How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Mythra]

Naw, it's not original.. I'd love to take credit for it. But, as I've said before, I'm not here to try and impress anyone. (especially on false pretenses)

 

I'm just another bum searching for the truth.

 

I read it.

 

 

But I've read so many books lately, I'm not sure which one it was.

 

It may have been in "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Price.

[Mythra]

Common christian teaching is that the gnostics were a breakoff from traditional Christianity. Everything I'm reading is that it was the other way around. The concept of christ was taught long before they attached a god-man to it.

 

Have you read the NT and come across such things as; "they teach about a different Jesus", or "those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh", and scratched your head?

 

It's like a big puzzle trying to figure everthing out, but it's fun.

[Ouroboros]

Common christian teaching is that the gnostics were a breakoff from traditional Christianity.  Everything I'm reading is that it was the other way around.  The concept of christ was taught long before they attached a god-man to it.

 

Have you read the NT and come across such things as; "they teach about a different Jesus",  or  "those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh", and scratched your head?

 

It's like a big puzzle trying to figure everthing out, but it's fun.

I have that understanding too. And that bothered me while I was Christian, how can the Church, just 10-20 years after Jesus death, with dead people walking on the street, thunder and darkness and earthquakes, 500 people talking in tongues, then suddenly a massive amount of Churches that said "Jesus didn't exist, he was just Logos", that takes guts to have your head blown of from a blast and still claim it was just a scratch!

 

The explanation was of course, "The Devil spread lies", but it was a bit hard to accept, hundresd of people don't just start churches in massive amounts to try to throw of another religion. It's not like we're starting anti-raelian churches today, because we thing the space alien preacher is wrong. People don't act that way, ever how much the devil try to persuade. So the Gnostic church was never really well explained to me, until my de-conversion and understanding Gnostic more likely came first.

 

And it is fun!

[Mythra]

Hans (or anyone) - maybe you know the answer to this.

 

Is there any extrabiblical evidence that Paul (AKA Saul of Tarsus) was a real dude? Did Josephus or Philo or any other of his contemporaries mention him?

 

It would be kinda funny if he was a made up character too.

 

I'm not having much luck finding out.

[Mr. Neil]

That's an interesting question. I never thought about that. I always assumed that he likely was a real person.

[Ouroboros]

Hans (or anyone)  - maybe you know the answer to this.

 

Is there any extrabiblical evidence that Paul (AKA Saul of Tarsus) was a real dude?  Did Josephus or Philo or any other of his contemporaries mention him?

 

It would be kinda funny if he was a made up character too. 

 

I'm not having much luck finding out.

Well somehow I get the feeling from books and critics that he really did exist.

Because they can analyze the books claimed to be written by him, and they match in style etc, which would be hard to do if you fake it. This is how they found out that, IIRC Hebrews, was not written by Paul.

 

Personally I think he existed, and that he was the fundamentalist, dementor, apologetic, and the first obnoxious Troy incarnation. I blame him for destroying the Gnostic belief, he probably took stuff he liked, got influenced by the imaginary friends in his mind and basically caused all the disasters we've had the last 2000 years.

[Mythra]

The first extrabiblical mention of Paul that I could find was from Clement of Rome in a letter to the church at Corinth in 95CE. The next was in a writing from Irenaeus in his "Against Heresies" around 180CE.

 

Don't believe that Flavius Josephus or Philo of Alexandria made any mention of Paul whatsoever. Kinda strange, seeing how they all three supposedly lived during the exact same time and Paul was running all around starting and building up churches.

 

Somebody please prove this wrong. It's gettin too weird.

[Mythra]

Oh yeah, and Paul did miraculous stuff, too. Spoke a word and a dude goes blind in Acts 13. Heals a cripple in Acts 14. Raises a dead guy named Eutychus in Acts 20.

 

I guess either raising the dead was a pretty common thing back then, or else people just didn't talk to each other much.

