A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

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

[Goat]

Lets review what you and I have said over the last few posts. . .


You said

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

My interpretation of this : You think Paul wrote some about Jesus and the writers of the Gospels Wrote in details AFTER this. Hence for this to be true, Paul was the originator of the Jesus myth and the Apostles followed in suit.

I wrote :

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?

Here I point out that your siggested timeline was incorrect. For your timeline to work, the authors must first have been familiar with Paul's letters and then began preaching their lies. However, Paul refers to their preaching in his letters on several occasions. This means that your timeline not only is not likely to be accurate but in fact can not be accurate. They must have been preaching their versions of the story of Jesus before Paul wrote. Otherwise how would Paul know that they were preaching at all?


Next you wrote :

Paul does not give one historical reference to Jesus.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.

But not even a full page later you contradict yourself :

Ok he was of the line of David. Like that narrows it down. But in another place it says he is raised a spirit not flesh. Now you don’t have any historical or a flesh Jesus. The more I read Paul the crazier he seems. We don’t know if he got this information from others like his disciples or if this is one of those personal visions where Jesus tells him the “truth".

First there is not reference, and then you admit he was a decendent of the line of David. Then you go right back as say that just because Paul says Jesus was RAISED a spirit, this shows

Now you don’t have any historical or a flesh Jesus

. Wow what a leap.

Might I suggest that Paul meant EXACTLY what he wrote. Jesus was alive, did decend to earth, as I pointed out in another passage, was killed, (bodily) and then rose a new spiritual creation? How does this show that there was never a human Jesus according to Paul. You can't even keep from contradicting yourself from one posting to the next.

You wrote :

He went to lower parts of the earth and then he went far into the heavens and filled all things? This does not tell us anything about Jesus’ life. And his forehead reach all the way to the sky. This sounds like he was high and reading Enoch or one of those writings. It could have been the Manheim, Enoch or Adam. No historical content.

Where in the entire bible does it say Jesus head reached the sky? I challenge you!!!

Where did I ever say Jesus head reaches the sky? I challenge you to back up this claim! (if you can)

I mearly pointed out that Paul expressly writes that Jesus came to earth, then returned to heaven, once again showing that he is refering to a human, earthly or as Paul wrote "Earthly regions". I was accused earlier of lumping atheists together as far as taking scripture out of context. Yet here you are doing it. Open a bible and read it for what it says, not inserting what you may have heard from an atheist website touting the Gospel of Peter's stories. You forgot to mention the talking cross or that Mary was assigned to rule the church but there was a consipracy to get her out.

You wrote :

There were no gospels. The later gospel writers incorporate Paul’s interpretation creating a story with teachings and traditions to meet the needs of the communities that produced the works. Mark started it for most of the traditions we have such as Matthew and Luke.

Once again I mention the timeline. If the Gospels were being taught, as Paul writes in his letters, before Paul's letters, then how can you say those teachings came after and were based on Paul's letters? You have time backwards.

You wrote :

He was trying to create a new community outside of both the Jews and the world

In space? What are you talking about? Where is the references refering to this idea?




This is probably a good time to show that you are suggesting a lot of ideas without providing many sources. Zero in the last two posts.

By the way, you have been writing this . . . .

He is giving a different gospel and a different Jesus. He is not concerned with the historical Jesus or what the disciples have to say.

an awful lot.

How then do you account for, "Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." 1 Cor 15:11

Paul also seems to have a high opinion of the apostles and their teachings here. . .
"On the contrary, they as that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, Just as peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter, and John those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of the fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go the the gentiles and they to the Jews."

First, Paul was entrusted with the expansion of the ministry. Why would this be if he was teaching something different?

Second, you wrote :

"the Gospels were written by the Gentiles for the Gentiles"

Yet, here Paul describes that the apostles (by name) went totally and only to the JEWS!! Paul and only Paul went to the Gentiles. How do you explain yourself here?
Paul seems to think they are teaching the same thing. Why do you disagree? Please show us where someone taught something other than

1) Jesus came to earth.
2) Jesus taught and healed
3) Jesus was killed by authorities and his death cleansed us of our sins.
4) Jesus rose in a new body
5) Jesus was the lord, the son of God

Please point to the passage of contradiction and we can discuss it.

