Abe's Case for the Historical Jesus (Part 1: Patterns of Cults)

aa5874 · Post by **aa5874** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:03 pm

[quote=""jgreen44""]Jesus' earthliness is not really what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the fact that Paul attributes so few teachings to this man. Jesus.

If I considered someone to be an absolute authority, I would be constantly referring to his teachings. And I would be constantly stating that the teachings I was referring to were the teachings of this absolute authority.

Paul only does this three times.[/quote]

Paul specifically claimed he was in contact with his Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

The Pauline Corpus is about the Pauline personal revelations from the NON-HISTORICAL resurrected Jesus.

Paul had little or no interest in what others said about Jesus when he was supposedly alive.

Paul consulted NON-historical entities to learn of his resurrected Jesus.

Galatians 1 KJV

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17Neither went I upto Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me..

The Pauline Corpus is useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The Pauline writers documented that they preached about the Non-historical resurrected Jesus.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

2. Galatians 1:1 KJV

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)...

3. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

4. Ephesians 1 KJV

... according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wrough tin Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..

5. Colossians 2:12 KJV

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

7. Philippians 3:10 KJV

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death..

The Pauline Jesus is a Jesus of FAITH.

Toto · Post by **Toto** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:50 pm

[quote=""ApostateAbe""] ..
There should be little doubt that Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute authority, regardless of his relative silences in other respects. My suspicion is that Paul was relatively silent about the specific teachings of Jesus because (1) the teachings of Jesus often conflicted with Paul's teachings ...[/quote]

How can you reconcile these two thoughts? ???

ApostateAbe · Post by **ApostateAbe** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:53 pm

[quote=""Toto""]

ApostateAbe;7478862 wrote: ..
There should be little doubt that Paul regarded Jesus as an absolute authority, regardless of his relative silences in other respects. My suspicion is that Paul was relatively silent about the specific teachings of Jesus because (1) the teachings of Jesus often conflicted with Paul's teachings ...

How can you reconcile these two thoughts? ???[/QUOTE]
What he meant with his writings and what he actually thought are two different things. Paul made his followers believe that his own teachings were directly in line with the teachings of Jesus, but in reality the two sets of teachings were often in conflict.

aa5874 · Post by **aa5874** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:51 pm

[quote=""ApostateAbe""]
What he meant with his writings and what he actually thought are two different things. Paul made his followers believe that his own teachings were directly in line with the teachings of Jesus, but in reality the two sets of teachings were often in conflict.[/quote]

The Pauline writers had NO known followers. No known Church responded to any of the Pauline letters in the History of the Jesus cult in the 1st century.

No Jesus cult writer in the History of the Church has identified themselves as a member of a Pauline Church.

No Jesus cult writer have been confirmed to have existed in the 1st century and was associated with a Pauline Church.

No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 64 CE.

The Pauline Corpus was fabricated in a vacuum and do not reflect the Jesus cult in any period of its development.

Up to the late 2nd century Apologetic writers showed that the Jesus cult and teachings were developed without the Pauline Corpus by using the Jesus story and the books of the Prophets.

Toto · Post by **Toto** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:57 pm

[quote=""ApostateAbe""]

Toto;7478927 wrote:
How can you reconcile these two thoughts? ???

What he meant with his writings and what he actually thought are two different things. Paul made his followers believe that his own teachings were directly in line with the teachings of Jesus, but in reality the two sets of teachings were often in conflict.[/QUOTE]

Do you think that Paul knew about other teachings of Jesus but rejected them? Or was too deluded to see the conflicts?

Later critics see the two sets of teachings in conflict. They tend to explain this as Paul based his teachings on revelation from a spiritual Jesus, while an opposing faction of early Christians followed either a different revelation or some actual teaching from a historical Jesus.

But it makes no sense to see Jesus as a cult leader, based on his personal charisma and teachings, and Paul claiming his authority without following his teachings or paying respect to his closest associates. :huh:

ApostateAbe · Post by **ApostateAbe** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:03 pm

[quote=""Toto""]

ApostateAbe;7478932 wrote: What he meant with his writings and what he actually thought are two different things. Paul made his followers believe that his own teachings were directly in line with the teachings of Jesus, but in reality the two sets of teachings were often in conflict.

Do you think that Paul knew about other teachings of Jesus but rejected them? Or was too deluded to see the conflicts?

Later critics see the two sets of teachings in conflict. They tend to explain this as Paul based his teachings on revelation from a spiritual Jesus, while an opposing faction of early Christians followed either a different revelation or some actual teaching from a historical Jesus.

