Early Christians Were Lazy -- Look At The Vedas Also Preserved By Memory

[hereticzero]

However, in order for politics--or even a Babylonian exile--to happen, we have to have real live historical people. So I guess there was a people known as Israel before the exile and it stands to reason to think that some of the later kings whom the OT says built cities actually have a basis in history. What do you think? Did I misread your posts, possibly?

Religious fiction is historical fiction.

 

I may not have made my point too clearly. Christian writers write from the presumed premise that the Bible is true word for word. They don't care if they may be quoting fiction. The Vedas is fiction and a religious group of books. If the Vedas was transcribed 100% accurately, what profit is in it if it defrauds someone into believing in something that does not exist anyway? Why does it matter? Christians cannot get their mythology straight because they made it up as they went. If the Vedas and NT and OT writings are frauds, what is the difference in whether one was kept 100% pure or not? They all claim to have been given by divine inspiration so that the rest of us will know just how far we've sunk as a race! Then they have rituals and ceremonies people have to follow in order to reclaim a relationship with god or gods.

 

Brave Heart is historical fiction based on real people, so I would expect to find the names of most of the people of that story in history books. People in the story, though the story itself is fiction, the people and events were real. You can have stories of Kings ruling when they should have ruled and people becoming slaves when they were conquered. None of which proves Moses wrote anything and none of which proves Moses ever lived. I never found a story told of the Jews ransacking Egypt when they left as told in Exodus. I have not found a story of Egypt speaking of Moses, no hieroglyph anywhere, not even found in the enemies of Egypt are there stories. If my enemy were overrun by a bunch of slaves, I would brag it up in stone! If they were led by a great magician, I would carve that in stone. There ain't none! It is historical fiction used to fill in the early life of Israel in order to justify the laws of their religion imposed by the priests. You can have real people in stories, it legitimizes the claim of the religion to mention people who were rulers when their favorite prophet was alive. Because a King can be substantiated, how does that substantiate a tale of a prophet? My whole point is what I just wrote, historical fiction is still fiction even if the fiction was kept in memory for a thousand years.

 

Brave Heart is based upon real people, however, is the bible really based upon real people or is it a myth become truth because it has been told for so many years? Where is Pharaoh Joseph in the lineage of Egyptian Pharaohs? I do not see his name or his Egyptian name in the history books. Does the length of time a story is told make it based upon true stories? Not every myth is based upon truth. Some stories are just stories. How can we claim OT writings are historically accurate writings if the stories cannot be proven? Just because they mention kingdoms that existed or people who may have existed in those days, does not mean the writings are historical records of actual events or that they foretold events. The stories were written after the fact so their prophecies mean nothing. That is why I do not consider biblical stories historical events. They may have happened but not in the context given by the Bible or by some bible theologian or bible historian. If they want to prove historical accuracy then let them explore and find corroborating evidence and not evidence given to them by the church. I think there is enough doubt given in ancient religious text not to take them for historical reference unless you are writing about the religion's history. I do not believe a religious document is that trustworthy.

[Antlerman]

I confess this thread took a very unexpected turn while I wasn't looking but it's interesting all the same. Granted, AM's posts on symbolism go right over my head but Heretic's posts about original texts are right down my alley.

It's not my intention to co-opt your thread, but it sparks thoughts in me that I wish to flesh out. And I would hope that would be taken as a compliment to you. I actually hold your knowledge in respect, and believe that we share a kindred spirit in respect to exploring understanding what this is all about. Of anyone I think you are able to dig into this with the same desire as I. I don't believe it's beyond you.

 

However, in order for politics--or even a Babylonian exile--to happen, we have to have real live historical people. So I guess there was a people known as Israel before the exile and it stands to reason to think that some of the later kings whom the OT says built cities actually have a basis in history. What do you think? Did I misread your posts, possibly?

Religious fiction is historical fiction.

History itself, is historical fiction.

 

Ever heard the saying that history is written by the victors?

 

I may not have made my point too clearly. Christian writers write from the presumed premise that the Bible is true word for word.

Really? Care to back that up? I don't believe that for a minute. The writers of the Bible were so loose and free in what they chose to include and exclude, and how they chose to craft it that they were hardly what could be called literalists, by today's standards.

 

They don't care if they may be quoting fiction.

Which should be your first clue.

 

The Vedas is fiction and a religious group of books. If the Vedas was transcribed 100% accurately, what profit is in it if it defrauds someone into believing in something that does not exist anyway? Why does it matter?

The very fact that it survived, shows that in fact it did matter. Figure that out. Perhaps it had significance that you yet don't grasp? Perhaps you're judging its value from your vantage point only, though your eyes with your set of criteria for what you see as valuable to you alone?

 

Christians cannot get their mythology straight because they made it up as they went.

That actually is true, if you're referring to Christians today who presume it was a whole message delivered from on high in bits and pieces. It was actually created as they went, and much later pieced together like a quilt. There was no NT in anyone's mind as they wrote their individual myths. The fashioners of the canon themselves created a mythology of their own from all the little ones that fit the design they had in their minds.

 

If the Vedas and NT and OT writings are frauds, what is the difference in whether one was kept 100% pure or not?

Fraud is a strong word. This is judging the purpose of these texts in a modern context.

 

 

They all claim to have been given by divine inspiration so that the rest of us will know just how far we've sunk as a race!

They all claim this? Proof please? 2 Tim. 3:16 is your only reference I can think of. And that was some 2nd Century writing attributed to Paul. You're taking this modern doctrine and the MYTH of it yourself and applying it to ancient texts. Who is believing the myth? It appears you are as well.

[Antlerman]

Then they have rituals and ceremonies people have to follow in order to reclaim a relationship with god or gods.

Do you understand the real purpose of rituals? What about the Thanksgiving ritual? How about the 4th of July fireworks? Exactly which god is that? Maybe it's not about gods? Maybe gods are secondary to ritual?

 

Brave Heart is historical fiction based on real people,

Ahh.. back to point #1 about history being written by its victors. Apply that to American history. Russian History. Christian History. Roman history. And on and on. History is not an exact science. The best we can do is piece together the most likely case of what happened and look for the best support. But don't kid yourself, your idea of your history is floating on top of a sea of myth as well. "Fact" is often no better than a mere matter of perception. Even in remembering our own history through our eyes, let alone having the "facts" about ancient history. In other words, don't rest so assured your understanding of reality is rooted in facts.

 

None of which proves Moses wrote anything and none of which proves Moses ever lived. I never found a story told of the Jews ransacking Egypt when they left as told in Exodus. I have not found a story of Egypt speaking of Moses, no hieroglyph anywhere, not even found in the enemies of Egypt are there stories. If my enemy were overrun by a bunch of slaves, I would brag it up in stone! If they were led by a great magician, I would carve that in stone. There ain't none!

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself its not real history. Well, it wasn't. So now what? Does this mean you have the real truth, the correct Gospel?

 

Not every myth is based upon truth. Some stories are just stories.

Nonsense. Why the hell were they created then, if not having some significance? Significance only exists where some "truth" exists, whether or not that is based in so-called "fact".

 

I do not believe a religious document is that trustworthy.

So your criteria for symbolic significance is scientific fact? Curious indeed. A question of "Trustworthiness" is like asking why an apple doesn't taste like an orange.

[today]

I wish some times i could write and spell as good as you here on this forum.