 

Can't figure how Josephus didn't hear about any of this.

[Ouroboros]

Oh yeah, and Paul did miraculous stuff, too.  Spoke a word and a dude goes blind in Acts 13.  Heals a cripple in Acts 14.  Raises a dead guy named Eutychus in Acts 20. 

 

I guess either raising the dead was a pretty common thing back then, or else people just didn't talk to each other much.

 

Can't figure how Josephus didn't hear about any of this.

That's true. I'm sure the miracles didn't happen or were faked.

 

Somewhere I read that the Acts was a made up story, and nothing about Paul and the apostels were substantianted.

 

The letters from Paul might be real though, and I don't think he started many churches, I think he got involved in existing ones and then influenced them into fundamentalist thinking, the sola scriptura kind of thing and the miracles etc. And I think the early church, Gnostic, was a more secretive kind, maybe it even was related to free masons?

[Mythra]

That's true. I'm sure the miracles didn't happen or were faked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you're sure the miracles didn't happen, why are you so sure that Paul happened?

 

I definitely agree that there were epistles with Paul's name on em. Just as there were gospels with Mary's, and Thomas, and Peter's and Pontius Pilate's name on em. And letters written by Jesus. .....

 

I don't take anything for granted anymore. And I don't let the bible prove the bible anymore.

 

Hope I don't sound like a kook. Be happy to change my mind as we receive new developments.

 

Not too many christians weighing in on any of this.

[Ouroboros]

If you're sure the miracles didn't happen, why are you so sure that Paul happened?

 

I definitely agree that there were epistles with Paul's name on em.  Just as there were gospels with Mary's, and Thomas, and Peter's and Pontius Pilate's name on em.  And letters written by Jesus.  .....

 

I don't take anything for granted anymore.  And I don't let the bible prove the bible anymore.

 

Hope I don't sound like a kook.  Be happy to change my mind as we receive new developments. 

 

Not too many christians weighing in on any of this. 

The miracles were only described in Acts, and Acts were not written by Paul, so Paul really don't claim so much to the miracles. Acts was written, I guess, to prove Paul was elected by God.

 

Well, even if Paul didn't exist, someone wrote those letters, and his name could have been something else. But they've used computer based text analysis of the letters and they have over 90% (IIRC) similarities in writing and style. I don't remember where I got the information, but they did this to check if some of the letters were written by Paul or not. And there were some doubts of one or two. But most of them showed statistically must have been written by the same person.

 

So yes, you're right, Paul could be a fake, but with the twist that the letters must have been written by the same faker. So the faker must have lived and written these letters before the first gospels.

 

Hey, actually that is not a totally weird thought at all!!!

 

Take C.S. Lewis and some of his books. I don't remember the title right now, but the one where a demon send letters to the devil etc. Who would know if a con artist wrote all the Pauline letters to make it look like something happened, that never did happen?! The posibility exist...

 

The con artists "third person confirmation" used again.

[Mythra]

I think you're talking about the screwtape letters.

 

Interesting shit. I'm just fascinated by it. I bet a year or two from now, I'll be one tough sob in a debate on the origins of christianity.

 

Paul seems to create the impression that churches were springing up everywhere. Phillipi, Corinth, Rome, Ephesus.. etc.

 

Yet in some of Eusebius' writings 250 years later, he talks about christianity as though it's a fairly new development.

[Ouroboros]

I think you're talking about the screwtape letters.

 

Interesting shit.  I'm just fascinated by it.  I bet a year or two from now, I'll be one tough sob in a debate on the origins of christianity. 

 

Paul seems to create the impression that churches were springing up everywhere.  Phillipi, Corinth, Rome, Ephesus.. etc.

 

Yet in some of Eusebius' writings 250 years later, he talks about christianity as though it's a fairly new development.

Oh really? Interesting. If the congregations "Paul" started were small and secret, maybe they didn't show on the maps until that late? Just like the freemasons were so secret that few knew that it even existed.

