Who Is Jesus?

[HadouKen24]

Simon Magus flew? Historical fact? It's in Acts and if acts is history then Simon flew, until the disciples prayed at him...

 

Acts doesn't say that Simon flew.

 

Even so, in an above post, I wrote:

 

I didn't say that we should take everything in Acts at face value. I suspect that many of the events in the book are either made up, or twisted, such as the encounter with Simon Magus.

[Grandpa Harley]

So Acts isn't a reliable document...

[Grandpa Harley]

and you're quite right it's the Apocryphal Acts of Peter where he flew... but the Magus seems to have had enough of a following to be regarded as sufficient threat to be denounced... although, unlike Marcion, not powerful enough to warrant the inclusion of some of his books in the bible (Marcion was the original Pauline... the Canonical Acts seem to have been redrafted in the latter half to set the scene for Paul/Saul of Tarsus... Tarsean Christians believed in a Triune of Gods - God the Father being the senior, the feminine 'holy Wisdom' and Jesus, the human son who born of the Father and the 'Wisdom'...

[HadouKen24]

So Acts isn't a reliable document...

Not entirely, no. None of the books of the canon are "reliable." That doesn't mean that nothing of value can be gleaned from them.

 

although, unlike Marcion, not powerful enough to warrant the inclusion of some of his books in the bible (Marcion was the original Pauline... the Canonical Acts seem to have been redrafted in the latter half to set the scene for Paul/Saul of Tarsus... Tarsean Christians believed in a Triune of Gods - God the Father being the senior, the feminine 'holy Wisdom' and Jesus, the human son who born of the Father and the 'Wisdom'...

 

There are a number of claims here.

 

First, that the reason for the inclusion of Marcion's books in the canon is competition with Marcion. This is a very curious claim to make. Marcion was a member of the church of Rome before breaking off and forming his own sect. Where would he have gotten those epistles, except from the church of Rome? One might cite 1 Clement in support of this position. They were included in the canon of the later church not because of Marcion's use of them. Rather, Marcion used them for the same reason that they were later included in the later canon.

 

It's worth noting that Polycarp cited Paul as a blessed apostle long before Marcion appeared on the scene.

 

Do you have a source for your claims about Tarsean Christians? I haven't been able to find anything about the primacy of any non-orthodox teachings in Tarsus prior to the Nestorians. Your account sounds a bit like the account found in Eugnostos the Blessed from the Nag Hammadi writings, but from what I understand that book is considered to be of Egyptian origin.

[Grandpa Harley]

So Acts isn't a reliable document...

Not entirely, no. None of the books of the canon are "reliable." That doesn't mean that nothing of value can be gleaned from them.

 

although, unlike Marcion, not powerful enough to warrant the inclusion of some of his books in the bible (Marcion was the original Pauline... the Canonical Acts seem to have been redrafted in the latter half to set the scene for Paul/Saul of Tarsus... Tarsean Christians believed in a Triune of Gods - God the Father being the senior, the feminine 'holy Wisdom' and Jesus, the human son who born of the Father and the 'Wisdom'...

 

There are a number of claims here.

 

First, that the reason for the inclusion of Marcion's books in the canon is competition with Marcion. This is a very curious claim to make. Marcion was a member of the church of Rome before breaking off and forming his own sect. Where would he have gotten those epistles, except from the church of Rome? One might cite 1 Clement in support of this position. They were included in the canon of the later church not because of Marcion's use of them. Rather, Marcion used them for the same reason that they were later included in the later canon.

 

It's worth noting that Polycarp cited Paul as a blessed apostle long before Marcion appeared on the scene.

 

Do you have a source for your claims about Tarsean Christians? I haven't been able to find anything about the primacy of any non-orthodox teachings in Tarsus prior to the Nestorians. Your account sounds a bit like the account found in Eugnostos the Blessed from the Nag Hammadi writings, but from what I understand that book is considered to be of Egyptian origin.

Polycarp and Marcion were contemporaneous... certainly enough for Polycarp to meet Marcion and call him the first born of Satan... which sounds like a schism in the Pauline movement. There again, Polycarp's integrity is open to question, since he makes improbable claims about knowing John... By the time of Eusebius Pamphillus the Marcionite movement was a viable alternative to the one whispering in the ear of the Emperor, hence the rabid denunciation and somewhat bloody 'resolution' after the 'good guys' won...

 

So, how does one glean what is 'worthwhile' from such admittedly bowdlerised, corrupted and just plain lying texts?