Point 1: Let us look at Romans 1:3 again

1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The term 'Seed of David' according to the flesh, in the Jewish culture of the time, meant that someone was of the unbroken male line of King David through Solomon. That means, no adoptions, no skipping generations with a woman as the decendant. As a detail, that is what was expected by the Jews as a requirement of the Messiah. They were expecting a HUMAN king to kick the foreign invaders out of Judah, and restore a Jewish King over Israel. As a detail, it is just mentioned in passing, and is not really a concern except to say 'see, he fits the requirements'.


Then, Romans 1:4

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

I don't know about you.. but this appears to me that Paul thought that Jesus became the Son of God at the resurrection. This would match King David being the Son of God, made by his becoming King (see Psalm of David 2:7)

At that point, the gospels were not written. The gospels came decades later.

Mentioning Jesus being the 'seed of david' isn't much of a detail, and does not really show a concern about the 'earthly jesus' at all. It says nothing about what Jesus taught. It says nothing about when Jesus was born, how he lived, what he believed in.

Because the gospels weren't written until at least 10 to 20 years later, it is invalid to dismiss the statement that only Paul had gone to both the Jew and the Gentiles, and that the Gospels were written for the Jews. Many of the gospels definately had a seperations between themselves and the Jewish people.

It seems to me that the view of Paul was that Jesus became the Son of God at the cruxifiction, but the view of Matthew and Luke was the physical son of god (which would be a very large heresy to the Jewish community).

[achilles12604]

I never said Paul said he didn't have flesh. I said he didn't know Jesus in the flesh. Please pay attention.

You said that Paul makes no mention of a historical Jesus. Don't try to wiggle out of your words.

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

He makes this clear that Jesus is not flesh and blood

[Easyrider]

It seems to me that the view of Paul was that Jesus became the Son of God at the cruxifiction, but the view of Matthew and Luke was the physical son of god (which would be a very large heresy to the Jewish community).

Hardly. From Philippians chapter 2:

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Will you revise your thinking now, or will you just ignore this evidence?

[achilles12604]

Point 1: Let us look at Romans 1:3 again

1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The term 'Seed of David' according to the flesh, in the Jewish culture of the time, meant that someone was of the unbroken male line of King David through Solomon. That means, no adoptions, no skipping generations with a woman as the decendant. As a detail, that is what was expected by the Jews as a requirement of the Messiah. They were expecting a HUMAN king to kick the foreign invaders out of Judah, and restore a Jewish King over Israel. As a detail, it is just mentioned in passing, and is not really a concern except to say 'see, he fits the requirements'.


Then, Romans 1:4

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

I don't know about you.. but this appears to me that Paul thought that Jesus became the Son of God at the resurrection. This would match King David being the Son of God, made by his becoming King (see Psalm of David 2:7)

At that point, the gospels were not written. The gospels came decades later.

Mentioning Jesus being the 'seed of david' isn't much of a detail, and does not really show a concern about the 'earthly jesus' at all. It says nothing about what Jesus taught. It says nothing about when Jesus was born, how he lived, what he believed in.

Because the gospels weren't written until at least 10 to 20 years later, it is invalid to dismiss the statement that only Paul had gone to both the Jew and the Gentiles, and that the Gospels were written for the Jews. Many of the gospels definately had a seperations between themselves and the Jewish people.

It seems to me that the view of Paul was that Jesus became the Son of God at the cruxifiction, but the view of Matthew and Luke was the physical son of god (which would be a very large heresy to the Jewish community).

[/quote]

I'm going to take a guess that you are using the KJV of the bible like most other atheists?

In that case you should be aware that the KJV has been interpreted incorrectly in quite a number of places. A more accurate and up to date version is the NIV bible.