 

I have been watching this post and there are many responces and all have valid point's in them.

 

It is like to everyone, that god/jesus is just an ideal in the beginning and each man/woman has thier on ideal of who god is or isn't, in the end.

 

Your spelling's clear enough. Your excuse for inserting an evangelization shtick in the middle of a thread about the veracity of ancient texts isn't. If you feel called to preach, you can always start your own thread--given you can take the heat. You might want to read the Rules for the Lion's Den before you get in too deep. Since you're fairly new I'll be nice and warn you. When I mention "heat" I really mean hot as in searing hot.

 

By way of further explanation, Christians as a whole tend to be some of the most cruel, evil-hearted monsters ever born. Most of us were initiated by them. We tend to be capable of returning what we are given. Think it over really carefully before you decide that your calling to preach to us really came from God. Not that I'm sure this is what you're after.

 

I confess this thread took a very unexpected turn while I wasn't looking but it's interesting all the same. Granted, AM's posts on symbolism go right over my head but Heretic's posts about original texts are right down my alley.

 

Heretic, I'm asking myself, though, how you know all the stuff you claim to know...where's the evidence? How do you know that absolutely nothing of the OT was written down anywhere until after the Babylonian exile? And that all of it is fiction?

 

For my OT course (eight-month MA level), one of the books we had to read was Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible. That was about five years ago and I might have forgotten a few details but I think it was Friedman who argued that many/most of the OT was written as political manoevers. We used the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV). All of those study notes, along with Friedman and the lectures, gave me the idea that there really could have been a lot of politics going on and that any "prophecy" that occurrred was coincidental.

 

However, in order for politics--or even a Babylonian exile--to happen, we have to have real live historical people. So I guess there was a people known as Israel before the exile and it stands to reason to think that some of the later kings whom the OT says built cities actually have a basis in history. What do you think? Did I misread your posts, possibly?

I do thank you you for the warning and if i find a christain that wants to come and preach on this forum i will tell him what you said. and by the way i read the rules months ago before even joining this forum and yes i can allready feel the heat

[R. S. Martin]

I may not have made my point too clearly. Christian writers write from the presumed premise that the Bible is true word for word.

 

Ummmm, which Christian writers are you referring to?

 

Certainly not all modern (dead or alive) Christian writers do. I'm thinking of people like Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1864), Paul Tillich (writing mid-20th century), and Douglas Hall (writing late 20th century), in addition to my own professors whom I learned to know in this decade.

 

I am not too strong on the details but I have in mind some of the early Christian Fathers (AntiNicene) did not take the biblical text word for word, either. Nor did all the Jewish scholars such as Hillel (sp?). In the readings I did for my study on history of hermeneutics, I got the impression that some of these ancient scholars were far stronger on allegory than any post-Enlightenment Western person with whom I have yet come into contact.

 

Now if the only kinds of Christian writers to whom you have been exposed come out of traditions such as Dallas Theological Seminary, or Southern Evangelical Seminary, or Talbot School of Theology, then I can see why you say what you do. What I don't get is why a brilliant person like yourself would consider American evangelicalism The Christianity.

 

On the other hand, this is the Lion's Den and maybe you just feel like ranting and letting off some steam. If so, steam ahead. I know you've got plenty of reason and full justification.

 

They don't care if they may be quoting fiction. The Vedas is fiction and a religious group of books. If the Vedas was transcribed 100% accurately, what profit is in it if it defrauds someone into believing in something that does not exist anyway? Why does it matter?

 

Probably my OP was not very clear, either. When determining the veracity of a "witness's" story, we compare the details with the rest of the known universe to see how things fit together. The four gospels of the NT do a seriously bad job of corresponding with each other, not to mention the rest of the universe. We are told this is because the "witnesses" saw them from different perspectives, such as the witnesses of a car accident don't all tell the same parts of the story.

 

So far so good. But certainly they all agree on the date. The gospels can't agree on whether Jesus' vandalism of the temple (over-turning of the money-changers' tables) occurred at the beginning or end of his ministry. Being that his ministry was supposed to have lasted anywhere from eighteen months to three years, this is somewhat significant; we're not talking about a matter of mere days.

 

Next excuse: The story was preserved by oral tradition for several decades so that some dates and events might have gotten mixed up but it is still preserved accurately enough for our salvation.

 

It is to this excuse (that the oral tradition cannot keep the order of events straight) that I reply with the Indian tradition of memorizing the Vedas accurately over a period of about two thousand years in different cultures in different geographical areas. If the early Christians had emphasized the importance of transmitting a single accurate account of their hero's life, death, and resurrection with the same level of zeal as did the keepers of the Vedas, then they could have done so. Apparently the means exist.

 

I would not have known this because I am too far removed from such a culture. Nor do I think any regular Christian of today would have known this. But the learned metropolitans of the first century, esp. of Alexandia, most likely knew it. It is true that eventually (fourth century or later) they got rooted out and their library burned, but their enemies quoted them at great lengths. I am sure that by today scholars would be able to "see through the cracks" if the Alexandrians had used this method of memorization to transmit their gospel. I have not yet come across any such indication. It seems the early Christians were too busy spreading the word to be sure this word was kept pure.

 

Christians cannot get their mythology straight because they made it up as they went. If the Vedas and NT and OT writings are frauds, what is the difference in whether one was kept 100% pure or not?

 

You're more likely to convince folks in the absence of evidence that you've actually got a case if your story at least matches the stories of your colleagues.

 

Brave Heart is historical fiction based on real people, so I would expect to find the names of most of the people of that story in history books. People in the story, though the story itself is fiction, the people and events were real. You can have stories of Kings ruling when they should have ruled and people becoming slaves when they were conquered. None of which proves Moses wrote anything and none of which proves Moses ever lived. I never found a story told of the Jews ransacking Egypt when they left as told in Exodus. I have not found a story of Egypt speaking of Moses, no hieroglyph anywhere, not even found in the enemies of Egypt are there stories.

 

Are you allowing that the people and events referenced in the Bible may be historical, though you think the names of people and places are fictive? For example, I have published stories about real people and events, but in order to protect identity I made up characters, places, and events that roughly paralleled the actual situation. These were published in an Amish magazine, also widely read by the Mennonites. My goal was to present a certain message that was more important than the historical tale.

 

It was set in a Pennsylvania German speaking community somewhere in North America, and people intimately familiar with the cultural and geographical details might have been able to figure out that it was Mennonite as opposed to Amish, and that it was in Ontario as opposed to Pennsylvania or Ohio. I wrote anonymously, but some people who knew me personally were able to figure out that I wrote it and possibly even know who the characters were in my story and what events I referred to. However, an outsider from Toronto or New York could never have found the place on a map or the characters in Census Canada.

 

Yet I would probably have said it was a "true story" insofar as it was based on actual happenings and not a total made-up story; that was the way many people wrote in that magazine. One practically had to operate that way because everybody knew everybody else in these tight-knit communities and you had to protect yourself and loved ones from continent-wide slander as much as you could. (Historical pieces were explicitly labeled as being historical, with real names of people and places, and actual dates.)

 

Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say the Bible is fiction?