[Mythra]

Here's a little blurb on Eusebius and Constantine. Taken from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy

 

"One of the major players in this cover-up operation was a character called Eusebius who, at the beginning of the fourth century, compiled from legends, fabrication, and his own imagination the only early history of Christianity that still exists today. All subsequent histories have been forced to base themselves on Eusebius' dubious claims, because there has been little other information to draw on. All those with a different perspective on Christianity were branded as heretics and eradicated. In this way falsehoods compiled in the fourth century have come down to us as established facts.

 

Eusebius was employed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion of the Empire and gave Literalist Christianity the power it needed to begin the final eradication of Paganism and Gnosticism. Constantine wanted "one God, one religion" to consolidate his claim of "one Empire, one Emperor." He oversaw the creation of the Nicene creed - the article of faith repeated in churches to this day - and Christians who refused to assent to this creed were banished from the Empire or otherwise silenced.

 

This "Christian" Emperor then returned home from Nicaea and had his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately remained unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his atrocities and still receive forgiveness of sins and a guaranteed place in heaven by being baptized at the last moment. Although he had his "spin doctor" Eusebius compose a suitably obsequious biography for him, he was actually a monster - just like many Roman Emperors before him. Is it really at all surprising that a "history" of the origins of Christianity created by an employee in the service of a Roman tyrant should turn out to be a pack of lies?" end quote

 

This is the "solid rock" that Christianity is built on.

[Mythra]

thankful: so did the very next post (the one talking about Marcion) answer anything for you?

[Ouroboros]

Here's a little blurb on Eusebius and Constantine.  Taken from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy

...

This is the "solid rock" that Christianity is built on.

 

Wow!

 

That's some information that really haven't heard before. I can only say WOW!

[Mythra]

Here's a little something more on the Council of Nicea. Taken from "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S.

 

"Rather than the advent and death of a "historical" Christ, the single most important events in the history of Christianity were the "conversion" of the Pagan Emporer Constantine and the convening of the raucous Council of Nicea in 325, which in fact marked the true birth of Jesus Christ. Constantine, of course, "converted" to Christianity because it offered a "quick fix" to all of his heinous crimes, including the murder of several family members, removed simply by confession and "believing unto the Lord," absolutions he could not procure from other religions such as Mithraism, which did not cater to murderers.

 

At the Council of Nicea were not only Christian leaders from Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Jerusalem, and Rome but also leaders of the many other cults, sects, and religions, including those of Apollo, Demeter/Ceres, Dionysus/Bacchus/Iasios, Janus, Jupiter/Zeus, Oannes/Dagon, Osiris and Isis, and "Sol Invictus", the Invincible Sun, the object of Constantine's devotion. The purpose of this council was to unify the various competing cults under one universal or "catholic" church, which, of course, would be controlled by Constantine and Rome. As noted, Rome claimed the ultimate authority because it purported to be founded upon the "rock of Peter". Thus, the statue of Jupiter in Rome was converted into "St. Peter", whose phony bones were subsequently installed in the Vatican. In a typical religion-making move, the gods of these other cults were subjugated under the new god and changed into "apostles" and "saints".

 

As stated, it is maintained that during the Nicene Council the names Jesus and Christ were put together for the first time in the phrase "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus," uniting two of the major factions, with Jesus representing the Hesus of the Druids, Joshua/Jesus of the Israelites, Horus/Iusa of the Egyptians and IES/Iesios of the Dionysians/Samothracians, and Christ representing the Krishna/Christos of India, the Anointed of the Jews and KRST of Egypt, among others. It is thus alleged that the phrase "Jesus Christ", which had never been a name, does not appear in Greek or Latin authors prior to the first Council of Nicea. Hence, just as the name "Hermes Trismegistus" represents a tradition rather than a single man, so does "Jesus Christ." end quote

 

 

Don't know if every bit of this is true. But it does appear that there was more to the Council of Nicea than just a bunch of Christians getting together and voting on which books would make up the bible.