[HadouKen24]

Polycarp and Marcion were contemporaneous... certainly enough for Polycarp to meet Marcion and call him the first born of Satan... which sounds like a schism in the Pauline movement. There again, Polycarp's integrity is open to question, since he makes improbable claims about knowing John... By the time of Eusebius Pamphillus the Marcionite movement was a viable alternative to the one whispering in the ear of the Emperor, hence the rabid denunciation and somewhat bloody 'resolution' after the 'good guys' won...

 

Polycarp was probably about 40 years older than Marcion.

 

Having seen church politics in action personally--my parents are sadly involved in a situation involving a new, arrogant douchebag minister who seems bent on turning a Presbyterian church into an Episcopalian--that's no doubt a fair analysis of events.

 

I won't deny that there was a great deal of politics involved. I just don't think that this particular political spat had much to do with the formation of the canon. I strongly suspect Pauline Christianity would have spread with or without Marcion; his theology seems to me to be much more acceptable to the spirit of the Romans of the times.

 

So, how does one glean what is 'worthwhile' from such admittedly bowdlerised, corrupted and just plain lying texts?

 

Very carefully.

[Grandpa Harley]

Polycarp and Marcion were contemporaneous... certainly enough for Polycarp to meet Marcion and call him the first born of Satan... which sounds like a schism in the Pauline movement. There again, Polycarp's integrity is open to question, since he makes improbable claims about knowing John... By the time of Eusebius Pamphillus the Marcionite movement was a viable alternative to the one whispering in the ear of the Emperor, hence the rabid denunciation and somewhat bloody 'resolution' after the 'good guys' won...

 

Polycarp was probably about 40 years older than Marcion.

 

Having seen church politics in action personally--my parents are sadly involved in a situation involving a new, arrogant douchebag minister who seems bent on turning a Presbyterian church into an Episcopalian--that's no doubt a fair analysis of events.

 

I won't deny that there was a great deal of politics involved. I just don't think that this particular political spat had much to do with the formation of the canon. I strongly suspect Pauline Christianity would have spread with or without Marcion; his theology seems to me to be much more acceptable to the spirit of the Romans of the times.

 

So, how does one glean what is 'worthwhile' from such admittedly bowdlerised, corrupted and just plain lying texts?

 

Very carefully.

The age difference proves what? According to record, he told Marcion to his face he was Satan's first born. However I would concur that Paul was selling to Romans... the scism was over whether Yahweh was the same God as God the Father.

 

As to the 'how do hedgehogs screw?' answer... it's a non answer... 'very carefully'? Means precisely nothing... it's corrupted beyond fitting it into history, thus it's nonsense. There is nothing there one can rely upon since the whole text is corrupt (although not as venal and corrupt as the followers)

[mwc]

I'm saying that he used both his visions and prior teachings about Jesus as his basis for his teachings.

So he made things up from "visions" and the "prior teachings" could have come from anywhere and simply been attributed to his jesus. Since Paul's writings are the oldest we have can the direction of flow of these ideas be properly determined from them? As I said, he didn't "learn" anything from Jerusalem but perhaps they took things from him? So the eucharist went from Paul to them and not the other way around? The gospels simply later wrote the story showing their man made up the ritual instead of Paul acquiring it some other way.

 

If you have objections to the historicity of Acts, feel free to present them. I'm unaware of any evidence that the author just made stuff up, though.

Ethiopia no longer had a Candace during this time period since Rome was the ruling power there and done away with them for one small nit so the whole conversion Philip made wouldn't have happened. Not to mention his "flying" act just after. But to derail the thread further discussing such things seems a waste of time at this point.

 

In other words, you don't really have an explanation for his going, then.

Only what he says. He went to see Peter and James the first time for 15 days and 14 years later he saw them again to tell them what the gospel was that he was preaching to the Gentiles. That's it. He then literally mentions a "hand shake" like I said.

 

Acts would seem to show at least some counter-evidence to the accusation that he just made the visit up.

It would offer another story but it also offer a conflicting time line to Paul's epistle's. So if it's evidence...it hurts the case. I'm not willing to allow special pleading for the parts of the story that supports the others and simply ignore the parts that don't. Paul says he had his conversion and went to Arabia immediately but Acts doesn't support that at all but instead sends him straight to Damascus. I guess we'll ignore that and only pay attention to the parts that we "like." Sorry...not going to happen.

 

Ah. I see we have an issue of interpretation, then.