 

If my enemy were overrun by a bunch of slaves, I would brag it up in stone! If they were led by a great magician, I would carve that in stone. There ain't none! It is historical fiction used to fill in the early life of Israel in order to justify the laws of their religion imposed by the priests. You can have real people in stories, it legitimizes the claim of the religion to mention people who were rulers when their favorite prophet was alive. Because a King can be substantiated, how does that substantiate a tale of a prophet? My whole point is what I just wrote, historical fiction is still fiction even if the fiction was kept in memory for a thousand years.

 

Okay, I'm asking myself: What is historical fiction?

 

From Answers.com:

Historical fiction

is a sub-genre of

fiction

that often portrays fictional accounts or dramatization of historical figures or events.

There's lots more at the link. All of this agrees with what I suggested above, i.e. that there could be real people in the Bible. Or parallel/substitute characters. There is also reference in the article that historical fiction is an attempt to capture the spirit of a specific era. This brings to mind Zeitgeist (German for spirit of the times or era). I think Zeitgeist tries to depict today's spirit of the era. Conspiracy theory is a central theme of Zeitgeist. Likewise, who today is not suspicious on some level that there just might be a major conspiracy underlying everything that is going on in the world today? Whether right or wrong, that's what I mean by Zeitgeist depicting today's spirit of the era. From that perspective, might it be said that the OT is ancient Israel's Zeitgeist? Is that somewhat what you are getting at? I'm just trying to understand and I'm not quite sure...Just to be clear, I'm not asking anyone to agree with the explicit statements of Zeitgeist--I'm just seeking for a way to understand what you're saying about the Bible.

 

Brave Heart is based upon real people, however, is the bible really based upon real people or is it a myth become truth because it has been told for so many years? Where is Pharaoh Joseph in the lineage of Egyptian Pharaohs? I do not see his name or his Egyptian name in the history books.

 

I don't know Brave Heart.

 

Obviously, more than retelling a story for thousands of years is needed to make it historical fact. Otherwise, it's just a cultural myth that has shaped society--which the Bible has definitely done.

 

The way I know the story, Joseph was second to Pharaoh and therefore not Pharaoh himself. And if it is a story made up to place Israel on the map, so to speak, or to give it a "legitimate birth," then Joseph need not exist in historical fact.

 

How can we claim OT writings are historically accurate writings if the stories cannot be proven? Just because they mention kingdoms that existed or people who may have existed in those days, does not mean the writings are historical records of actual events or that they foretold events.

 

.....The stories were written after the fact so their prophecies mean nothing. That is why I do not consider biblical stories historical events. They may have happened but not in the context given by the Bible

 

As shown above, we may differ by what we mean when we talk about a "true story."

 

I don't remember ever taking prophecy as evidence for anything because I never got sufficient evidence that the prophecy was truly prophetic. Or, put another way, I can prophecy/predict events, too, and there's nothing miraculous about it.

 

In recent months I read an article arguing that prophecy and predicting events are not the same thing. However, it remains unclear to me re the actual difference. I suppose one comes from divine inspiration from god while the other is based on temporal trends. However, my study on what god is has led me to conclude that "god" begins and ends in the human psyche, as also does the intuition by which temporal trends are deciphered, and by which trends economic, financial, and political decisions are made that affect all of our lives on the most intimate levels.

 

These powerful decision-makers have effectively replaced god. The only things that can overpower these decision-makers are the economy, political enemies, and the natural elements. The only thing more powerful than all of these is the bomb to blow up the planet and the person with the power to make it happen. But that person would die along with the rest of us. It really makes sense to believe there is an almighty deity that is even more powerful behind all of this and who will snatch us up out of the very jaws of disaster.

 

Did I say it makes sense??? I meant to say it would be comfortable to think that way. Once we see the prayers of the faithful being answered well over 99.999% of the time....When we see people escaping Katrinas and tsunamis not because of weather forecasts but because of miraculous intervention.....when we see limbs growing back on demand and old people regaining their youth and food growing in the desert and safe water springing in dry or polluted wells.....when over-population, illness, and death cease to be problems and well, when this earth really becomes the paradise it is fabled once to have been....and predicted by some to become again....

[Abiyoyo]

 

See, this is another reason I think Christianity got Christianity all wrong.

 

That's a fascinating phrase. Ponder that in your mind and tell me what that means to you. I see layers upon layers of significance to this. But I want to hear you explain it in your words first.

 

If someone truly examines everything, not just the dogma, but everything; it becomes quite clear in my opinion, that Judaism, nor Christianity, ''got'' Christianity, both because of their own agendas. Looking at the Bible's events systematically, one factor is obvious. The Israelites wanted a King, a country, to be divine, powerful, and a force in their times. The overall view in the Bible of Israel is that of a writing about a country, it's rulers, it's wars, and it's social dynamics, with a "God" in the mix. One in the Bible may have said God is authority of His people, but the Bible itself shows that the people authorized their own authority. The God context, obviously turned into, God was angered, kindled, His wrath was great, He will avenge the righteous, destroy the cities that destroyed His people, even though the peoples authority of themselves is what destroyed the people of Israel. It sounds familiar, sounds like the thoughts of any American. Americans are proud people, their country is their heritage, same was Israel. The difference was that Israel, if existent, existed thousands of years ago, and along with any other history, is considered to the least for them as their heritage, their freedom as to an American, and their God as the center, just as many Americans proclaim their God as the center of their heritage, country, and freedoms.

 

So, from OT to Jesus to NT, there is a pattern. The pattern is organized kingship through the God of Israel. We see this in the OT, then Jesus comes, in another manner, or agenda, yet speaking directly of the God of Israel, the God of kingship, of authority, of the once supposed riches and spoil of Solomon's kingdom. Jesus agenda was not of that of a Earthly kingship, or else there would've been more to that notion, at the actual time of Christ. Now, Christ dies. What happens, Jesus becomes the organized Godhead for Rome. Back to the original.

 

So something probably did happen, but the whole story of the trial and crucifixion was a developed myth tying together the value of the noble death for belief in the eyes of the Greek (think of Socrates and the hemlock), and myth of sacrifice to bring about change (think of the story of Maccabees in the temple), into the whole sacrificial system of the Jews. So Jesus' death becomes a martyrs death as a sacrifice for God. Quite the concept!

 

Now it's just a matter of making it all fit with scripture to validate it in the eyes of the Jews these early groups considered themselves to be part of.

 

I see your line of thought here AM, and want to add. I ponder the idea that though, yes, this is very possible, what you stated above; that it was meant for a different reason, other than that. Example, I don't see God saying, "We must have the ULTIMATE sacrifice to aline the humans I created", but on the flip side, I do think that Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven was for a purpose. Here's my heretical Christian view of that. It was the same thing God did to Moses, and Elijah! What makes more sense to me is the message Jesus presented to His followers, and His Biblical acknowledgment from God, as His beloved Son. A scripture that leads me to the notion that Jesus came in another light than as Christian history teaches is below, where Jesus says in a seeming simple way that if someone doesn't believe in me, then I don't judge them, another does.

 

John 12:47-48

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

(KJV)

 

I know this is my opinion, and many will say, Jesus was speaking to 'the direct physical people' at that time; yet, I ponder, was He?

 

Another is when He rebuked two disciples for them asking if He was going to send fire down from heaven, as Elijah did.

 

Luke 9:55-56

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

(KJV)

 

Their are many others that imply that Christ came for another reason, than what it became, a political power in Rome.