[Mythra]

The only explanation is that not even ONE single person really had a true idea of what the religion was supposed to be. I would say the confusion and diversity of the early church points even harder to the idea that Jesus never existed, and Christianity was a mix of different ideologies and religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If we have all these offshoots today, even when we have the written word, imagine all the detours it took back then, when it was all word of mouth. Hell, they even came up with an idea for a half-god, half-man character patterned after so many of the pagan gods and saviors.

 

You mention that it was confusion for the first 50 years after Jesus' death. It was more like 100 years of stories and legends and sayings being passed around. That is, 100 years after the "supposed" crucifiction and death of Christ.

 

There were almost 50 different versions of the death of Christ, with some stories not having him killed at all.

 

There is no evidence to support the Christian's assertions that the Gospels were written between 70 and 80 CE. They only assert this because they want to hold fast to the belief that it was actually disciples - eyewitnesses - who wrote the gospels. (Matthew and John)

 

There are tons of things in the gospels that could not have been written by anyone familiar with Judaism or the geography of the area. For instance, one of the gospels (I think it's Mark) has Jesus coming to them on the water during the "fourth watch" of the night.

 

No such thing with the Jews. There were only three watches of the night. The ROMANS had four.

 

Justin Martyr was one of the early Christians and wrote quite a volume of stuff. He did not know about these four Gospels. And this was around 150 CE! The first mention of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is in 185 CE!

[Mythra]

your welcome, thankful.

 

I'm kind of shooting from the hip on some of this.

 

Hopefully if I have something wrong, an expert like AUB or Lokmer will correct me.

[Mythra]

Yeah, tf. This would have been much better as a separate thread. Didn't know we were gonna get this involved with it.

 

Here is a pretty good proof that the apostle John is not who wrote the gospel of John.

 

First, we have this:

 

John 12:21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

 

Now, a quote from "A Short History of the Bible", by Bronson Keeler

 

"The Gospel of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee. There is no such town in that district, and there never was. Bethsaida was on the east side of the Sea of Tiberias, whereas Galilee was on the west side. St. John was born at Bethsaida, and the probability is that he would know the geographical location of his own birthplace."

 

[Mythra]

Mods: we went completely sideways on this thread. Any chance we could take the last two pages and make a new thread with it?

 

Maybe called "shining the light on Christianity", or something like that.

 

Don't know if that's a possibility or not. I just feel kinda bad for completely getting off topic. We got a little carried away.

[Ouroboros]

You’re on a roll today Mythra.

 

If we have all these offshoots today, even when we have the written word, imagine all the detours it took back then, when it was all word of mouth.  Hell, they even came up with an idea for a half-god, half-man character patterned after so many of the pagan gods and saviors.

 

You mention that it was confusion for the first 50 years after Jesus' death.  It was more like 100 years of stories and legends and sayings being passed around.  That is, 100 years after the "supposed" crucifiction and death of Christ.

What I mean was that they had so many diverse versions of the gospel so early as within 50 years after Jesus supposed death. It’s more understandable that a religion gets offshoots later on, but in the beginning, that is a tattletale that no one really knew or met Jesus. It would be like our generation, 20-30 years from now, start having totally conflicting ideas about Dubya. Someone says he didn’t exist, some say he was crucified, and some say he was God, and some say he was only human, and yet some say he wasn’t man but a girl with goldilocks.

 

If we would hear and meet Jesus, live on the street today, we wouldn’t be uncertain about what and who he was, and even, we probably would make a greater point even, to that he was human, not make him to be an incarnation of the Word floating around as a ghost or something. We pretty much would have same ideas. And I wouldn’t make Jesus walk from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and making a shortcut through Miami. And we wouldn't make him cast out demons out of a guy in Bermingham, and send the spirits into some pigs in the city park, and command them to throw themselves into the Pacific Ocean.

