SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg or e who wrote (36480)5/23/2013 8:21:33 AM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Who Invented Jesus Christ?

About a week ago a good friend of mine posted his view on the teachings of Jesus. (I encourage you to go read his post, along with some of the comments, especially the dialogue between Danny and Doug.) Here’s my summary of his main claims:

Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than your everyday apocalyptic rabbi. He was eventually believed to be the Messiah and Son of God after a lot of embellishment and revisionist history. This theological development can be seen in how the Gospels present Jesus’ teachings and resurrection—the later the Gospel was written, the more Jesus became Christ. That’s not quite the way Danny presents it, but I think it’s a fair summary.

Concerning the resurrection, it is true that John’s account includes many more details than Mark’s. The oldest ending we have for Mark has no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. John has several, including one very famous and detailed account. So was all of that invented between the time Mark and John wrote?

That would have to assume that each of the Evangelists included everything they knew to be true about the resurrection (i.e., we have all the data about what each writer believed within their Gospels). But consider that only Matthew and Luke include the ascension. Does that mean that Mark had never heard of it, then Matthew and Luke invented it, and then John edited it out because he didn’t believe it? The inclusions and exclusions of the Evangelists were decisions they made as writers of theological narratives. They weren’t interested in writing almanacs, so they did not include every bit of data they believed.

We can know this is true because of what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15.3-7 about the death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Paul’s letter predates Mark’s Gospel and provides some of the most unbelievable details of Jesus’ resurrection, including that he appeared to over 500 of his disciples at one time. So Mark would have had that information available to him (he did travel with Paul for a while, after all). So at the time of Mark’s writing, Jesus was already believed to be the resurrected Son of God.

Well, perhaps Paul is the one who invented Jesus Christ, and not John. Actually, Paul’s account is not his own invention, but the inclusion of a creedal statement that was already widely believed before he wrote his letter. Paul is “passing on what he received,” a phrase that for Jews referred especially to the faithful handing down of sacred traditions.

So if Paul didn’t invent the account of the resurrection or the post resurrection appearances, where did this creedal formula come from? Let’s take a look at the timeline, which goes backward from John’s Gospel until the death of Jesus (the numbers are dates by year in the first century):

95: John writes his Gospel, claims to be an eyewitness.
85: Luke writes his Gospel, claims to have verified with available eyewitnesses.
80: Matthew writes his Gospel, traditionally believed to be an eyewitness.
70: Mark writes his Gospel, traditionally believed to reflect Peter’s eyewitness account.
55: Paul writes to the Corinthians, “What I received I also passed on to you,” followed by what most critics (including the Jesus Seminar) believe to be a preformed creedal formula. The statement is intended to show unity with the other Apostles’ teaching (see especially verse 11), not Paul’s invention.
50-51: Paul preaches to the Corinthians, delivers to them what he had already received.
49-50: Paul meets privately with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem fourteen years after his first meeting to “set before them the gospel that I preach… for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (Galatians 2.2).
35-36: Three years after his conversion, Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James.
32-33: Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Jesus Seminar believes formula predates Paul’s conversion.
30: Death and resurrection of Jesus. James D. G. Dunn (Christian NT scholar) believes creedal statement was formed by fall of 30 AD.

The dating of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15, which provides details of the resurrection long before the writing of the Gospels, may not be “established fact.” But when the Jesus Seminar dates it before Paul was even a Christian, we can safely say scholarly consensus is that Paul did not invent it.

The force of this is to shrink the time within which legendary accretion must have taken place, and to remove at least one pillar in Danny’s argument that between Mark and John Jesus went from apocalyptic rabbi to resurrected Son of God. In reality, the confessional content of the Christian faith seems consistent throughout the first century, including the last 30 years. The most fantastic details of Jesus’ resurrection were already widely believed somewhere between six months to three years after the supposed event—that’s more than 35 years before Mark wrote his Gospel.

What about Paul’s statement in Galatians 1.12 that he got the gospel directly from Jesus, and was not taught it by any person? Does that mean he wrote the gospel and is responsible for inventing Jesus Christ?

Paul’s concern in Galatians to establish as historical fact his direct contact with Christ in receiving the gospel has more to do with establishing his legitimacy as an Apostle, as in 1 Corinthians 15. He intends to show independent corroboration of the gospel, an effort any naturalist could applaud, while also showing his complete unity with the other Apostles’ preaching. This is why he emphasizes both his direct experience of Christ as well as his preaching of the same gospel message.