 

 

Unfortunately, maybe the whole virgin birth thing made it appealing to the Hellenistic Jews. Anyway, there are still numberous scripture predicting Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but I agree that the virgin one seems to be misrepresented.

 

 

Paul was great at developing the myths, using the story of Abraham early on to justify the Christ cults views into Hebrew scripture. But the Virgin birth thing was not his doing. Paul was quite skilled with scripture, and why he could be so creative with it. But even so, his playing around with it didn't always seem to follow through with him in later years, where he seems to shift how he sees things and redefines the meaning of scripture in that later view point.

 

So there are numerous scriptures that are used to "predict" Jesus (in retrospect, of course). But they are all part of this later effort of making their myth "fit", which they really don't in a great many cases. It's making prophecy to support mythmaking.

 

As I said earlier, I do see it all wrong. Even though the virgin context was out there through the Septuagint, it was possible that it read young woman, to groups that Jesus may have been around, using the Hebrew. I wonder if the Jews didn't take much consideration, or notion when translating this verse, since it seemed to already have taken place with Isaiah's child.

[Abiyoyo]

The prophets called the scribes liars because of the writings claiming god was with them--I believe that is in Jeremiah but I am having a hard time finding the phrase. Even the NT books claim the comment, somewhat like 'in vain do they worship me teaching traditions for commandments'.

 

Here is the Matthew passage:

 

Matt. 15:5-10, KJV:

⁵

But ye say, Whosoever shall say to

his

father or

his

mother,

It is

a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶

And honour not his father or his mother,

he shall be free

. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷



Ye

hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

⁸

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with

their

lips; but their heart is far from me.

⁹

But in vain they do worship me, teaching

for

doctrines the commandments of men.

I don't know how to find it in "Esaias."

 

It was from Isaiah, Esaias was Isaiah.

 

 

 

Isa 29:13

13 Therefore the LORD said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,

(NKJ)

[hereticzero]

Ummmm, which Christian writers are you referring to?

One writer, Tim LaHaye comes to mind.

[Antlerman]

 

See, this is another reason I think Christianity got Christianity all wrong.

 

That's a fascinating phrase. Ponder that in your mind and tell me what that means to you. I see layers upon layers of significance to this. But I want to hear you explain it in your words first.

 

If someone truly examines everything, not just the dogma, but everything; it becomes quite clear in my opinion, that Judaism, nor Christianity, ''got'' Christianity, both because of their own agendas.

As a quick point to this before looking at the rest you point out that you see Jesus as more like the prophets Moses and Elijah then some 2nd deity in some triune godhead, then Christianity is not the right term to use. Jesus' message wouldn't be about devotion to him in some form of religious mysticism, but a "follower" of him in his path into the "kingdom of God". That's not a Christian by definition, but a follower of Jesus. A pre-Christian if you will.

 

Looking at the Bible's events systematically, one factor is obvious. The Israelites wanted a King, a country, to be divine, powerful, and a force in their times. The overall view in the Bible of Israel is that of a writing about a country, it's rulers, it's wars, and it's social dynamics, with a "God" in the mix.

 

<snip>

 

So, from OT to Jesus to NT, there is a pattern. The pattern is organized kingship through the God of Israel. We see this in the OT, then Jesus comes, in another manner, or agenda, yet speaking directly of the God of Israel, the God of kingship, of authority, of the once supposed riches and spoil of Solomon's kingdom. Jesus agenda was not of that of a Earthly kingship, or else there would've been more to that notion, at the actual time of Christ. Now, Christ dies. What happens, Jesus becomes the organized Godhead for Rome. Back to the original.

There is a certain truth to what you say. The Jews based their society on the ancient Near East model of the temple-state, with the king and priesthood offsetting each others as balances between power and piety. When the Roman's essentially dismanntled this model for them and you had instead corrupted foreign tyrants in the position of power that a king held, and a priesthood that became complicit in this arrangement - not only for the Jews themselves but many other nations as well that had this model, some other sense of power and identity had to be found. This is where the idea of the Kingdom of God began.

 

It was based in no small measure on the Greek Stoic philosophy of person piety as being the true king. The king of your own life, your own kingdom. God, in the "Kingdom of God", was probably more generic than say some sort of devote worship of Jehovah. The kingdom of God was more about living in individual righteousness without borders. It transcendened the national models, it addressed the desire to belong to a people and to find justice and righteousness in a corrupt world - all without having to have a government make that happen, going to war against Rome herself. So it became a popular movement, speaking to Hellenized peoples both within the Jews and among gentiles. It was a social movement - not a religious one.

 

As it spread as such, being attractive to people, it took on the layers of myths of the areas it spread to. One of these was the miracle stories tradition which sounds a lot like what you are seeing it as. They took Jesus and created him into more a founding figure authority for the teachings, making him like Moses and Elijah, citing the miracles he did to cast him in the light of other great reformers, like Moses and Elijah. Other movements of the "Kingdom of God", took on other flavors of supporting myth, such as the Christ cults of Asia Minor which imagined the Jesus figure of their movement as having become some transcended being of cosmic proportions with which they experienced spiritual communion, drawing off the mystery religion movements of the area - which likewise spawned in response to having the nations destroyed by the Roman rule. And still other flavors of movements from other areas, each with a different emphasis and supporting mythologies. It's all these that were blended together in fictional accounts of the narrative Gospel of Mark, and subsequent embellishments of Matthew and Luke based on that.

 

So in a sense you're right about the king and kingdom aspect, but it was really more in a re-definition of it to fit into a changing world. It was a shift in thought, and and evolution of the mythology to support that shift in thought. The kingdom of God was about individual piety and a community of people that exists independent of national boundaries. Call it a highly mythologized form of Humanism. At its heart, that what it was, until it became an actual earthly governing religion.

 

Is this what you see?

 

 

I'll get to the rest later.

[Antlerman]

So something probably did happen, but the whole story of the trial and crucifixion was a developed myth tying together the value of the noble death for belief in the eyes of the Greek (think of Socrates and the hemlock), and myth of sacrifice to bring about change (think of the story of Maccabees in the temple), into the whole sacrificial system of the Jews. So Jesus' death becomes a martyrs death as a sacrifice for God. Quite the concept!

 

Now it's just a matter of making it all fit with scripture to validate it in the eyes of the Jews these early groups considered themselves to be part of.

 

I see your line of thought here AM, and want to add. I ponder the idea that though, yes, this is very possible, what you stated above; that it was meant for a different reason, other than that. Example, I don't see God saying, "We must have the ULTIMATE sacrifice to aline the humans I created", but on the flip side, I do think that Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension to Heaven was for a purpose. Here's my heretical Christian view of that. It was the same thing God did to Moses, and Elijah! What makes more sense to me is the message Jesus presented to His followers, and His Biblical acknowledgment from God, as His beloved Son. A scripture that leads me to the notion that Jesus came in another light than as Christian history teaches is below, where Jesus says in a seeming simple way that if someone doesn't believe in me, then I don't judge them, another does.

 

John 12:47-48

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

(KJV)

 

I know this is my opinion, and many will say, Jesus was speaking to 'the direct physical people' at that time; yet, I ponder, was He?

 

Another is when He rebuked two disciples for them asking if He was going to send fire down from heaven, as Elijah did.

 

Luke 9:55-56

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

(KJV)

 

Their are many others that imply that Christ came for another reason, than what it became, a political power in Rome.

