/ Re: Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8 July 1998 /
.
>> Jay wrote: None of that even matters. Not to God, nor to Mankind. All that matters is that we now
>> have the inspired Word of God to help guide our lives and our Worship. God bless, Jay
.
> Dooley wrote: Apparently it matters to you. The bible was indeed assembled by the Catholic Church.
> That's historical fact. Sorry.
.
Dear Dooley, you say that it's a historical fact that the Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church. Now it seems to me that it was the early Greek churches of the Roman Empire that wrote, used, and collected the books that were only much later called the New Testament. Therefore, I would very much like to know where exactly you get these 'historical facts' that you speak of. References please? And a good quote or two wouldn't hurt none either.
/ Re: Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 10 July 1998 /
.
>> textman asks: Therefore, I would very much like to know where exactly you get these 'historical facts'
>> that you speak of. References please? And a good quote or two wouldn't hurt none either.
.
> BAM replies: The first collection of New Testament books was made by Marcion (c. 150CE). <snip>
.
Dear BAM, thx for the flourishing reply to my query. I will certainly be taking a good look at it soon enough ... but before I do that, I would point out two things about your article that our Readers should know. First: the statement above is incorrect. Marcion's de-jewished holy book was NOT the first collection of NT books. The epistles of Paul were being collected into various bundles by the various Greek churches even before the Fall of Jerusalem. It was these early pauline collections that formed the backbone of what later became the New Testament. All Marcion did was look at all the abundant Christian scriptures that were available to Christians in the second century, and then he decided that this confusion would never do, whereupon he created a 'canon' of books that were superior to all other sacred texts. In other words, the churches got the idea of a canon from a heretic! Now this must be extremely embarrassing for you ... if you were willing and able to distinguish between theological speculation and history. ... Which is highly doubtful.
.
Second: I notice that your reference list at the bottom of your article is headed by the well-known F.F.Bruce, a popular and skillful bible commentator. Hey; did you all know that Bruce is NOT a Catholic scholar? Why are using "them" to argue in favor of the RCC? Doesn't this go against the supposed 'purity' of the faith? In any case, I have read some of this Bruce's stuff, and frankly I'm not at all impressed by his approach to the scriptures. In fact, I do NOT consider him to be a valid authority on any biblical book; so I don't imagine that your article rests on solid ground or is competent enough to convince me of anything. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to warn our Readers away from Bruce and his many many books filled to bursting with abundant BS! Stick with your approved Jerome Biblical Commentary folks; it's far more reliable than Bruce!
On Collecting The News
/ Re: Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 14 July 1998 /
.
>> textman asked: <snip> ... Therefore, I would very much like to know where exactly you
>> get these 'historical facts' that you speak of. References please? And a good quote or
>> two wouldn't hurt none either.
.
> bam answers: The first collection of New Testament books was made by Marcion (c 150 CE). His "canon"
> consisted of Gospel of Luke and 10 Paul’s epistles to which he referred as Gospel and Apostle. However,
> he mutilated many of them to suit his belief.
.
textman replies: Yes; not unlike the way the episcopal traditions have constantly abused and misinterpreted and twisted the scriptures in order to force them to conform with the self-serving priestly vision of all things ...
.
> He declared that God of Old Testament was different with the One of whom Jesus spoke.
> For this reason he rejected all Old Testament books.
.
Yes. He rejected the Yahweh of the LXX because he could not reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between the Jewish Yahweh and Jesus' Abba. He simply could not see how all the various contradictory characteristics and qualities of God mentioned in the LXX and the Christian writings could logically exist in the same one deity. In the same way, many Christians today reject or ignore some or all of the OT because the theology, emotions, and various other spiritual and material realities found there do not quite measure up to the enlightened, progressive, and oh so smurfy understanding and vision of Jesus Christ and the Trinity . . .
.
And leading the way in showing the World how to do this in a 'proper Christian manner' is the Roman Catholic Church! ... Wut? You don't believe me? Just take a long hard look at how the Sunday People of God are exposed (or rather, not exposed) to the Psalms of David and the Prophets. Take a good look at how the Tanakh is abused and denigrated in the liturgy through the willful and deliberate misinterpretation and skewed presentation of carefully edited, and even more carefully selected passages, in order to harmonize them with the self-serving priestly hermeneutics. Take a look at how Christian OT-scholars handle those books in their commentaries and exegesis; 4X: the ever-popular and grossly pious and misleading 'spiritual interpretation' of the Song of Songs; which is a horrid stench unto the nostrils of the Lord! So then, bam, is it not the case that all post-modern Christians hate and despise the sacred scriptures of the People of Yahweh? ... Are we not all of us good and faithful children of the 'vile heretic' Marcion?!