First you write :
Point 1: Let us look at Romans 1:3 again

Quote:

1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;



The term 'Seed of David' according to the flesh, in the Jewish culture of the time, meant that someone was of the unbroken male line of King David through Solomon. That means, no adoptions, no skipping generations with a woman as the decendant. As a detail, that is what was expected by the Jews as a requirement of the Messiah. They were expecting a HUMAN king to kick the foreign invaders out of Judah, and restore a Jewish King over Israel. As a detail, it is just mentioned in passing, and is not really a concern except to say 'see, he fits the requirements'.

I checked the actual greek against Green's interliner bible as well as strong's concordence on PC study bible. It does include, "as to his human nature. As for fitting the requirements, yes, I agree. Thank you for re-wording my entire point.

Later you write :

Mentioning Jesus being the 'seed of david' isn't much of a detail, and does not really show a concern about the 'earthly jesus' at all. It says nothing about what Jesus taught. It says nothing about when Jesus was born, how he lived, what he believed in.

I grant you this. However since the debate between Cathar and myself is "Did Paul Believe in a Human Jesus or only a Spirit one?", I would suggest that it doesn't matter. I never said this passage described anything about Jesus other than he was alive and on earth and one point in time, which you agreed with earlier.

Lastly you write :

It seems to me that the view of Paul was that Jesus became the Son of God at the cruxifiction, but the view of Matthew and Luke was the physical son of god (which would be a very large heresy to the Jewish community).

Paul does not refer to the life or teachings of Jesus, as much as he does to the cruxcifixtion because Paul's primary message was acceptance of Jesus and his atoning blood would lead to salvation, the most important of all things. The fact that he does not go into detail about Jesus specific words, mearly shows that to him, these words were less important that what he came for. It in no way proves that he was not the Son of God before the crucifixtion. It just shows that on the cross Jesus ultimate purpose was being completed.

PS - I agree about your interpretation of MAtt and Luke's view being heretical. This is why I also have a great deal of concern when someone claims that thousands of Jews from within Jerusalem converted to such heresay because of the lies spoken by the apostles.

Do you see why now, when an atheist says Jesus never existed, I can not swollow that based on history alone? It doesn't account for what happened.

[Cathar1950]

My interpretation of this : You think Paul wrote some about Jesus and the writers of the Gospels Wrote in details AFTER this. Hence for this to be true, Paul was the originator of the Jesus myth and the Apostles followed in suit.

That would be your interpretation but it is not what I said or meant. In Paul’s letters he writes of things he got from Jesus such as the last supper. Later writers of the Gospels used his exact words. The Apostles of Jesus or his disciples knew a different Jesus and were telling a different gospel. Maybe even the betrayal of Jesus came from Paul for all we know. But what I am saying is some of the slight information Paul says received from Jesus directly may have very well have been added to the traditions to fit Paul’s doctrines. They were written after Paul and after the Jewish war. This is my assertion not what ever you are misunderstanding is off.

Here I point out that your siggested timeline was incorrect. For your timeline to work, the authors must first have been familiar with Paul's letters and then began preaching their lies. However, Paul refers to their preaching in his letters on several occasions. This means that your timeline not only is not likely to be accurate but in fact can not be accurate. They must have been preaching their versions of the story of Jesus before Paul wrote. Otherwise how would Paul know that they were preaching at all?

Here you are not talking about the same thing. The gospel of the apostles to the Jews is their message it is not the gospels in the NT. They were not written until after Paul. I think the authors were familiar with Paul’s letters. We do not know what they were saying. Some scholars try to find the various layers of tradition. You time line and your quasi arguments about your misunderstanding are useless. They had a message not gospels.

Next you wrote :
Quote:
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.


But not even a full page later you contradict yourself :
Quote:
Ok he was of the line of David. Like that narrows it down. But in another place it says he is raised a spirit not flesh. Now you don’t have any historical or a flesh Jesus. The more I read Paul the crazier he seems. We don’t know if he got this information from others like his disciples or if this is one of those personal visions where Jesus tells him the “truth".
First there is not reference, and then you admit he was a decendent of the line of David. Then you go right back as say that just because Paul says Jesus was RAISED a spirit, this shows
Quote:
Now you don’t have any historical or a flesh Jesus
. Wow what a leap.