What I'm hearing you say is that the death, resurrection, and ascension were meant as signs to validate Jesus as the messenger of the words of salvation, and not as a blood sacrifice for God in order for him to be able to forgive humans. That Jesus was more like Moses and Elijah as anointed prophets, and the miracles of Jesus including his resurrection were all part of the same "signs and wonders" that followed these prophets of great change. Is this correct?

 

As I mentioned before, scholars recognize a tradition of miracle stories used by some of the early Jesus groups which consist of two sets of five stories later incorporated in Mark's gospel, and a pattern of seven similar stories used by John's community as the framework for their Gospel. These functioned as way to legitimatize the mix of peoples who formed in the early Jesus movements by placing their founding figure in the light of Moses and Elijah, creating Congregation of Israel. They were stories to cast themselves in same light as those whom Moses and Elijah led through elevating Jesus to that level. Underlying all of it was the communities view of themselves in response to the challenges of legitimacy being leveled at them from the other Jews.

 

So, what you sound like you are doing is choosing to see Jesus as a type of leader like Moses and Elijah in forming the new Israel comprised of gentiles as well, and see the miracles as validation of Jesus as one of the prophets allowing you into Epic of Israel? How 1st century 50's of you. Am I right?

[R. S. Martin]

Ummmm, which Christian writers are you referring to?

One writer, Tim LaHaye comes to mind.

 

 

Okay. Well, you know how the Christians excommunicate each other. I can think of an entire batch of writers who would excommunicate Tim LaHaye and colleagues without batting an eye. LaHaye et al would return the favour. Coming from a horse and buggy community as I do, none of this makes sense to me because all of them dress like the world and have TVs and are therefore considered (by the Plain People which includes the horse and buggy people) to be on the fast track to hell.

 

On another forum, I came across an idea that I really like and adhere to: Anyone who identifies as Christian is a Christian.

 

For me, as a nonChristian, to judge who is and is not a Christian MAKES NO SENSE! As a sociologist (haven't got a degree but who cares), I consider it my job to figure out what traits all Christians have in common. It is NOT the job of a sociologist to force society into neat little moulds that are easy to study. That job goes to institutions like the church, the legal establishment, schools--you get the picture.

[Abiyoyo]

So in a sense you're right about the king and kingdom aspect, but it was really more in a re-definition of it to fit into a changing world. It was a shift in thought, and and evolution of the mythology to support that shift in thought. The kingdom of God was about individual piety and a community of people that exists independent of national boundaries. Call it a highly mythologized form of Humanism. At its heart, that what it was, until it became an actual earthly governing religion.

 

Is this what you see?

 

 

I'll get to the rest later.

 

In a sense, yes, yet I believe God already knew the outcome. I don't condemn anyone, if they believe Jesus was actually God, and I would assume God wouldn't either. My opinion. I think Paul was the foundation of the Gentile conversion, and he already knew that unless Jesus was fashioned as another Apollo of sort, they would discredit the whole notion as just another supposed Jewish prophet that was martyred of such. Then, when 'Christianity' began to reach a point of any movement in government, the government folded to the movement. Another, my opinion. Thus, we have Super Jesus.

 

 

So, what you sound like you are doing is choosing to see Jesus as a type of leader like Moses and Elijah in forming the new Israel comprised of gentiles as well, and see the miracles as validation of Jesus as one of the prophets allowing you into Epic of Israel? How 1st century 50's of you. Am I right?

 

Lo....Yoyo is oldschool

[Antlerman]

So in a sense you're right about the king and kingdom aspect, but it was really more in a re-definition of it to fit into a changing world. It was a shift in thought, and and evolution of the mythology to support that shift in thought. The kingdom of God was about individual piety and a community of people that exists independent of national boundaries. Call it a highly mythologized form of Humanism. At its heart, that what it was, until it became an actual earthly governing religion.

 

Is this what you see?

 

 

I'll get to the rest later.

 

In a sense, yes, yet I believe God already knew the outcome. I don't condemn anyone, if they believe Jesus was actually God, and I would assume God wouldn't either. My opinion. I think Paul was the foundation of the Gentile conversion, and he already knew that unless Jesus was fashioned as another Apollo of sort, they would discredit the whole notion as just another supposed Jewish prophet that was martyred of such. Then, when 'Christianity' began to reach a point of any movement in government, the government folded to the movement. Another, my opinion. Thus, we have Super Jesus.

Here's an interesting look at Paul's conversion to consider. Paul wasn't really the foundation of the gentile conversion, but was himself persuaded to join in with that movement for a reason. Bear with me on this.

 

Paul's persecution of the Christians wasn't really about going after some sort of underground sect, but rather was trying to set the record straight as far as allowing gentiles into Jewish religion as converts through this Jesus movement within the Hellenistic Synagogues, without having to undergo circumcision, follow the strict rules, and the whole deal. Paul refers to himself as one who once "Preached Circumsion." This of course would have been in regard to questions of Gentile converts. Gentile's were attracted to Judaism back then and questions of conversion of them was a topic of discussion among Jewish Intellectuals. Even if you circumcised them they were still ethnically not Jews, and moreover an adult being asked to undergo circumcision could in fact be a stumbling block to them converting to Judaism.

 

Take into account that Paul's zeal was towards being true to the Jewish religion, and at the center of that would be Israel's mission to bring the message of God to the world and make converts. So you have his conservative hard-line Pharisee mindset about rules at work, and his other fervent zeal to make converts. He sees the Jesus movement actually making converts to Judaism, whereas others are having less success! "Suddenly" he has a change of heart and sees the appeal of this as a new truth that makes the other focus on rules surrounding the conversion open to "interpretation", thus opening the door for him to really serve God! And he has a "revelation" about Jesus. Luke of course much, much later mythologizes this whole account with a flash of light and voice from heaven story, which Paul himself in his writings never describes. But I'm sure it was a profound change of direction of his thinking, to be certain, especially notable in his active and creative mythmaking trying to fit the Christ communities teachings into the Jewish scriptures.

 

So, no Paul wasn't the foundation of the Gentiles converting to Christianity. They were the foundation of him converting. He just ran with and elaborating their beliefs, developed them, promoted them, and further spread and evolved the myth and the movement.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a thought, Paul persecuted the Jewish Christians, because they were heretics towards the Jewish religion. By switching the focus of Christianity towards gentiles, he practically solved the problem of the influence of this cult on Judaism. Maybe it all was an elaborate plan to infiltrate and destroy from within?

[Antlerman]

Here's a thought, Paul persecuted the Jewish Christians, because they were heretics towards the Jewish religion. By switching the focus of Christianity towards gentiles, he practically solved the problem of the influence of this cult on Judaism. Maybe it all was an elaborate plan to infiltrate and destroy from within?

Doesn't quite fit. It wasn't really Jewish Christians in that area. These folks were into the mystery cult stuff of the gentile nations, essentially gentiles trying to fit into Judaism. Jewish Christians would be more like the church in Jerusalem of James and Peter. That's why there was such a conflict between Paul and them, which left Paul puffing his chest at their confrontation about matters concerning conversion of the gentiles, and why Paul set off on his own for the years following that. He didn't win the day in that argument with them. Matthew's community was another example of Jewish Christians, with the emphasis on the law. Paul's Christ cult stuff, was a very Hellenized mystery religion thing which he tried to defend to the Jewish critics. Plus, I can't see the labor of his efforts being driven by some deceptive plan. That's just not there. It's a lot of real effort to make it work on his part because he wanted to believe it.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a thought, Paul persecuted the Jewish Christians, because they were heretics towards the Jewish religion. By switching the focus of Christianity towards gentiles, he practically solved the problem of the influence of this cult on Judaism. Maybe it all was an elaborate plan to infiltrate and destroy from within?