.
> He broke away from Rome and established his own church. His counterpart, Valentinus also broke
> away from Rome and founded a gnostic school. He wrote The Gospel of Truth, which is not a rival
> gospel but a meditation on the true gospel of Christ. It alludes to Matthew and Luke (and possibly
> Acts), Gospel and first epistle of John,
.
How can any document show an awareness of 1John, and not the Gospel of John at the same time? Is not 1John a prologue or introduction to the fourth gospel? It seems to me that there might be some errors in these allusions of yours; but as this is a very minor point, I will spare the Reader by not pursuing the matter here.
.
> 10 Paul’s epistles (minus the three Pastorals), Hebrews and Revelation. Both Marcion and
> Valentinus prompted the Church to define what belonged to written apostolic teaching, thus
> starting the collection of New Testament books.
.
So the church *then* started collecting the NT books? Did you not just finish saying that Marcion made the first collection? ... In either case, you are wrong. The NT books were being collected long before Marcion ever came along. Indeed, Paul's early Greek churches began collecting his authentic epistles almost as soon as he wrote them. He and they well understood the power of the written Word to hold and transmit the Good News of Christ Jesus. And just a few years after Paul's death, Peter and Mark began their inspired work on the greatest gospel of them all; and you can bet your last dollar that they were extremely well aware that the power of Paul's preaching was only growing stronger with each year that passed. Thus part one of the NT is the authentic Pauline epistles; and part two is the Gospel of Mark. (Would that the current canonical arrangement of NT writings were revised to emphasize these facts!) Thus the NT documents were being collected by the early Greek churches even before the Fall of Jerusalem. After the Fall, Christian writings sprouted up like mushrooms after a heavy rain!
.
> The second known collection of New Testament books is 2nd century Muratorian canon, named
> after L.A. Muratori who published the list, copied from 7th century codex. The manuscript is
> mutilated in the beginning, but we can conclude that it has four Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul’s epistles,
> Jude, 2 of John’s letter, Apocalypse of John (Revelation) and of Peter, and Wisdom of Solomon.
.
The Wisdom of Solomon was written in Alexandria (possibly by Philo?) sometime during the first half of the first century of the Common Era. It was very popular among the early Greek churches (especially among the early Church Fathers), and should rightly be included in the NT rather than the OT apocrypha (ie. the rabbis rejected it not on the basis of its content, but simply by virtue of the fact that it was a Greek book). Yet it is one of those few books that link the two main parts of the Bible together, and so ought to be considered authoritative by all Christians.
.
> Apocalypse of Peter now does not belong to our New Testament, while Wisdom of Solomon is
> now part of (Catholic) Old Testament. The compiler mentioned about Shepherd of Hermas which
> can be read but not to be given to people.
.
In other words, even at this early date the priests were reserving the study of the scriptures for themselves; so that the people would have no choice but to entrust their spiritual lives to an increasingly corrupt and
debased clergy (who were even then busy establishing themselves as the lords and masters of all the churches).
.
> He also wrote about Paul's epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which he claimed to
> be forged. Interestingly, Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170CE) quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.
.
Wut?! A bishop was wrong about scripture?! A great and famous bishop didst err? ...
Oh please say it ain't so!
.
> In his two literary works (against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching), Iranaeus
> quoted from 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter and most likely knew all 13 Paul’s epistles (except Philemon),
> and maybe James and Hebrews and Revelation.
.
"Maybe", you say? Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe who the hell knows; eh, BAM? Such are the 'facts' of church history! Indeed, it is painfully apparent to me that the vast majority of Cats are simply unable to distinguish any difference whatsoever between pious legend, pious fable, and pious fantasy, and all those things that actually constitute a rational (and faithful) account of historical realities.
.
