A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Goat]

And do you know when that was written? It was written in either the late 3rd century or early 4th century. That was more than enough time for the Rabbi's to react to the extreme negativity of the early Christians (after all, the Gospel of Barrabbas basically accused the Jews of murder).
If you look at the account, the version of the story that is
in the talmud is very careful to recite what the laws about executions were, and to very carefully say that the laws were followed. This is in direct contradiction to the gospels.
(By the way, the 'being hung' in the Talmud was NOT cruxifiction. What it was is strangulation, followed by the display of the body until just before sundown)

So they invented a man that never existed just to write about him and call him names?


I think it is more likely that Jesus did exist, did do things that pissed them off, and they wrote about him at a later time.

Which explaination makes more sense?

They were responding to the Gospel stories, and the accusations that were being made against them. Is that so difficult to understand? 3rd to 4th century is certainly long enough for their to be a strong compitition between the Jews and the Christians. This is particularly true since some of the gospels have a strong anti-jewish bias.
]

[achilles12604]

And do you know when that was written? It was written in either the late 3rd century or early 4th century. That was more than enough time for the Rabbi's to react to the extreme negativity of the early Christians (after all, the Gospel of Barrabbas basically accused the Jews of murder).
If you look at the account, the version of the story that is
in the talmud is very careful to recite what the laws about executions were, and to very carefully say that the laws were followed. This is in direct contradiction to the gospels.
(By the way, the 'being hung' in the Talmud was NOT cruxifiction. What it was is strangulation, followed by the display of the body until just before sundown)

So they invented a man that never existed just to write about him and call him names?


I think it is more likely that Jesus did exist, did do things that pissed them off, and they wrote about him at a later time.

Which explanation makes more sense?

They were responding to the Gospel stories, and the accusations that were being made against them. Is that so difficult to understand? 3rd to 4th century is certainly long enough for their to be a strong compitition between the Jews and the Christians. This is particularly true since some of the gospels have a strong anti-jewish bias.
]

So they invented both him and his actions just so they would stop feeling pressure from anti-jewish sources?

Your evidence supporting Alexander was much better than this.

[Goat]

And do you know when that was written? It was written in either the late 3rd century or early 4th century. That was more than enough time for the Rabbi's to react to the extreme negativity of the early Christians (after all, the Gospel of Barrabbas basically accused the Jews of murder).
If you look at the account, the version of the story that is
in the talmud is very careful to recite what the laws about executions were, and to very carefully say that the laws were followed. This is in direct contradiction to the gospels.
(By the way, the 'being hung' in the Talmud was NOT cruxifiction. What it was is strangulation, followed by the display of the body until just before sundown)

So they invented a man that never existed just to write about him and call him names?


I think it is more likely that Jesus did exist, did do things that pissed them off, and they wrote about him at a later time.

Which explanation makes more sense?

They were responding to the Gospel stories, and the accusations that were being made against them. Is that so difficult to understand? 3rd to 4th century is certainly long enough for their to be a strong compitition between the Jews and the Christians. This is particularly true since some of the gospels have a strong anti-jewish bias.
]

So they invented both him and his actions just so they would stop feeling pressure from anti-jewish sources?

Your evidence supporting Alexander was much better than this.

The things is, it doesn't have to be a good source, It is just pointing out that the Talmud can't really be used for a primary source about Jesus, since it was written over a period of time 200 to 400 years after the timeframe that the events were supposed to have happened. To be a good source, it has to be a non-biblical source from before the Jewish revolt. Such writers as Philo of Alexander, who wrote about histories of the Jewish people, specifically mentioned Pontious Pilate in his writings, did not mention Jesus (he wrote up to about 45 CE). Although we no longer have the writings of Justus of Tiberious (another contemporary Jewish Historian), we have the comment of
Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who expressed astonishment it had no mention of Jesus.

Now, that does not mean we won't find evidence in the future. However, the silence of the current known historians that should have recorded something does suggest that the prominence of Jesus is at the very least exagerated in the Gospels.

I will point out that the letters of John have very little detail about Jesus, nor a real lot about what Jesus actually taught (mind you , that wasn't the focus of the letters either). It wasn't until later you started getting the story about Jesus told, and the later writings were more elaborate than the older writings.

BTW, when it comes to Sandhedrin 43B, the Jesus in that was 'stoned then hanged'. That does not match the gospels at all.

[Cathar1950]

So they invented both him and his actions just so they would stop feeling pressure from anti-jewish sources?