Doesn't quite fit. It wasn't really Jewish Christians in that area. These folks were into the mystery cult stuff of the gentile nations, essentially gentiles trying to fit into Judaism. Jewish Christians would be more like the church in Jerusalem of James and Peter. That's why there was such a conflict between Paul and them, which left Paul puffing his chest at their confrontation about matters concerning conversion of the gentiles, and why Paul set off on his own for the years following that. He didn't win the day in that argument with them. Matthew's community was another example of Jewish Christians, with the emphasis on the law. Paul's Christ cult stuff, was a very Hellenized mystery religion thing which he tried to defend to the Jewish critics. Plus, I can't see the labor of his efforts being driven by some deceptive plan. That's just not there. It's a lot of real effort to make it work on his part because he wanted to believe it.

So Paul was persecuting gentile Christians, and having the mandate for doing so from the government, or did he do it illegally? If it was government behind it, why did the Romans pick a Jewish-religious person to lead it? If it wasn't mandated, he was on a personal mission, breaking the law doing so.

[Antlerman]

Here's a thought, Paul persecuted the Jewish Christians, because they were heretics towards the Jewish religion. By switching the focus of Christianity towards gentiles, he practically solved the problem of the influence of this cult on Judaism. Maybe it all was an elaborate plan to infiltrate and destroy from within?

Doesn't quite fit. It wasn't really Jewish Christians in that area. These folks were into the mystery cult stuff of the gentile nations, essentially gentiles trying to fit into Judaism. Jewish Christians would be more like the church in Jerusalem of James and Peter. That's why there was such a conflict between Paul and them, which left Paul puffing his chest at their confrontation about matters concerning conversion of the gentiles, and why Paul set off on his own for the years following that. He didn't win the day in that argument with them. Matthew's community was another example of Jewish Christians, with the emphasis on the law. Paul's Christ cult stuff, was a very Hellenized mystery religion thing which he tried to defend to the Jewish critics. Plus, I can't see the labor of his efforts being driven by some deceptive plan. That's just not there. It's a lot of real effort to make it work on his part because he wanted to believe it.

So Paul was persecuting gentile Christians, and having the mandate for doing so from the government, or did he do it illegally? If it was government behind it, why did the Romans pick a Jewish-religious person to lead it? If it wasn't mandated, he was on a personal mission, breaking the law doing so.

Define persecution. The story of Luke is a fiction. Paul just said he was seeking to destroy them. Not a lot different than those who seek to destroy religion itself, or any sect they see as heretical. There was no government mandate to do this. His mission against them was because he was a Pharisee, and lots of little upstart groups within Judaism would have come up against the Pharisees interpretations and pressures of what being a Jew was. This tension is seen in the other earlier movements in other areas, such as in Q2. They made efforts to make themselves legitimate, but the Pharisees interpretations resisted them, and hence the backlash of an apocalyptic layer to the writings, imagining some justification for themselves in the end times against their nemesis. They wished to imagine themselves as Israel.

 

So Paul suddenly had a change of thought about them, seeing instead a certain logic to it that served a better purpose for him. It made it easier to spread Judaism. He didn't reject Judaism in his conversion, he just opened it up in his mind by embracing a point of view that made it easier to convert the Gentiles who were already interested in the God of the Jews. It wasn't until a much later period that the divide between Christians and Jews became so great that they split. Paul was not of that mindset. You may see that mindset in some of the Epistles attributed to him, but they were not written by him and are from a later period, such as Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. If you lay things out in time periods and regions, the story that is traditionally told is seen to be a reading of a later mythological picture of the whole read back onto and into all the separate parts. But looking at the separate parts independently, a different, more realistic picture emerges.

[Ouroboros]

Define persecution.

He was tracking them down and killing them. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence the authorities cared. Did he do this--really--outside of Palestine? Doesn't sound believable.

 

The story of Luke is a fiction. Paul just said he was seeking to destroy them. Not a lot different than those who seek to destroy religion itself, or any sect they see as heretical. There was no government mandate to do this. His mission against them was because he was a Pharisee, and lots of little upstart groups within Judaism would have come up against the Pharisees interpretations and pressures of what being a Jew was. This tension is seen in the other earlier movements in other areas, such as in Q2. They made efforts to make themselves legitimate, but the Pharisees interpretations resisted them, and hence the backlash of an apocalyptic layer to the writings, imagining some justification for themselves in the end times against their nemesis. They wished to imagine themselves as Israel.

It does sound like something is wrong with the story, since I can't see he could have been allowed on a religious rampage like this, without the Roman empire raising an eyebrow.

 

So Paul suddenly had a change of thought about them, seeing instead a certain logic to it that served a better purpose for him. It made it easier to spread Judaism. He didn't reject Judaism in his conversion, he just opened it up in his mind by embracing a point of view that made it easier to convert the Gentiles who were already interested in the God of the Jews.

Very possible.

 

It wasn't until a much later period that the divide between Christians and Jews became so great that they split.

Then Paul's (Saul's) mission wasn't based on an already existing split? He wasn't chasing and killing them because of the heretic nature of Christianity?

 

Paul was not of that mindset. You may see that mindset in some of the Epistles attributed to him, but they were not written by him and are from a later period, such as Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. If you lay things out in time periods and regions, the story that is traditionally told is seen to be a reading of a later mythological picture of the whole read back onto and into all the separate parts. But looking at the separate parts independently, a different, more realistic picture emerges.

How do you mean? Paul didn't exist?

 

(Sorry for some short sentences, I broke my left arm yesterday, and it's hard for me typing with only one hand.)

[Antlerman]

Define persecution.

He was tracking them down and killing them. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence the authorities cared. Did he do this--really--outside of Palestine? Doesn't sound believable.

It would have been illegal for him to be given orders to put people to death except by the Roman government itself. And that certainly didn't happen.

 

The only thing Paul says is this:

 

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (Gal 1:13-14, KJV)

 

Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. (Gal 1:21-23)

 

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor 15:9)

 

Those are the authentic words of Paul. The Greek word is διωκω which translates:

1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away

 

2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing, to run after

 

A. to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs swiftly to reach the goal

 

B. to pursue (in a hostile manner)

 

3) in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one

 

A. to persecute

 

B. to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something

4) without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone

 

5) metaph., to pursue

 

a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire

Murder is not suggested in either the context or in the word. He was seeking to drive them out, to destroy them.

 

It wasn't until a much later period that the divide between Christians and Jews became so great that they split.

Then Paul's (Saul's) mission wasn't based on an already existing split? He wasn't chasing and killing them because of the heretic nature of Christianity?

Yes. The split was really beginning after the Temple was destroyed, where the language of Mark and other writings reflect a scramble to redefine themselves now that the face of the world as they were understanding it was completely destroyed. The blow it had on the Jewish and the Christian psyche would have been profound. They had to try to figure out where they fit it now, what the purpose of everything was. The Jews had to figure it out, and so did the Christians, and their chosen paths diverged to point of viewing the Jews in a growing hostile light.