But it makes no sense to see Jesus as a cult leader, based on his personal charisma and teachings, and Paul claiming his authority without following his teachings or paying respect to his closest associates. :huh:[/QUOTE]
Paul was a cult leader and he knew the untruth of what he was saying. I don't think he seriously saw a vision of the spiritual Jesus but it was a lie designed to gain a following, in the pattern of so many other cult leaders throughout history. The dispute in this case is whether Paul professed Jesus as the absolute truth, and there seems to be no serious doubt. You can come to a conflicting conclusion by reading Paul with your eyes closed.

aa5874 · Post by **aa5874** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:32 pm

[quote=""ApostateAbe""]
Paul was a cult leader and he knew the untruth of what he was saying. I don't think he seriously saw a vision of the spiritual Jesus but it was a lie designed to gain a following, in the pattern of so many other cult leaders throughout history. The dispute in this case is whether Paul professed Jesus as the absolute truth, and there seems to be no serious doubt. You can come to a conflicting conclusion by reading Paul with your eyes closed.[/quote]

There is no actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that Paul was a cult leader in the 1st century before c 64 CE.

Now, it is most astonishing you are also admitting that Paul was a LIAR which confirms the weakness of the HJ argument.

You have confirmed that there is NO reliable historical source for Jesus.

The Pauline writings are in fact Lies to historicise the resurrection--a non-historical event.

Examine the Pauline UNTRUTHS.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins..

MrMacSon · Post by **MrMacSon** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:50 pm

[quote=""aa5874""]

ApostateAbe;7478974 wrote: Paul was a cult leader and he knew the untruth of what he was saying. I don't think he seriously saw a vision of the spiritual Jesus but it was a lie designed to gain a following, in the pattern of so many other cult leaders throughout history. The dispute in this case is whether Paul professed Jesus as the absolute truth, and there seems to be no serious doubt. You can come to a conflicting conclusion by reading Paul with your eyes closed.

There is no actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that Paul was a cult leader in the 1st century before c 64 CE. [/quote]
Agree !!

[quote=""aa5874""].
The Pauline writings are in fact Lies to [attempt to] historicise the resurrection--a non-historical event.

Examine the Pauline UNTRUTHS.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV

if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins..

[/QUOTE]

jgreen44 · Post by **jgreen44** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:14 am

[quote=""ApostateAbe""]My suspicion is that Paul was relatively silent about the specific teachings of Jesus because (1) the teachings of Jesus often conflicted with Paul's teachings[/quote]Then Paul was in conflict with what he considered to be absolute authority.

[quote=""ApostateAbe""] and (2) Paul was a competitor with the apostles who knew the teachings of Jesus firsthand. Any time Paul discusses the specific teachings of Jesus would invite the rebuke, "I heard the words of our Lord, and here is what he REALLY said..."[/quote]If Paul's teachings were, as you said, in conflict with the teachings of Jesus then the disciples should have been saying this. But they dd not. Which leads me to suspect there were few if any teachings of Jesus to contradict when Paul was alive.

ApostateAbe · Post by **ApostateAbe** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:08 am

[quote=""jgreen44""]

ApostateAbe;7478862 wrote:My suspicion is that Paul was relatively silent about the specific teachings of Jesus because (1) the teachings of Jesus often conflicted with Paul's teachings

Then Paul was in conflict with what he considered to be absolute authority.

[quote=""ApostateAbe""] and (2) Paul was a competitor with the apostles who knew the teachings of Jesus firsthand. Any time Paul discusses the specific teachings of Jesus would invite the rebuke, "I heard the words of our Lord, and here is what he REALLY said..."[/quote]If Paul's teachings were, as you said, in conflict with the teachings of Jesus then the disciples should have been saying this. But they dd not. Which leads me to suspect there were few if any teachings of Jesus to contradict when Paul was alive.[/QUOTE]
(1) That's right. Cult leaders lie, and I think we should be in agreement on that point. To explain further, what Paul professed to believe is relevant for determining the meaning of his words, and what Paul secretly believed is relevant for speculating why he said them. For cult leaders, what they profess to believe and what they secretly believe are often in conflict, and we shouldn't be taken by surprise at such a conflict.

(2) None of the disciples could either write or afford to hire a writer, being poor. Both Paul and the gospels are antagonistic toward the disciples, indicating the disciples' disagreement with the existence of the gentile Christians (that is Paul's beef with the disciples per the Epistle to the Galatians).