I think he is saying the writers of the gospels invented the Jesus that matched Paul's Jesus with a little added anti-Jewish rhetoric
and the Jews reacted to that. Paul gets his information about Jesus from his Lord of Glory and it is a different Jesus and gospel then the one coming from the "real" disciples in Jerusalem. After the war when the gospels(Mark) were being written they follow Paul because no other teachings or disciples were left to put Paul's ideas in check. The others followed Mark's pattern and refined his gospel. All the gospels where written outside Jerusalem after the war by gentiles for gentiles. No Jewish gospel is left.

[Easyrider]

Paul gets his information about Jesus from his Lord of Glory and it is a different Jesus and gospel then the one coming from the "real" disciples in Jerusalem. After the war when the gospels(Mark) were being written they follow Paul because no other teachings or disciples were left to put Paul's ideas in check. The others followed Mark's pattern and refined his gospel. All the gospels where written outside Jerusalem after the war by gentiles for gentiles. No Jewish gospel is left.

Well, there he goes again. Someday I'd hope you could back this all up but I don't suppose I'll live long enough.

[Cathar1950]

I am sure I have done this before and you ignored it.
But I will do it again and this time I will keep a copy.

Paul’s writings are the earliest Christian writings we have copies of copies.
Of the 13 are attributed to Paul only 6 or 7 are thought to actually be his work and even they have been subject to editing. None of the pastoral letters are authentic. This is the consensus even among the conservative scholars. You might have a few die hard apologist that believe otherwise but you will not find many that will back them up.
What if find interesting about Paul is how he left his gentile Christians homeless.
Normally when you become Jewish you become a citizen of Israel. Now god-fearers usually could still participate in their polis-cults and be citizens but Paul doesn’t want them to become Jews or be part of the communities. Paul thought the world was going to end soon and didn’t see the need to become Jews but also didn’t want them to participate in the polis-cults. It seems that Paul by seeing no difference created the big divide by being in error.


Paul claims he got his “gospel” or revelation from “Christ” personally and not from any human. This of course does not jive with the fabrications of Acts. It is possible they were both not telling the truth.

Gal 1:11,12
11And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man,
12for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,

Paul does not give one historical reference to Jesus. He is only interested in the glorified Christ. Paul has opponents within the church in Jerusalem including the leadership and even teaches another gospel and another Jesus.

Galatians 1:6-9
6I wonder that ye are so quickly removed from Him who did call you in the grace of Christ to another good news;
7that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;
8but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be!
9as we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!

2 Cor 11:4-7
4for if, indeed, he who is coming doth preach another Jesus whom we did not preach, or another Spirit ye receive which ye did not receive, or other good news which ye did not accept -- well were ye bearing [it],
5for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,
6and even if unlearned in word -- yet not in knowledge, but in every thing we were made manifest in all things to you.
7The sin did I do -- myself humbling that ye might be exalted, because freely the good news of God I did proclaim to you?

Gal 1:16-22

16to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim him good news among the nations, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,
17nor did I go up to Jerusalem unto those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus,
18then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days,
19and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord.
20And the things that I write to you, lo, before God -- I lie not;
21then I came to the regions of Syria and of Cilicia,
22and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that [are] in Christ,

1 Corinthians 1:12-15
12and I say this, that each one of you saith, `I, indeed, am of Paul' -- `and I of Apollos,' -- `and I of Cephas,' -- `and I of Christ.'
13Hath the Christ been divided? was Paul crucified for you? or to the name of Paul were ye baptized;
14I give thanks to God that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius --
15that no one may say that to my own name I did baptize;
1 Corinthians 4:15-21
15for if a myriad of child-conductors ye may have in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, through the good news, I -- I did beget you;
16I call upon you, therefore, become ye followers of me;
17because of this I sent to you Timotheus, who is my child, beloved and faithful in the Lord, who shall remind you of my ways in Christ, according as everywhere in every assembly I teach.
18And as if I were not coming unto you certain were puffed up;
19but I will come quickly unto you, if the Lord may will, and I will know not the word of those puffed up, but the power;
20for not in word is the reign of God, but in power?
21what do ye wish? with a rod shall I come unto you, or in love, with a spirit also of meekness?

Corinthians 9:1-5
1Am not I an apostle? am not I free? Jesus Christ our Lord have I not seen? my work are not ye in the Lord?
2if to others I am not an apostle -- yet doubtless to you I am; for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.
3My defence to those who examine me in this;
4have we not authority to eat and to drink?
5have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

[Easyrider]

I am sure I have done this before and you ignored it.

No, I refuted the last version you tried to foist on folks.

Paul’s writings are the earliest Christian writings we have copies of copies.