 

Paul died before any of this happened. He never saw the temple destroyed, nor the shift in focus of the views of Christian. Some critical scholars point out how that Paul would never have approved of Mark's Gospel.

 

Paul was not of that mindset. You may see that mindset in some of the Epistles attributed to him, but they were not written by him and are from a later period, such as Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. If you lay things out in time periods and regions, the story that is traditionally told is seen to be a reading of a later mythological picture of the whole read back onto and into all the separate parts. But looking at the separate parts independently, a different, more realistic picture emerges.

How do you mean? Paul didn't exist?

No. I'm sure Paul existed. I'm not sure the confusion you have with what I wrote. Paul's actual writings, in the time order in which they were written, show a certain evolving view about the Christ figure, dynamically being imagined by him in response to critics. It starts at one point at one time, then evolves to something different or more developed later on as time, situation, and audience changes. He then dies. Other letters are written to "The Church" (as opposed to congregations which Paul only addressed) in his name, likely by a Pauline school attributing them to him. They reflect yet another shift in the movement. Still others are written even later by those wishing to promote the authority of apostolic succession to grant authority to leaders of congregations (yet another shift in focus and supporting mythology).

 

All told, when all these bits are collected and collated into a grand "portrait" of the church, that "portrait" is a much, much later view looking down on the whole imposing meaning into the texts, presupposing that the meaning is there. But this isn't the case if they are read in the context of time and location without any later "interpretation" of later ideas presupposed upon them. To do that, to presuppose that later layer was always understood, is what in fact creates these long series of contradictions and conflicts of message and meaning. The canonization of scripture was itself creating a myth out of a patchwork quilt. Working from the bottom up, you see instead a tree - just like evolution.

 

 

(Sorry for some short sentences, I broke my left arm yesterday, and it's hard for me typing with only one hand.)

Major bummer. Finally I can now walk circles around you, and it only took you busting your arm!

[hereticzero]

I found this:

 

And Saul, still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to Damascus to the synagogues; so that if he found any of the Way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Act 9:1-2)MKJV

He had warrants to arrest Christians. I can imagine early Christians were murdered by Jews, too, with or without warrants. Christians have always been killed by opposing religious tyrants.

[Antlerman]

I found this:

 

And Saul, still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to Damascus to the synagogues; so that if he found any of the Way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Act 9:1-2)MKJV

He had warrants to arrest Christians. I can imagine early Christians were murdered by Jews, too, with or without warrants. Christians have always been killed by opposing religious tyrants.

And you believe the writer of Luke/Acts wrote factual history? I specifically quoted what Paul wrote. You're reading a later fiction back on top of Paul's accounts of the matter. He only mentions "persecution" which the language, nor the context does not bear out killing them.

[Ouroboros]

It would have been illegal for him to be given orders to put people to death except by the Roman government itself. And that certainly didn't happen.

 

The only thing Paul says is this:

...

Murder is not suggested in either the context or in the word. He was seeking to drive them out, to destroy them.

I see. So he was harassing them, and threatening them, but not killing them. However, the word "persecution" is used there, whatever it included murder or not.

 

Yes. The split was really beginning after the Temple was destroyed, where the language of Mark and other writings reflect a scramble to redefine themselves now that the face of the world as they were understanding it was completely destroyed. The blow it had on the Jewish and the Christian psyche would have been profound. They had to try to figure out where they fit it now, what the purpose of everything was. The Jews had to figure it out, and so did the Christians, and their chosen paths diverged to point of viewing the Jews in a growing hostile light.

I'm having a hard time visualizing the timeline here. Saul supposedly "persecuted" the Christians before 70 AD, unless I'm mistaken.

 

Paul died before any of this happened. He never saw the temple destroyed, nor the shift in focus of the views of Christian. Some critical scholars point out how that Paul would never have approved of Mark's Gospel.

So it means that Paul was prosecuting the Pre-split-Christians. Wouldn't that be the Jewish Christians rather than gentiles? In other words, he persecuted a Jewish cult, not a pagan outreach?

 

No. I'm sure Paul existed. I'm not sure the confusion you have with what I wrote. Paul's actual writings, in the time order in which they were written, show a certain evolving view about the Christ figure, dynamically being imagined by him in response to critics. It starts at one point at one time, then evolves to something different or more developed later on as time, situation, and audience changes. He then dies. Other letters are written to "The Church" (as opposed to congregations which Paul only addressed) in his name, likely by a Pauline school attributing them to him. They reflect yet another shift in the movement. Still others are written even later by those wishing to promote the authority of apostolic succession to grant authority to leaders of congregations (yet another shift in focus and supporting mythology).

So Paul was to some degree the mastermind behind, or at least a strong influence to, the Jewish-Christian-cult and Pagan-Gentile marriage?

 

All told, when all these bits are collected and collated into a grand "portrait" of the church, that "portrait" is a much, much later view looking down on the whole imposing meaning into the texts, presupposing that the meaning is there. But this isn't the case if they are read in the context of time and location without any later "interpretation" of later ideas presupposed upon them. To do that, to presuppose that later layer was always understood, is what in fact creates these long series of contradictions and conflicts of message and meaning. The canonization of scripture was itself creating a myth out of a patchwork quilt. Working from the bottom up, you see instead a tree - just like evolution.

Of course, and just like the development of language too.

 

Major bummer. Finally I can now walk circles around you, and it only took you busting your arm!

Nah, you and MWC could always outrun me on these questions.

[Antlerman]

It would have been illegal for him to be given orders to put people to death except by the Roman government itself. And that certainly didn't happen.

 

The only thing Paul says is this:

...

Murder is not suggested in either the context or in the word. He was seeking to drive them out, to destroy them.

I see. So he was harassing them, and threatening them, but not killing them. However, the word "persecution" is used there, whatever it included murder or not.

I guess I would see it as actively trying discredit, hinder, harass, etc. Threaten them in the sense of intimidate, reject socially, etc. All the things one does to those whom they don't want to see be a part of their community. You understand fully what this looks like, I'm quite confident.

 

Yes. The split was really beginning after the Temple was destroyed, where the language of Mark and other writings reflect a scramble to redefine themselves now that the face of the world as they were understanding it was completely destroyed. The blow it had on the Jewish and the Christian psyche would have been profound. They had to try to figure out where they fit it now, what the purpose of everything was. The Jews had to figure it out, and so did the Christians, and their chosen paths diverged to point of viewing the Jews in a growing hostile light.

I'm having a hard time visualizing the timeline here. Saul supposedly "persecuted" the Christians before 70 AD, unless I'm mistaken.

Paul was dead before 70 AD. Saul would have been trying to drive out the Christ cults prior to 50 AD. This would have been in the Northern Syria/Asia Minor areas where the Jesus movements would have taken on the flavor of the mystery religions of the Gentiles who were trying to find a home in the Diaspora Synagogues. It was a case of "coming to God", with the mystery religion baggage in tow with the invite of a community of Hellenized Jews who followed a sub-cultural movement embracing cross-cultural values the "Jesus" teachings of the "Kingdom of God".

