WERE anti-Paul elements in the early churches, but they were only a minority, so the thread title is wrong because it implies ALL early Christians were anti-Paul and is therefore yet another consp-theory that we've sunk..

r

I took away that the title was purposely overstated to provoke discussion. No one character is more responsible for European Christianity than Paul. Christianity may of been about the Christ but Paul was the one who molded it into what it became.
Paul is an interesting and complex character that deserves more study by Christians.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Paul is an interesting and complex character that deserves more study by Christians.

Nah mate, don't be fooled by that "christianity is complex" consp-theory..
Paul was a straight-up guy, we know because he said-
"Follow Jesus, don't follow anybody else not even me, I wasn't crucified for you" (1 Cor 1:12/13)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have seen no help nor discussion from you yet.

That is no surprise to me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Assuming you accept Josephus' account of John, how would that make John the Baptist completely insignificant? Assuming my assumption is wrong, what textual critical basis might one proffer to demonstrate this?

I was speaking with reference to John's role in the Gospels, so I guess the point is moot. Without Jesus, we wouldn't have the Gospels.

Anyway, I wasn't making a judgment on Josephus. I don't know of a textual reason to dismiss his memory of John.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So your point is to ridicule? iS that it? We should say things to help and lift up, not put down.

I agree. Which is why I provided the link.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

you are arrogant and a bully. You side with an atheist as well.

I am shocked at such a baseless accusation. You don't want to participate in a thread yet apparently you're taking offense at me providing something shiny for you to look at instead. You're offended by what you read, you don't care to intellectually engage anything, so I assume that you're here for your own entertainment --- which is exactly the reason why I'm here. I'm entertained by good conversation, which you are unwilling to provide.

That's fine.

So here -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGsC_LO3oFY

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Jesus could have said it after being Johns student, memorizing Johns teachings..

Nah mate, don't get taken in by yet another consp-theory..
As John pointed out, Jesus the Main Man was on the way-
"After me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry" (Matt 3:11)

so obviously nobody who was more powerful would want to study under somebody who was less powerful, that'd be like Shane taking shooting lessons from a kid with a BB gun..

 

[sojourner]

you are arrogant and a bully. You side with an atheist as well.

The atheist is right.

 

[outhouse]

Assuming you accept Josephus' account of John, how would that make John the Baptist completely insignificant? Assuming my assumption is wrong, what textual critical basis might one proffer to demonstrate this?

Compared to his place in current history, would he not be?

No Jesus, it could very well be John the Baptist who?


No one would know any of these characters, less historians studying this period.

We still might have had a different religion break out of Judaism separating Hellenistic Judaism though.

That temple was doomed to fall. I think if Jesus had his way, it would have fell during that Passover cutting money off to Roman powers.

 

[outhouse]

you are arrogant and a bully. You side with an atheist as well.

YA!!!!!!!!

How dare he repeat what every college in the nation teaches

 

[sojourner]

YA!!!!!!!!

How dare he repeat what every college in the nation teaches

Bet: the rebuttal here will have something to do with how scholarship has no authority over "what God tells me in my heart."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Compared to his place in current history, would he not be?

No Jesus, it could very well be John the Baptist who?


No one would know any of these characters, less historians studying this period.

We still might have had a different religion break out of Judaism separating Hellenistic Judaism though.

That temple was doomed to fall. I think if Jesus had his way, it would have fell during that Passover cutting money off to Roman powers.

Yes, from your suggestion, I wonder if things are the other way around. If the early Gospel redactors couldn't tell John the Baptist from Jesus --- then John the Baptist assumes the historical significance of Jesus.

Therefore -- Josephus places great historical value on John the Baptist, even sympathizes with him yet barely mentions Jesus. This is precisely the opposite of the Gospels.

One wonders if Josephus could tell the difference between the two?

Just a fun thought. I don't intend for it to be serious...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bet: the rebuttal here will have something to do with how scholarship has no authority over "what God tells me in my heart."

Surely you mean what God tells me in my fart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqSas2uFKw

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, the thread title is 'The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians' and we've certainly shown that not to be the case..

In fairness, there WERE anti-Paul elements in the early churches, but they were only a minority, so the thread title is wrong because it implies ALL early Christians were anti-Paul and is therefore yet another consp-theory that we've sunk..

Thankyou I guess we argue the same arguments they did, probably with equal pomposity as we do.

 

[outhouse]

Just a fun thought. I don't intend for it to be serious...

Its all good, most of my work is just for fun thought.

That's the problem with the higher criticism forum, they get so hung up in minor details they don't even know the context to, they are mentally, masterbating many aspect losing focus of the overall picture.

--- then John the Baptist assumes the historical significance of Jesus.

I don't think so.


For me, Jesus only claim to fame was being in a crowd half a million strong and standing up against the corruption alone. He may have failed to take down the temple then, but was martyred due to a perceived selfless action that generated the mythology and legends

One wonders if Josephus could tell the difference between the two?

.

Yes.

Depending on the source he used. Oral tradition, OR parts of the gospels before compilation. There still would have been distinctions.

Not in teaching, only actions and death.

Therefore -- Josephus places great historical value on John the Baptist, even sympathizes with him yet barely mentions Jesus. This is precisely the opposite of the Gospels.

Great point all on its own right there.

 

[Tabb]

Nah mate, don't be fooled by that "christianity is complex" consp-theory..
Paul was a straight-up guy, we know because he said-
"Follow Jesus, don't follow anybody else not even me, I wasn't crucified for you" (1 Cor 1:12/13)

But what are you really saying if you are the biggest advocate of a dead Messiah. As in the wizard of Oz he was the man behind the curtain.

 

[savagewind]

But what are you really saying if you are the biggest advocate of a dead Messiah. As in the wizard of Oz he was the man behind the curtain.

Dead? Do you know that for a fact? How?

 

[kjw47]

I'd appreciate mature respectful replies and input on this thread topic. I look forward to members thoughts. Thanks.

I didn't watch your op--but Pauls teachings are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Tabb]

Dead? Do you know that for a fact? How?

What, that he's dead? You're going to get all meta on me.

 

[savagewind]

What, that he's dead? You're going to get all meta on me.

Yes, I am. Jesus is resurrected. Have you not heard?