Not only that, he places the preaching of the one true gospel above his own legitimacy as an Apostle. In Galatians 1.8-9 he curses anyone—including himself—who preaches a different gospel than what he delivered to them. And in 1 Corinthians 15.11 he says hearing and believing the one true gospel is more important than who preaches it. But what is clear is that Paul believed that he was preaching the same gospel, and he used the well-known formula to show his unity with the other Apostles, even though he first received the message from Christ himself.

So the historical picture looks like this: Jesus dies around 30 AD and his disciples believe he is raised from the dead. Within three years of that event a creed has been formed to guide orthodox Christian belief about what the gospel is, including accounts of five separate post-resurrection appearances. Shortly thereafter, Paul converts dramatically after claiming that Jesus appeared to him. In two separate meetings in Jerusalem, Paul meets with Peter, James, and John and they all determine together that Paul is preaching the truth about the resurrection.

Paul becomes a missionary and preaches this message to the Gentiles, sending letters to the Gentile churches later to ensure their spiritual growth. As the eyewitness generation begins to pass, Mark and others take the written and eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and compose theological narratives that are true to what is already considered to be orthodox belief. Before he dies, John writes his Gospel, which includes some of the most mature reflections on the resurrection experience.

I’ll touch on Danny’s other point about the development of Jesus’ teaching within the Gospels a bit later. How clear was his message? Is there unity across the Gospels about his message, or do we have embellishment and revisionist history? How much disagreement was there on Jesus’ core message? Was Jesus wrong? I hope to get to these questions within the week.

brendoman.com



To: Greg or e who wrote (36480)5/23/2013 8:22:26 AM
From: average joe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
The Invention of Christianity

Christianity is nothing but a love affair between Paul and Popea, the high priest’s daughter. The Romans considered Popea to be the most beautiful woman. Yet according to Ebionite sources, Paul was born to pagan parents in Tarsus, he later moved to Jerusalem to marry Popea. He converted to Judaism and persecuted the followers of Jesus. When she refused to marry Paul, he burst into rage and created “Christianity”.

The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an imposter. They reported, among other things, that he was originally a pagan; that he came to Jerusalem where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter of a high priest, he caused himself to be circumcised. But, that not being able to obtain her, he quarreled with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against observing the Sabbath and against all the legal ordinance.” (The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine, p. 167)

'They declare that he was a Greek ... He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law' (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16.6-9, The Ebionite Account)

Paul converted to Judaism for the sole purpose of marrying Popea:

Saul did everything in his power to win the attention and hopefully the love of beautiful Popea. Saul’s exertions against the Nazarenes – his bitter and zealous persecution of the early followers often brought mere approval from Popea, condescending affection – but his repeated offers of marriage were repeatedly spurned. A case of unrequited love! (Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalism Revisted, p. 40-41)

Paul despised the Jews and Romans because Popea was Jewish and Nero was a Roman. They fell in love, and married each other, rejecting Paul completely.

Then Popea abruptly left Jerusalem to enter into a career on the stage in Rome. As actresses go, she graduated from High Priest’s daughter to become the mistress of Emperor Nero who eventually made an honest woman of her by marrying her…Saul was heart broken; Saul was outraged; Saul was disconsolate, depressed, distraught and disheartened. Saul left Jerusalem and headed for the desert (in Arabia) where like a wounded lion he licked his wounded heart, bleeding with sorrow. (ibid, p. 40-41)

Paul traveled to Arabia for three years:

“…But Saul was a resilient man; he was resourceful. He was a man of action. Remember, he was not satisfied to lay back and watch the Nazarenes overtake the established Jewish church. He acted then. Saul had three years to muse upon his vengeance. (ibid)

Christianity is the result of love affair between Popea and Paul, which had failed.

Paul’s conversion coincided with his being rejected by Popea. He must have been under considerable emotional and mental strain at the time. It is possible that this crisis in his life had some bearing on this sudden change from his being one of the greatest supporters of the Jewish Law to one of its greatest enemies” (Muhammad Ataur-Rahim, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 57)

Paul then left Damascus and, instead of seeking out the company of the other followers of Jesus, went into the Arabian Desert where he remained hidden for three years. It may well have been here that he began to formulate his own version of what Jesus had taught. This involved a rejection of the Jewish Law, which in turn meant his turning away from the fact that throughout his life Jesus had remained a practicing Jew, and always sought to uphold the teachings which Moses had brought before him. (Muhammad Ataur Raheem, Jesus prophet of Islam)

Christianity is a religion based on vengeance, emotion, and fraud. When Paul had written “against circumcision and against the Sabbath and the Law”, this was the beginning of Christianity.