> Close to the end of 2nd century, Tertullian of Carthage in his work mentioned the four Gospels, Acts,
> 13 Paul’s epistles, 1Peter, 1John, Jude and Revelation. He mentioned Hebrews as the work of Barnabas
> and in his judgment was worthy to be included in the canon. Origen (185-254CE) distinguished the
> undisputed and the disputed books of New Testament. The former consisted of the four gospels, Acts,
> Pauline epistles, 1Peter, 1John and Revelation. The latter consisted of 2Peter, 2 and 3 John, James,
> Jude, Didache and he referred Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all non-
> Pauline seven epistles). He was the first known Christian writer to mention 2Peter. He also considered
> Shepherd of Hermas as scripture and mentioned about Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul
> and some other books.
.
He is also the Church's first and greatest Bible scholar! In the ancient world, there were very very few Christians like him! He was easily the equal of the more popular saints and martyrs. Indeed, I tend to think of him as a Greek version of Paul and Aquinas mixed together in the same one man. ... He also just happens to be our earliest witness to the Epistle of James; a fact that is conveniently overlooked or brushed aside by the legions of brain-dead bible scholars who are determined to convince the People of God that the Book of James is 'primitive' and 'Jewish', and therefore not at all worthy of serious consideration!
.
> <snip> It can be said that the 27 books of New Testament (together with Catholic OT books)
> were determined in the fourth century.
.
That's exactly right. And this means it behooves us all to ALWAYS be well aware that when we are talking about the Christian scriptures prior to the fourth century, we are NOT talking about our NT (which did NOT then exist AS SUCH)!!! It is the failure to appreciate this very necessary distinction that causes so much confusion when it comes to describing and understanding the historical process that led to the formation of the Holy Bible ... A process, I dare say, that was thousands of years in the making (beginning with the oral traditions of the slave-people of Yahweh way back in ancient Egypt)!
.
<snip remainder of BAM's article>
.
Note to reader: The rest of the article deals with the post-Constantinian period of church history, and so falls well outside our primary area of interest (ie. the pre-Constantine Greek churches who wrote, used, edited, and collected the sacred Christian scriptures long before The Arrogant-Beast of Rome ever came along to steal the credit for their work). So did the Catholic Church give us the Bible? ... Well it certainly helped to preserve it through the centuries when it could easily have been lost. But the church of the West can in no sense claim that it alone is the one to thank for the fact that we now have something called the Holy Bible. Indeed, given the profound hatred and ignorance of the scriptures that exists among North American Christians especially, we should rightly say that the Bible has come down to us despite the best efforts of the Romish church to undermine and diffuse its authority and influence.
.
In other words, the clear answer is no, no, NO it most certainly did NOT give us the Bible! Indeed, in the middle ages, the church felt it was her sacred duty to keep the scriptures well away from the foolish and ignorant People of God; and those that defied the church on this matter could expect to be hunted and hounded and executed for their labors. Thus church history clearly demonstrates that the church is well aware of the fact that the Bible does not support and approve the corruption and degradation of the Faith that is the sole legacy of the priestly tyranny that has all but destroyed the Way of Truth (especially here in Canada today)!
/ Topic > Re: On Collecting the News / Date > 15 July 1998 /
.
> John Ings wrote: On 14July98 textman wrote:
.
>> tx: <snip> In other words, even at this early date the priests were reserving the study of the scriptures
>> for themselves. ... So that the people would have no choice but to entrust their spiritual lives to an
>> increasingly corrupt and debased clergy; who were even then busy establishing themselves as the
>> lords and masters of all the churches.
.
> john: What makes you think Paul of Tarsus was any different?
.
textman say: Dear John, Paul was a prophet, NOT a priest. The difference ought to be apparent. One speaks the truth and seeks to do God's will, while the other speaks only priestcraft and seeks only Friendship with the World.
.
>>> bam: He also wrote about Paul's epistle to Laodicean (Col 4:16) and to Alexandrines which
>>> he claimed to be forged. Interestingly, Iranaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 170CE) quoted Shepherd
>>> of Hermas as scripture.
.
>> tx: Wut? A bishop was wrong about scripture? A great and famous bishop didst err?
>> Oh please say it ain't so!
.
> john: How can you err about a myth?
.
I have no idea what you're referring to. What myth?
.
>>> bam: In his two literary works (against Heresies and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching), Iranaeus
>>> quoted from 1 and 2 John, 1Peter and most likely knew all 13 PaulĘs epistles (except Philemon), and
>>> maybe James and Hebrews and Revelation.
.