Again this is not historical information about the flesh Jesus it only says he is from the line of David. Many believed the Messiah would come from David’s line but this does not say anything historical about Jesus. Paul still does not know a human fleshly Jesus by his own words he had vision of a glorified Christ and never met Jesus in the flesh. What part don’t you understand?
Paul does not give you any information. He did not know him. He said he got his info from no man.

Might I suggest that Paul meant EXACTLY what he wrote. Jesus was alive, did decend to earth, as I pointed out in another passage, was killed, (bodily) and then rose a new spiritual creation? How does this show that there was never a human Jesus according to Paul. You can't even keep from contradicting yourself from one posting to the next.

May I suggest you look and see that that is no information about his life or teachings. It is Paul’s teaching. I did not say there was no human according to Paul so quit trying to put a Gnostic slant to my words. I said Paul never met him. He gives no real information historically.
I am not contradiction myself you are not reading what I said. Paul did not know Jesus in the flesh and he gives no information that is useful. What he does give he gets from vision.
What ever Paul meant exactly is useless. He came down was of he line of David he rose a spirit. Hardly detail to brag about.

Where in the entire bible does it say Jesus head reached the sky? I challenge you!!!

I did mention the books of Enoch, Again your not paying attention.
You make a great defense from something you don't seem to comprehend and replace with your own misunderstanding.

[Goat]

It seems to me that the view of Paul was that Jesus became the Son of God at the cruxifiction, but the view of Matthew and Luke was the physical son of god (which would be a very large heresy to the Jewish community).

Hardly. From Philippians chapter 2:

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Will you revise your thinking now, or will you just ignore this evidence?

And now does that 'refute' what I said? It seems to me that it reinforces the concept that he was exulted at death.

Look again.. read

8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

God exulted him because he was obedient even to death.

It also says NOTHING about what Jesus preached, or anything about his life. To me, it shows that the key poitn was 'he was exulted because he was obedient even to death'. This reinforces to me the concept that to Paul, the teachings of Jesus were not relevent, what was is that he was obedient to god enough to die.

It appears to me that rather than 'refute' the concept that Paul was more concerned with the spiritual christ after death, you have reinforced that concept.

[achilles12604]

First Cather writes

Quote:
My interpretation of this : You think Paul wrote some about Jesus and the writers of the Gospels Wrote in details AFTER this. Hence for this to be true, Paul was the originator of the Jesus myth and the Apostles followed in suit.

That would be your interpretation but it is not what I said or meant. In Paul’s letters he writes of things he got from Jesus such as the last supper. Later writers of the Gospels used his exact words. The Apostles of Jesus or his disciples knew a different Jesus and were telling a different gospel. Maybe even the betrayal of Jesus came from Paul for all we know. But what I am saying is some of the slight information Paul says received from Jesus directly may have very well have been added to the traditions to fit Paul’s doctrines. They were written after Paul and after the Jewish war. This is my assertion not what ever you are misunderstanding is off.

Ok. But your position still lacks evidence especially since Paul speaks of the teachings of the apostles in these very letters. What were the apostles teaching if everything they wrote later was based on Paul's letters?

This is my question. What were they teaching?



Next your wrote

Quote:

Here I point out that your siggested timeline was incorrect. For your timeline to work, the authors must first have been familiar with Paul's letters and then began preaching their lies. However, Paul refers to their preaching in his letters on several occasions. This means that your timeline not only is not likely to be accurate but in fact can not be accurate. They must have been preaching their versions of the story of Jesus before Paul wrote. Otherwise how would Paul know that they were preaching at all?

Here you are not talking about the same thing. The gospel of the apostles to the Jews is their message it is not the gospels in the NT. They were not written until after Paul. I think the authors were familiar with Paul’s letters. We do not know what they were saying. Some scholars try to find the various layers of tradition. You time line and your quasi arguments about your misunderstanding are useless. They had a message not gospels.