 

I'm not saying that the events described in the gospels necessarily actually happened. I suspect some of them are, in fact, based on Jesus' actual teachings--the apocalypticism, especially. I am saying, though, that these stories had spread throughout the Christian community by the time Paul showed up on the scene.

Based on? The fact that some anonymous stories written years after the supposed fact said that some guy 40+ years ago did/said something?

 

But jesus walks around a teaches. He doesn't establish a single church during his time doing this. At one point he sends his apostles off to teach an incomplete message, but not establish churches, during his supposed time here. He gets killed. But before this he says to hang out and wait for the spirit to show up. They do. Shortly thereafter Saul is already persecuting churches all over the place before he becomes Paul. So where do these churches come from if they were all stuck in Jerusalem waiting for the spirit all this time? Luke/Acts makes the growth of the church very stagnant until Paul comes on the scene. We have to assume that people took it upon themselves to establish churches without any apostolic guidance since they were in Jerusalem "waiting" for however long the spirit took to get there. Who knows what those churches really were about (or if they even existed since this is all supposition)?

 

Strangely enough, that seems to be what the Jews of the time tried to do.

No. That's what a Greek text by a probably non-Jewish author (based on the various things I've read on who wrote G.Mark) said they did.

 

mwc

[HadouKen24]

The age difference proves what?

 

That Polycarp spoke of Paul as the "blessed Apostle" before Marcion was a factor.

 

As to the 'how do hedgehogs screw?' answer... it's a non answer... 'very carefully'? Means precisely nothing... it's corrupted beyond fitting it into history, thus it's nonsense. There is nothing there one can rely upon since the whole text is corrupt (although not as venal and corrupt as the followers)

 

"The whole text?" The Bible is not one unitary work, as you well know. It is a selection of multiple books by different authors, written at different times. Each one is to be taken on its own and analyzed on its own, though the other books can often provide a sort of context. Each book has a different level of authenticity and reliability. The epistle to the Romans, for instance, might actually tell us something about Paul's perception of how things were going with the Christians in Rome--it seems to be largely intact. Titus, on the other hand, was probably fabricated long after Paul's death. We can tell these things by looking at the kind of language used in the text and the issues addressed, attestation in the patristic writings, and so on.

 

It's easy to say that "the whole thing is just too corrupt to have anything of value." However, a closer inspection reveals that not to be the case.

 

 

 

So he made things up from "visions" and the "prior teachings" could have come from anywhere and simply been attributed to his jesus. Since Paul's writings are the oldest we have can the direction of flow of these ideas be properly determined from them? As I said, he didn't "learn" anything from Jerusalem but perhaps they took things from him? So the eucharist went from Paul to them and not the other way around? The gospels simply later wrote the story showing their man made up the ritual instead of Paul acquiring it some other way.

 

Paul's writings are the oldest we have, but that does not mean that Pauline ideas are the oldest Christian ideas we have. The ideas found in Mark probably predate the ideas of Paul. Assuming that the idea of Jesus as more than just a Messiah in the Jewish sense accrete to later stories about the life of Jesus, then the books that have less of that are probably earlier in origin. Just from reading Mark, you would hardly get the idea that Jesus was more than a prophet at all, so it is probably earlier.

 

It has the Eucharist story just as the other synoptic books do.

 

It would offer another story but it also offer a conflicting time line to Paul's epistle's. So if it's evidence...it hurts the case. I'm not willing to allow special pleading for the parts of the story that supports the others and simply ignore the parts that don't. Paul says he had his conversion and went to Arabia immediately but Acts doesn't support that at all but instead sends him straight to Damascus. I guess we'll ignore that and only pay attention to the parts that we "like." Sorry...not going to happen.

 

It would be rather suspicious if the time lines were precisely the same. Complete consistency would be a sign of intentional collaboration, which would probably mean that we're effectively dealing with one source instead of two sources that can be checked against each other. Where they disagree, we have to say that we have no idea which one is correct. Where they disagree, we can say that that it happened to at least some degree of confidence, even if it is only a notch or two above mere suspicion that things occurred that way.

 

Based on? The fact that some anonymous stories written years after the supposed fact said that some guy 40+ years ago did/said something?

 

But jesus walks around a teaches. He doesn't establish a single church during his time doing this. At one point he sends his apostles off to teach an incomplete message, but not establish churches, during his supposed time here. He gets killed. But before this he says to hang out and wait for the spirit to show up. They do. Shortly thereafter Saul is already persecuting churches all over the place before he becomes Paul. So where do these churches come from if they were all stuck in Jerusalem waiting for the spirit all this time? Luke/Acts makes the growth of the church very stagnant until Paul comes on the scene. We have to assume that people took it upon themselves to establish churches without any apostolic guidance since they were in Jerusalem "waiting" for however long the spirit took to get there. Who knows what those churches really were about (or if they even existed since this is all supposition)?