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings." [1]

Paul avenged by creating “Christianity” as retaliation against the Jews.

Paul was born a gentile in a town that was not only heavily influenced by Mystic Cults and the gods such as Attis, Adonis, Mithras, Osiris and Baal-Taraz but was actually named after one of these gods (Baal-Taraz => Tarsus). Also found in Tarsus were Jews who were called 'God-fearing' because they accepted the teachings of Judaism but were unwilling to be circumcised or adopt all of the food laws of Judaism. Paul was either born to 'God-fearing' parents or he converted as a young man and headed for Jerusalem to study with a view to becoming a Pharisee (the most highly respected Jewish philosophers). His early childhood influences included much exposure to the pagan gods and Mystic Cults that were so prevalent in Tarsus.

Having failed to make the grade as a Pharisee (he was bright but lacked the logic ability required, as demonstrated by his often muddled theology, especially in Romans) he became one of the High Priest's hired thugs (the High Priest being a Sadducee appointed by Rome). After the death of Jesus he was sent to kidnap some of Jesus' followers who had fled to Damascus and return them to the High Priest for punishment. Investigating these followers of Jesus, Paul saw a lot in the idea of a resurrection that was in common with the myths that he had grown up with. Having failed to reach his goal of becoming a Pharisee and having been reduced to the role of a thug for a quisling Roman collaborator, Paul cracked and experienced a breakdown of some sort which left him with the basis of the ideas that became Christianity. He dressed up Jesus in the clothes of Attis, Adonis, Mithras, Osiris and Baal-Taraz added his own imagined divinity to this and set out to finally become the important man that his ego required of him and that had brought him to Jerusalem to begin with. (Simon Ewins, [1]

Paul’s goal was to gain political support to destroy the Nazarenes.

“… But Saul was a resilient man; he was resourceful. He was a man of action. Remember, he was not satisfied to lay back and watch the Nazarenes overtake the established Jewish church. He acted then. Saul had three years to muse upon his vengeance. Popea’s rejection represented rejection by the High Priest and all that he stood for – the Old Jewish Law. The Roman Emperor, that pagan son of a Saul would deal with him. He would undermine them both. Undermine the Orthodox Jewish tradition and law – destroying the power of the established Jewish Church and the power of the High Priest, Popea’s father.

Secondly, Saul would lure away the pagan from their traditional worship of their Emperors (one who had dared to possess the body of his believed Popea) and leave the Emperor without an empire. Luring away the pagan worshippers from their defied Emperors to a God-like Christ would torpedo the Emperors love for glorification. That hero worship would be transferred from Emperor to Christ. That would leave the Emperorship as a mere shell – a semblance of its former self. Saul decided he would kill two birds with one stone. He worked out his strategy during his three years self imposed exile in the dessert.

To work his plan, Saul knew that he could not allow himself to be sidetracked or diverted by the philosophy, theory or doctrine of others. He therefore invented a story about a direct revelation received from Christ which nobody could dispute, and by virtue of which he enjoyed the latitude to preach his own doctrine. Saul recognized NOT the teachings of Jesus handed down by his Apostles and disciples, but claimed that he was divinely inspired to teach the new doctrine of Christ, rather than of Jesus, which he utterly discarded. For Paul, Jesus and Christ were two distinct and separate personalities. Such was Paul’s motivation and determination. His inclinations were always destructive. Destroy the Nazarenes. Then later, destroy the old – the Jewish orthodox power, destroy the Roman Emperor. (ibid)

Paul deceptively started working from within the Nazarene Church to destroy them.

Almighty God tells us in the Holy Quran that the sin of placing partners with God is alone the Unpardonable Sin. Saul/Paul has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams of undermining Jesus’ teachings. His attack upon the early Church of the Nazarenes was partially successful but it was only when he feigned conversion and operated from within the Nazarene Church that he was able to change Jesus’ doctrine so markedly and successfully. Almighty God warns us via the teachings of Prophet Muhammad that on that fateful Day of Judgment – men and women would heap blame on those who misled them. (ibid, p. 36)

The scholar Maurice Bucaille says:

It is quite reasonable to ask what Christianity might have been without Paul and one could no doubt construct all sorts of hypotheses on this subject. (The Bible, The Quran, and Science, p. 70)

The answer is quite obvious:

If Popea had only accepted Paul’s offer of marriage, Christianity would not exist today.

answering-christianity.com