AH. Wow. This is quite an assertion. Any evidence supporting this theory of yours?

You say, "They were teaching but it was not the Gosples." "The Gospels of the apostles to the Jews is their message . . . it is not the Gospels in the NT."

Why on earth would these men say one thing and then later write about something else entirely? And besides this, what were they saying before Paul's letters? If Jesus didn't exist and none of this ever happened, there wouldn't be to much to preach about huh?

Next you wrote:

Again this is not historical information about the flesh Jesus it only says he is from the line of David. Many believed the Messiah would come from David’s line but this does not say anything historical about Jesus. Paul still does not know a human fleshly Jesus by his own words he had vision of a glorified Christ and never met Jesus in the flesh. What part don’t you understand?
Paul does not give you any information. He did not know him. He said he got his info from no man.

I grant that you are right in so far as Paul never met a flesh Jesus. However this only adds to your problem, because then for Paul to have any knowledge about the flesh Jesus he would have had to get his story from the apostles. Yet you just claimed the apostles got their story from Paul. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did Paul get his story from the apostles or did the apostles get their story from Paul?



Once again you wrote :

I did not say there was no human according to Paul so quit trying to put a Gnostic slant to my words.

And once again I quote your own words :

He makes this clear that Jesus is not flesh and blood

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

You are acusing me of slanting your words. Well there are your words. What else can I gather from them? You wrote them, not me.



Last you wrote:

I did mention the books of Enoch, Again your not paying attention.
You make a great defense from something you don't seem to comprehend and replace with your own misunderstanding.

True. But here is what you wrote which made me comment. . . .

He went to lower parts of the earth and then he went far into the heavens and filled all things? This does not tell us anything about Jesus’ life. And his forehead reach all the way to the sky. This sounds like he was high and reading Enoch or one of those writings. It could have been the Manheim, Enoch or Adam. No historical content.

You accuse me of misquoting you yet here you did the exact same thing to me.

I wrote that paul wrote that Jesus decended into "the lower, earthly regions." not the lower parts of the earth. This was as apposed to the "Higher heavenly" regions which I also included in my quote.

Paul simply said that Jesus came to earth (lower) from heaven (higher). Hence he implies that Jesus was actually on earth or historical rather than spirit. You turned this into "Jesus went into the lower regions of earth."

If you are going to complain about my misquoting, then pull out your own board first.

[Cathar1950]

I grant you this. However since the debate between Cathar and myself is "Did Paul Believe in a Human Jesus or only a Spirit one?", I would suggest that it doesn't matter. I never said this passage described anything about Jesus other than he was alive and on earth and one point in time, which you agreed with earlier.

That is not are argument. I said Paul did not know Jesus in the flesh and he give no real historical detail. You have not given any to answer goat. Paul believed in a spirit Jesus and that is the one he knew. I didn’t say Paul said Jesus did not come in the flesh, that is your words. He still gives little information or teachings that are useful or historical. It could have been any Jew from the line of David. You twisted the whole argument with your misunderstandings.

[achilles12604]

I grant you this. However since the debate between Cathar and myself is "Did Paul Believe in a Human Jesus or only a Spirit one?", I would suggest that it doesn't matter. I never said this passage described anything about Jesus other than he was alive and on earth and one point in time, which you agreed with earlier.

That is not are argument. I said Paul did not know Jesus in the flesh and he give no real historical detail. You have not given any to answer goat. Paul believed in a spirit Jesus and that is the one he knew. I didn’t say Paul said Jesus did not come in the flesh, that is your words. He still gives little information or teachings that are useful or historical. It could have been any Jew from the line of David. You twisted the whole argument with your misunderstandings.

I simply responded to your own words which I have reprinted several times now.

[Cathar1950]

You misrepresented what I said.
I said Paul did not know Jesus in the flesh and I even gave you his words. You twisted it into something I didn't even recognize.