 

Where did I say anything about "churches?" I spoke of a Christian community, not churches.

 

It's not clear how long Christianity had been around before Paul showed up on the scene.

 

No. That's what a Greek text by a probably non-Jewish author (based on the various things I've read on who wrote G.Mark) said they did.

 

And you agree they probably would have. I don't really understand your objection here.

[perianwalsh]

I was doing a lot of research,and I am extremely puzzled....Is Jesus a combination of heroes & myths,or the copying of dead sea scrolls,mithraic religion,phropheet......

Hope someone can explain,or just simply give me links.

thanks.i apologize 4 my intrusion

 

Put simply, the Bible is a collection of myths and fables written by men and Jesus never existed. Jesus is just another dying and resurrecting Sun god. Every year the Sun is said to "die" at the winter solstice and is reborn 3 days later. The 12 deciples are the signs of the zodiac.

 

I would like put it that way ,but got stuck when reading the pauline letters

[perianwalsh]

But gee,for all of your help,thanks

[Grandpa Harley]

I was doing a lot of research,and I am extremely puzzled....Is Jesus a combination of heroes & myths,or the copying of dead sea scrolls,mithraic religion,phropheet......

Hope someone can explain,or just simply give me links.

thanks.i apologize 4 my intrusion

 

Put simply, the Bible is a collection of myths and fables written by men and Jesus never existed. Jesus is just another dying and resurrecting Sun god. Every year the Sun is said to "die" at the winter solstice and is reborn 3 days later. The 12 deciples are the signs of the zodiac.

 

I would like put it that way ,but got stuck when reading the pauline letters

Paul is at odds with some of the Gospel teaching... thing is the Bible is just a very small subset of the extant texts... To stick with the Bible just gives one the accepted view, which is, when you look at it, pretty unconvincing... but that's what you get when you have 300 people in the room and only two can read... If one is trying to get an overview of a possible historical Jesus (or lack thereof), then you have to look outside canon.

[Grandpa Harley]

oh, and don't rely on anything written post 300AD

[Ouroboros]

oh, and don't rely on anything written post 300AD

I can't trust what you just said, because it was written on the 3rd of June, 2007 AD...

[mwc]

Darn...I wrote a response to this yesterday but it seems it didn't post (my monitor on my PC smoked so I'm using a not so reliable laptop until I replace it). I'll try to remember some of what I said...

 

Paul's writings are the oldest we have, but that does not mean that Pauline ideas are the oldest Christian ideas we have. The ideas found in Mark probably predate the ideas of Paul. Assuming that the idea of Jesus as more than just a Messiah in the Jewish sense accrete to later stories about the life of Jesus, then the books that have less of that are probably earlier in origin. Just from reading Mark, you would hardly get the idea that Jesus was more than a prophet at all, so it is probably earlier.

 

It has the Eucharist story just as the other synoptic books do.

Since there aren't any writings from the 1st century we don't know which came first. The time line is established from the stories themselves. The problem is that Paul is vague in detail so if we decide that there was a human jesus the only thing we can take away from Paul is that this HJ precedes him but it could be by any length of time really. Since Paul is pretty loose in his use of the term "apostle" it doesn't mean that only the 12 personally appointed by a HJ would be called that so Paul meeting with apostles could be many removed from anyone who actually knew a HJ.

 

G.Mark, being the least refined of the gospels, makes it the best candidate for the oldest (that and both G.Matthew and G.Luke both appear to "borrow" heavily from it). Since Paul's theology seems less developed that G.Marks it would almost seem that his might be older yet but that would mean he came before jesus (putting the cart before the horse) and that simply can't happen now can it? Of course, it CAN happen but it means tossing out a lot of the current ideas about how things developed back then. Since that all relies on speculation though there's not much to discuss at this point.

 

It would be rather suspicious if the time lines were precisely the same. Complete consistency would be a sign of intentional collaboration, which would probably mean that we're effectively dealing with one source instead of two sources that can be checked against each other. Where they disagree, we have to say that we have no idea which one is correct. Where they disagree, we can say that that it happened to at least some degree of confidence, even if it is only a notch or two above mere suspicion that things occurred that way.