This seems to argue that if one of the Apostles, like Matthew, wrote a Gospel later on he had to have gotten it from Paul, instead of recounting his own experiences that occurred pre-Paul. That's silly. Also, if they copied from Paul, and you say Paul gave "no historical reference to Jesus," then that doesn't make any sense either, since the Gospels contain numerous historical accounts of the life of Christ.

Of the 13 are attributed to Paul only 6 or 7 are thought to actually be his work and even they have been subject to editing. None of the pastoral letters are authentic. This is the consensus even among the conservative scholars.

And you got this information WHERE? I don't buy your concensus argument. Sounds like infidels.org or some other dedicated Christ-basher group.

What if find interesting about Paul is how he left his gentile Christians homeless.

I need scriptural support for this. Also, Jesus was basically homeless, so what? Was Paul the tentmaker rich or something to where he could build homes for people?

Normally when you become Jewish you become a citizen of Israel. Now god-fearers usually could still participate in their polis-cults and be citizens but Paul doesn’t want them to become Jews or be part of the communities.

He doesn't want Christian Jews to become Jewish legalizers who think you need to be circumcised and work your way to heaven to be saved in Christ. Christ made it simple - faith leads to salvation (John 3:16, etc.).

Paul claims he got his “gospel” or revelation from “Christ” personally and not from any human. This of course does not jive with the fabrications of Acts. It is possible they were both not telling the truth. - Gal 1:11,12
11 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man,
12 for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ...

No foundation for it contradicting Acts.

Paul does not give one historical reference to Jesus. He is only interested in the glorified Christ.

Paul taught about the atoning sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection - both clear references to the life of Jesus.

Paul has opponents within the church in Jerusalem including the leadership and even teaches another gospel and another Jesus. "I wonder that ye are so quickly removed from Him who did call you in the grace of Christ to another good news;
7 that is not another, except there be certain who are troubling you, and wishing to pervert the good news of the Christ;
8but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be!
9as we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be! 2 Cor 11:4-7 4for if, indeed, he who is coming doth preach another Jesus whom we did not preach, or another Spirit ye receive which ye did not receive, or other good news which ye did not accept -- well were ye bearing [it],
5for I reckon that I have been nothing behind the very chiefest apostles,
6and even if unlearned in word -- yet not in knowledge, but in every thing we were made manifest in all things to you.
7The sin did I do -- myself humbling that ye might be exalted, because freely the good news of God I did proclaim to you?
Gal 1:16-22 16to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim him good news among the nations, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem unto those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus,
18 then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to enquire about Peter, and remained with him fifteen days,
19and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord.
20And the things that I write to you, lo, before God -- I lie not;
21then I came to the regions of Syria and of Cilicia,
22and was unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea, that [are] in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:12-15
12and I say this, that each one of you saith, `I, indeed, am of Paul' -- `and I of Apollos,' -- `and I of Cephas,' -- `and I of Christ.'
13Hath the Christ been divided? was Paul crucified for you? or to the name of Paul were ye baptized;
14I give thanks to God that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius --
15that no one may say that to my own name I did baptize;
1 Corinthians 4:15-21
15for if a myriad of child-conductors ye may have in Christ, yet not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, through the good news, I -- I did beget you;
16I call upon you, therefore, become ye followers of me;
17because of this I sent to you Timotheus, who is my child, beloved and faithful in the Lord, who shall remind you of my ways in Christ, according as everywhere in every assembly I teach.
18And as if I were not coming unto you certain were puffed up;
19but I will come quickly unto you, if the Lord may will, and I will know not the word of those puffed up, but the power;
20for not in word is the reign of God, but in power?
21what do ye wish? with a rod shall I come unto you, or in love, with a spirit also of meekness? Corinthians 9:1-5
1Am not I an apostle? am not I free? Jesus Christ our Lord have I not seen? my work are not ye in the Lord?
2if to others I am not an apostle -- yet doubtless to you I am; for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.
3My defence to those who examine me in this;
4have we not authority to eat and to drink?
5have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul had differences with anyone who would turn the grace and salvation of Christ into a legalistic, "work your way to heaven" lie, which never was the teaching of ancient Judaism either (Abram justified righteous by faith - Genesis 15:6). The true apostles and NT church leaders never taught a works-oriented salvation either. So your argument lacks merit.

So far you're about 0-10. Got anything that really upsets the Biblical NT applecart?

[Cathar1950]

No foundation for it contradicting Acts.

Dah? That was my point. Yes Paul contradicts Acts. You should take a point from you and give me two points.

Paul taught about the atoning sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection - both clear references to the life of Jesus.