 

Think of a type of "New Age" sort of spiritual movement spawned out of a sort of Humanist philosophy which originally tried to deal with the breakdown of social lines in a highly multicultural world with little sense of itself due to the imposition of a socially uninterested government. That was the spawning grounds for the teachings of Jesus, not as a religious guru, but a sort of popular philosopher that saw the value of transcending the restrictive and failed boundaries of ethnic divisions. With that philosophy driving the movement, the natural genesis of societies occurred through the process of mythmaking, justifying communities spawned out of it with their origin myths, founding figures, and apologetic doctrines. They began to identify themselves, to distinguish themselves, to justify themselves.

 

So Paul, being of the school of the Pharisees, was basically a religious conservative. Seeing this sort of alternative community, infusing itself into his cherished Jewish religion, felt compelled to "persecute" it "with zeal". His personality was such that he threw himself headlong into whatever he believed. So naturally, he would wish to preserve "the truth" of his beliefs, as much as he did once he switched camps. It's this zeal for his religion as a Jew that I believe compelled him to switch over to join the Christians, insomuch as they had a more "marketable" approach for the target audience. It made more sense to go with the flow, then to "kick against the thorns", as the saying from "the Lord" went.

 

Paul died before any of this happened. He never saw the temple destroyed, nor the shift in focus of the views of Christian. Some critical scholars point out how that Paul would never have approved of Mark's Gospel.

So it means that Paul was prosecuting the Pre-split-Christians. Wouldn't that be the Jewish Christians rather than gentiles? In other words, he persecuted a Jewish cult, not a pagan outreach?

No. It's not a matter of one or the other. Think lots of varieties of Jesus communities, in lots of different areas. Jewish-Christians, those who saw the purpose was purifying the message of Moses, was only one flavor. The Christians were not about a "Gentile outreach", but were more the product of a social movement that drew in Gentiles with a certain world view that encompassed the practice of "spiritual communion" within the mystery religions. The Christ Cults, were a certain flavor of the Jesus movements that evolved in Asia Minor. There were other evolutions as well, such as the more Gnostic communities who split off into Egypt who were the Thomas Gospel people. There were still other groups. It's just that the Christ Cults, were the ones Paul converted to, and why when he encountered the Jewish Christians of James and Peter, there was less than a meeting of minds!

 

He had compromised on some very basic doctrines. Circumcision! That would be like today someone calling themselves a Christian and saying they didn't believe in the resurrection. Yet Paul, who once persecuting those who changed the doctrine, now preached it himself! That was the controversy. Yet in his mind, it served his ideal of mission better. (What is it I've always argued about calling something truth?).

 

No. I'm sure Paul existed. I'm not sure the confusion you have with what I wrote. Paul's actual writings, in the time order in which they were written, show a certain evolving view about the Christ figure, dynamically being imagined by him in response to critics. It starts at one point at one time, then evolves to something different or more developed later on as time, situation, and audience changes. He then dies. Other letters are written to "The Church" (as opposed to congregations which Paul only addressed) in his name, likely by a Pauline school attributing them to him. They reflect yet another shift in the movement. Still others are written even later by those wishing to promote the authority of apostolic succession to grant authority to leaders of congregations (yet another shift in focus and supporting mythology).

So Paul was to some degree the mastermind behind, or at least a strong influence to, the Jewish-Christian-cult and Pagan-Gentile marriage?

Umm, in part. Not in whole. It was later authors who took bits of what Paul said and modified or changed it to fit a new schema, and so forth until "orthodoxy" pulled all the bits together into their "orthodox" doctrine.

 

All told, when all these bits are collected and collated into a grand "portrait" of the church, that "portrait" is a much, much later view looking down on the whole imposing meaning into the texts, presupposing that the meaning is there. But this isn't the case if they are read in the context of time and location without any later "interpretation" of later ideas presupposed upon them. To do that, to presuppose that later layer was always understood, is what in fact creates these long series of contradictions and conflicts of message and meaning. The canonization of scripture was itself creating a myth out of a patchwork quilt. Working from the bottom up, you see instead a tree - just like evolution.

Of course, and just like the development of language too.

Certainly. I am never less that mesmerized in realizing how our whole sense of reality is defined and experienced through language systems. "Truth" is not "fact". Truth is a sense that seems real to us. The "facts" behind it may change, and our ideas about truth may change, but the experience remains the same. We "know". Language is the source of truth. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God".

[hereticzero]

I found this:

 

And Saul, still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to Damascus to the synagogues; so that if he found any of the Way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Act 9:1-2)MKJV

He had warrants to arrest Christians. I can imagine early Christians were murdered by Jews, too, with or without warrants. Christians have always been killed by opposing religious tyrants.

And you believe the writer of Luke/Acts wrote factual history? I specifically quoted what Paul wrote. You're reading a later fiction back on top of Paul's accounts of the matter. He only mentions "persecution" which the language, nor the context does not bear out killing them.

Luke doesn't have to be true for religious despots to murder Christians. Muslims do it all the time. Why not the Jews?

[Antlerman]

I found this:

 

And Saul, still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to Damascus to the synagogues; so that if he found any of the Way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Act 9:1-2)MKJV

He had warrants to arrest Christians. I can imagine early Christians were murdered by Jews, too, with or without warrants. Christians have always been killed by opposing religious tyrants.

And you believe the writer of Luke/Acts wrote factual history? I specifically quoted what Paul wrote. You're reading a later fiction back on top of Paul's accounts of the matter. He only mentions "persecution" which the language, nor the context does not bear out killing them.

Luke doesn't have to be true for religious despots to murder Christians. Muslims do it all the time. Why not the Jews?

That's true, religious persecution does lead people to be vigilantes, bombing buildings, lynching people, conspiring to kill leaders, etc. However we're talking about this being a factual account of Paul's actual history. Just as Luke's Damascus Road account is likely to be a very great exaggeration of a story surrounding Paul's conversion, I see the same thing here. The reasons for that are first in Paul's account, which is listed in the verses I quoted above, both the Greek word used and the general tone does not suggest he was killing people or part of killing them, and secondly he would have been a full blown outlaw if he had. His group would not have been authorized to execute anyone under the law. The High Priest would not have been the power of the state. The Romans were.

 

If you are to accept the account of Luke as historical accuracy that Paul had the legal right to arrest and bring people before the Sanhedrin for possible execution, then you must accept John's account of history where he has the Jews saying, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death". (Jn. 18:19) This of course would be contradiction of Luke's fictionalized account of Paul's story. The only way Luke's story of Paul would be accurate would be if Paul was part of some covert operation to illegally murder people. I find that unlikely in his case on a number of levels.

 

But Luke's account does make for a good fiction, much like the Homeric Odyssey tales. Take where he has Paul getting shipwrecked at sea. Here's an abstract I found of a paper from Cambridge on that:

Acts 27–28 frequently points to the shipwrecks of Odysseus in Odyssey Books 5 and 12, the second of which the hero narrates in the first person. The shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way. Luke's intention in relating Paul's shipwreck to those of Odysseus was to exalt Paul and his God by comparison.

 

And that's my argument. Luke's exaggerations of Paul's conversion and his "persecutions" were for a literary effect. They are not historical accounts, in the sense we expect of historians today. Paul's own words don't suggest this without Luke's narrative putting that idea into the reader's mind ahead of time. You have to set aside later "accounts" of these things in order to see them in a more accurate historical light.