Yep. Suspicious when they match and suspicious when they don't. The poor authors simply didn't stand a chance. Just like when G.Matthew and G.Luke agree, nearly word for word and in order when they use G.Mark as a guide, but when they don't they rarely agree on either. Now when G.Luke sets out on his own he seems to write about The Way at first, which is similar to the little group found in the Damascus Covenant in the DSS but then becomes something else altogether in the second part when it becomes heavily Paul focused.

 

But we should believe Acts because he claims that the term Christian originated in Antioch but the writings of Theophilus of Antioch from the 2nd century (who we are told is the Bishop there) tells us that the term is simply because people are annointed and never relates any of the story of Acts in his writing. It seems he would know but he seems to put forth a different version of things (as it's not his focus it's really just a gloss but still).

 

Where did I say anything about "churches?" I spoke of a Christian community, not churches.

 

It's not clear how long Christianity had been around before Paul showed up on the scene.

Churches are the main focus of early xianity. I guess by "community" you're referencing the little group mentioned in Acts, which again, speaks more of the DSS group more than anything else we know about. No church fathers that I have read mention any "community" like those in Acts...including Paul the one who supposedly "persecuted" them.

 

And you agree they probably would have. I don't really understand your objection here.

There's a difference between someone doing something and somebody saying someone is doing something. I have supported the latter while you seem to be supporting the former.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

oh, and don't rely on anything written post 300AD

I can't trust what you just said, because it was written on the 3rd of June, 2007 AD...

Anything I say three times is true...

[Grandpa Harley]

 

As a thought, something that has often struck me about the Saul of Tarsus narrative is that it looks like one Messianic group assaulting another, rather than a concerted Roman one (since the Jesus group doesn't even warrant a name check in the Roman chronicles of the time. indicating a general lack of importance) Saul changing allegiance and becoming Paul then makes sense (including the group sending him to Samaria... a bit like the Peruvian Golden Dawn sending an untrusted envoy to the Provisional IRA... if he comes back with something good, then great... if he never comes back at all, that's fine too)

[Ouroboros]

oh, and don't rely on anything written post 300AD

I can't trust what you just said, because it was written on the 3rd of June, 2007 AD...

Anything I say three times is true...

So it's not that I have to ask you three times before you tell me the truth. ... hehe

[perianwalsh]

Paul is at odds with some of the Gospel teaching... thing is the Bible is just a very small subset of the extant texts... To stick with the Bible just gives one the accepted view, which is, when you look at it, pretty unconvincing... but that's what you get when you have 300 people in the room and only two can read... If one is trying to get an overview of a possible historical Jesus (or lack thereof), then you have to look outside canon.

Agree,agree.I have done a lot of thinking about it,and there are a few ideas around it:

Pauline letters

-there are based on different views that we might think of pauline letters today.

-the son of david sentence might simply just later tamperation( I am not an expert,I cant distinguish the style of writing which might be interpolation anyway)

 

 

try to look at a scholary way.....

 

Jesus

I tried tolook at 3 events-before,at his supposed lifetime,after

before

-pharisee,saducee,where they come from:

I supposed i did wonder why the afterlife issue was supposed an bible said thing,but saducee disbelieves them.From what I can sum up,afterlife beliefs of the time are of new persian beliefs

 

-Babylonian Exile

-using of historians writings of the time may give us a background

-the expectation of messiah at the time

-king cyrus

-the attitude of romans

-zoroaster->zarathrustra

-from the accounts of ot,althought it may not reliable

 

On his birth etc

-historians on the time,&

-how josephus pictures john the baptist

-accounts of nt

-documents of the time

 

 

 

about after...running out of ideas

Pualine letters should be one of the earliest right?

[mwc]

-Babylonian Exile

-using of historians writings of the time may give us a background

-the expectation of messiah at the time

-king cyrus

-the attitude of romans

-zoroaster->zarathrustra

-from the accounts of ot,althought it may not reliable

Here's an article that sums up some of this through the eyes of a very (IMO) intelligent man who is a leader in the field. Looks like they are finally making a documentary based on his book "The Bible Unearthed" and, if they do it any justice, it will be THE documentary to watch (unlike most of the sensationalist garbage that gets aired).

 

mwc

[perianwalsh]

Good article..Clears my mind a lot.Nice to hear it from an archaeologist who ,althought may be a practicing jew,respects history.