The references you use are after Paul. The Ebonite and the Mithra/Osiris make my point and you just reinforced it. One point from you, two more for me. They are not clear references at all.
He says the demons killed “Christ” not knowing who he was yet in some of the gospels only the demons know who he is. Yes the gospels do contradict Paul but I didn’t say they didn’t have other sources. They all patterned after Mark except John which is the least eye witness but might have been based on some ones recollection or followers of either James, Mary M or even John. Here the separation from the Jews in the community was final and both Jewish and Christian Gnostics were competing. You might recognize traditions but you can’t recognize the human Jesus or his words. It is a favorite among Evangelicals and Pentecostal believers.

Paul had differences with anyone who would turn the grace and salvation of Christ into a legalistic, "work your way to heaven" lie, which never was the teaching of ancient Judaism either (Abram justified righteous by faith - Genesis 15:6). The true apostles and NT church leaders never taught a works-oriented salvation either. So your argument lacks merit.

There are many scholars that feel this is obvious. Your comment lacks merit.
Until the fall of the temple they never quit being Jewish. Paul taught a different Jesus and a different gospel. He got his privately from no man.

I am not keeping track of the score.

[achilles12604]

So they invented both him and his actions just so they would stop feeling pressure from anti-jewish sources?

I think he is saying the writers of the gospels invented the Jesus that matched Paul's Jesus with a little added anti-Jewish rhetoric
and the Jews reacted to that. Paul gets his information about Jesus from his Lord of Glory and it is a different Jesus and gospel then the one coming from the "real" disciples in Jerusalem. After the war when the gospels(Mark) were being written they follow Paul because no other teachings or disciples were left to put Paul's ideas in check. The others followed Mark's pattern and refined his gospel. All the gospels where written outside Jerusalem after the war by gentiles for gentiles. No Jewish gospel is left.

Ah a conspiracy then?!

Wonderful!

So answer me a few conspiracy questions then.

1) How did the lies grow so quickly among the very people who would have known for a fact that they were all lies?

2) Given number one, How could these people suddenly change their beliefs to a total blasphemy of what they had been taught and clung to for thousands of years dispite war, conquest and persecution? Remember these people knew that these were all lies because they were there during the very time frame talked about by the apostles.

3) We have at least decent evidence that the apostles suffered and in most cases died for what they were teaching. This has been established by non-biblical sources including Jewish writings, roman writings, and the writings of the early church fathers. With this in mind, why would these men suffer persecution voluntarily for themselves and their families, for something they knew to be untrue? (please note I did not even include execution in my question although this happened too).

4) If Jesus was totally a myth please explain the conversions of both Paul and of James. These men were dead set against Jesus during his life. Why did they suddenly change their minds to the point of death after Jesus had been proven a fake because of his crucifixtion?

I await your reply.


By the way you included a little false information in your post here.

After the war when the gospels(Mark) were being written they follow Paul because no other teachings or disciples were left to put Paul's ideas in check

Flase. What about the gnostics? The Jews? Everyone else who was there? Witnesses that saw (according to you) nothing? Hmmm?

All the gospels where written outside Jerusalem after the war by gentiles for gentiles. No Jewish gospel is left

You say Mark was indeed the first. OK well if Mark was writing down the teachings of Peter, how can you say the above? I am confused indeed.

Paul gets his information about Jesus from his Lord of Glory and it is a different Jesus and gospel then the one coming from the "real" disciples in Jerusalem.

How come Paul refers to the other disciples teaching Gospels before his letters were even written? 2 Col 12:12, Gal 2:8 1 Cor 15:9, Eph 2: 20

This last one is the most damning to your theory. Paul himself writes

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household built on the foundation of the apostles . . . . and so on. Eph 2:20

How can you logically claim then that Paul made up Jesus and the apostles then wrote in details later. Paul himself refers to the apostles and their teachings before and during his letter writting process. You are a little mistaken I think?


Just a few flaws in your logic I found. Unfoturnatly I only had about 8 minutes to address this and I must go now. Laters.

[achilles12604]

Paul does not give one historical reference to Jesus. He is only interested in the glorified Christ. Paul has opponents within the church in Jerusalem including the leadership and even teaches another gospel and another Jesus.

Cathar, you can not possible expect us to believe you after making a statement like this. Paul does not refer to a human Jesus?!?!?!

Here are two good examples. There are over a dozen more I have looked up in the past and will present if you wish, however I think that these two show you totally WRONG.

Eph 4:9-10

What does "he ascended" mean except that he also decended to the lower earthly regions? He who decended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens . . .

Romans 1:3-4

regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a decendent of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God.

Uh . . . How can you expect me to believe much of what you say when you claim Paul didn't even refer to a human Jesus? You have been reading to much Earl Doherty. I sincerely hope you are more credible than he.