 

There were almost 50 different versions of the death of Christ, with  some stories not having him killed at all.

Oh, I didn’t know that. Cool.

 

There is no evidence to support the Christian's assertions that the Gospels were written between 70 and 80 CE.  They only assert this because they want to hold fast to the belief that it was actually disciples - eyewitnesses - who wrote the gospels.  (Matthew and John)

 

There are tons of things in the gospels that could not have been written by anyone familiar with Judaism or the geography of the area.  For instance, one of the gospels (I think it's Mark) has Jesus coming to them on the water during the "fourth watch" of the night. 

 

No such thing with the Jews.  There were only three watches of the night.  The ROMANS had four.

Interesting…

 

Justin Martyr was one of the early Christians and wrote quite a volume of stuff.  He did not know about these four Gospels.  And this was around 150 CE!  The first mention of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is in 185 CE!

I think the Jesus seminars agree on that the names on the Gospels are wrong, and that the gospels did exist earlier, but in simpler forms. Like the Gospel Q.

 

 

Yeah, tf.  This would have been much better as a separate thread.  Didn't know we were gonna get this involved with it.

I think MrNeil will survive, and we do have another thread for this, but you must’ve missed it.

[Mythra]

If we would hear and meet Jesus, live on the street today, we wouldn’t be uncertain about what and who he was, and even, we probably would make a greater point even, to that he was human, not make him to be an incarnation of the Word floating around as a ghost or something. We pretty much would have same ideas. And I wouldn’t make Jesus walk from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and making a shortcut through Miami. And we wouldn't make him cast out demons out of a guy in Bermingham, and send the spirits into some pigs in the city park, and command them to throw themselves into the Pacific Ocean.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly right, Hans. The early church fathers destroyed almost everything that might leave clues. But, they left clues in all of their apologetics and other writings.

 

So, what would you think, lets say, if you read something written today that said, "now then, for those of you who deny that John F. Kennedy ever existed in the flesh.."

 

You'd say, WTF? Either this guy is nuts, or something weird is going on here.

 

As I understand Q, scholars have come to the conclusion that there was a common source for the three synoptic gospels. (Mt, Mk, Lk) This is only a theory, no such book exists. (I think you probably knew that). I can't remember what Q stands for.

 

 

Okay - in keeping with the theme of the day; another exerpt

 

From "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy

 

"Although the remarkable similarities between the myths of Osiris-Dionysus and the supposed biography of Jesus Christ are generally unknown today, in the first few centuries CE they were obvious to Pagans and Christians alike. The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus critisized Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of Pagan myths. He asks:

 

Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.

 

The early Christians were painfully aware of such critisisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.

 

The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

 

The devil whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises them forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.

 

Studying the myths of the Mysteries it becomes obvious why these early Christians resorted to such a desperate explanation. Although no single Pagan myth completely parallels the story of Jesus, the mythic motifs that make up the story of the Jewish godman had already existed for centuries in the various stories told of Osiris-Dionysis and his greatest prophets." end quote

 

 

Plagiarism by Anticipation

[Mr. Neil]

I don't really mind. Actually, I don't mind if topics stray. I stray all the time. I chose to eject Invictus' cosmological ass from this topic because he clearly had every intention of avoiding the original topic altogether while simultaneously trying to embarrass me by playing semantic games.

 

Whether or not I incorrectly defined a Christian (I don't think I did) is irrelevent. I was simply asking a question about the arguments of people like Paul Manata that are used in conjunction with Romans 1. If atheists are evil and deceived, then it seems odd that some of these evil people find their way back to Christian practices. Apparently, evil can lead right back to good. Are these people saved or damned?

 

But Invictus didn't want to talk about that. He'd rather be a child, so I chose to treat him like a child.

[Mythra]

Thanks, Neil.

 

I just get so tired of Christians throwing out scripture, I thought it was time to give em a taste of their own medicine.