 

Sum up about Paul

1.Paul seems to knew a lot about roman law

2.hE got some rather strange statements,and not the 13 epistles can be claimed as his writings

3.i got a theory that the mithraic priest swap frequently with the early xtian priest,so paul was againsting them,not the gnostic

4.He's the strangest once have been orthodox jew .He disregards the jewish law.An orthodox jew will never disregard jewish law,especially circumsicion,ten commandments.The Jews are encourage to observe the commandments(it surprises me when i first knew it )-althought he claims that he was an orthodox.

5.He argues with peter before.

6.Self loathing a lot.And There's where the sin theory starts.

7.He is a pharisee born in tarsus

8.encourage mercy,grace of God

9.about jesus:key words:resurrection,son of david,appears to 500men..

 

 

Oh,and further key points about b4 ,birth of jesus,after(sry if there's little connection with the topic)

Gnostic

The rabbis

Movement

jewish sect the way

 

After

Early view about christian,and their burial

why Xtian are executed

early pictures

 

Additional

Jews view of sin,sheol...

 

The words Hades is pretty clear to those who examines greek mythology before

 

I got another problem-did the sepuagint come first,or the jewish version of torah comes first?

[mwc]

I got another problem-did the sepuagint come first,or the jewish version of torah comes first?

The consensus is that the LXX came later as did all the Greek versions (the LXX being the most well known and probably the most widely used). The Hebrew and Aramaic texts would have came first then the Greek from those. Whether the Masoratic or LXX came first is hard to tell but many feel the LXX came from an older text than the Masoratic MSS did so while a "younger" translation it is an "older" version. I don't know if this will ever be resolved without further discovery. In some ways I feel that the Greek came first but there's nothing at all to support that so perhaps it's simply some of the ideas that made there way into the texts that are causing me to feel that way? I wouldn't doubt it so I need to step back from time to time to avoid seeing things that probably aren't there.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Sum up about Paul

1.Paul seems to knew a lot about roman law

2.hE got some rather strange statements,and not the 13 epistles can be claimed as his writings

3.i got a theory that the mithraic priest swap frequently with the early xtian priest,so paul was againsting them,not the gnostic

4.He's the strangest once have been orthodox jew .He disregards the jewish law.An orthodox jew will never disregard jewish law,especially circumsicion,ten commandments.The Jews are encourage to observe the commandments(it surprises me when i first knew it )-althought he claims that he was an orthodox.

5.He argues with peter before.

6.Self loathing a lot.And There's where the sin theory starts.

7.He is a pharisee born in tarsus

8.encourage mercy,grace of God

9.about jesus:key words:resurrection,son of david,appears to 500men..

1. He claims to be Roman. No surprises there.

2. I'm not sure what your point is other than not all writings attributed to him probably are his.

3. So you think Paul was fighting the Mithraic cult? Considering Paul was "gnostic" leaning it's no surprise to say he wasn't against them.

4. What is an "orthodox" Jew during this period? That would need to be established for this to make sense. Many Jews outside Judea failed to follow the Law...especially food laws. He seems no different.

5. He argues with Cephas. So?

6. Yes. He is self-loathing. Likely from his "illness."

7. A Pharisee is just a sect title. It means little really beyond it lets us know he believes in a resurrection and supernatural events (if he's telling the truth of course).

8. Whatever these things truly mean to him.

9. Resurrection is part of the beliefs of the Pharisees so nothing unique to jesus.

 

Other things you say are a little cryptic so I'm really not sure what you're getting at but if it makes sense to you then I guess that's what counts.

 

mwc

[perianwalsh]

3. So you think Paul was fighting the Mithraic cult? Considering Paul was "gnostic" leaning it's no surprise to say he wasn't against them.

Nah I think I put some of them in the wrong catagory.This is one of the theories I read,not what I think

9.about jesus:key words:resurrection,son of david,appears to 500men

actually I just refer to a theory that says whether resurrection was already form at Pual's time.

i got little time nowadays so i might make my post very unclear.....I think i am a confused humpty dumpty anyway.....

2. I'm not sure what your point is other than not all writings attributed to him probably are his.

there's some arguments that some of the epistles are not from his pen(scholar arguments)

....argh....getting frustrated.......after weeks of research still finding question marks(markss.....)

sorry for making you unclear,mwc

[mwc]

....argh....getting frustrated.......after weeks of research still finding question marks(markss.....)

sorry for making you unclear,mwc

Don't worry about me.

 

Many, many people have done lots of research on this. Consider the question marks a badge of honor. It means you're making progress instead of swallowing what's set before you.

 

To be honest I have far more questions than answers after all the research I have done. I just keep plugging away hoping that somehow it will come together...but it probably won't without more discoveries out in the field.

 

mwc