>> tx: "Maybe", you say? Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe who the hell knows; eh Marcion-BAM? Such are the
>> 'facts' of church history! Indeed, it is painfully apparent to me that the vast majority of Cats are simply
>> unable to distinguish any difference whatsoever between pious legend, pious fable, and pious fantasy,
>> and all those things that actually constitute a rational (and faithful) account of historical realities.
.
> The vast majority? Oh come now! NO ONE is able to distinguish fact
> from fraud in Christian witings. Indeed, there may be no difference!
.
'No one', you say? Oh I think you're quite wrong about that. Facts are facts, and fraud is fraud.
And yes, there certainly is a BIG whomping difference between them!!!
.
> Have you read Hyam Maccoby on the subject of Paul? -- john.ings@ottawa.com
.
No actually, I haven't. Why would I? Does he say something that hasn't already been said a thousand times
or more? If so, just what might that be? Feel free to provide us with suitable quotes (if they are available).
.
] tx wrote: In other words, even at this early date the priests were reserving the study of the scriptures
] for themselves. ... So that the people would have no choice but to entrust their spiritual lives to an
] increasingly corrupt and debased clergy; who were even then busy establishing themselves as the lords
] and masters of all the churches.
.
>>> John Ings asks: What makes you think Paul of Tarsus was any different?
.
>> textman answers: Paul was a prophet NOT a priest. The difference ought to be apparent. One speaks the
>> truth and seeks to do God's will, while the other speaks only priestcraft and seeks only Friendship with
>> the World.
.
> John Ings replies: Paul went about preaching, seeking converts to a new religion and
> collecting money. Sounds very much like priestcraft to me!
.
textman say: Yes, it does ... BUT Paul collected money for the poor, not for a rich and bloated church. In the same way, he preached the true Gospel, the raw gospel - if you will - not the watered down and sanitized version that Christians today think is suitable for the Rich & Lazy.
.
] tx: Wut?! A bishop was wrong about scripture?! A great and famous bishop didst err?
] ... Oh please say it ain't so! :)
.
>>> John: How can you err about a myth?
.
>> tx: I have no idea what you're referring to. What myth?
.
> john: The Jesus myth. There was a man who died at the hands of Pilate in Jerusalem, but his name wasn't
> Jesus and Paul didn't know anything about him except what he said was "revealed" to him. That's myth.
.
] tx: Indeed, it is painfully apparent to me that the vast majority of Cats are simply unable to distinguish any
] difference whatsoever between pious legend, pious fable, and pious fantasy, and all those things that
] actually constitute a rational (and faithful) account of historical realities.
.
>>> john: The vast majority? Oh come now! NO ONE is able to distinguish fact from
>>> fraud in Christian writings. Indeed, there may be no difference!
.
>> tx: 'No one', you say?
.
> john: No one . . .
.
Well, maybe just one, eh ... ?
.
>> Oh I think you're quite wrong about that. Facts are facts, and fraud is fraud.
>> And yes, there certainly is a BIG whomping difference between them!!!
.
> Sure, but there is plenty of readily apparent fraud in Christian writings. So how are you able to discern the
> facts amongst all that "pious legend, pious fable, and pious fantasy"? Undoubtedly there are some facts in
> there, but they are well hidden amidst the propaganda.
.
It's not that difficult actually, as the historical process is fairly rational and proceeds just so. Thus, for example, the book of Luke-Acts (one book) is an early second century 'history' that contains more legend and story than cold hard fact. By contrast, the Gospel of Mark comes straight from Mark and Peter, and so is a much more valuable source for historians (although it too has some legend).
.
>>> john: Have you read Hyam Maccoby on the subject of Paul?
.
>> tx: No actually, I haven't. Why would I? Does he say something that hasn't already
>> been said a thousand times or more? If so, just what might that be?
.
> john: Maccoby argues that Paul was no Pharisee, let alone the son of a Pharisee. After all what would
> a Pharisee be doing working for the High Priest, leader of the Sadducees, arch enemies of the Pharisee
> sect? Maccoby's well reasoned book "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity", contends
> that Paul was a would-be Pharisee who failed his candidacy, and went off to invent his own religion.
> A 1st century Jimmy Swaggart who by his own confession "would be all things to all men". He mixed
> Judasim with some Greek Mystery religion, a little Gnosticism for spice, chucked out all that awkward
> Mosaic Law, and voila - Christianity! Not only did he steal the Jew's Messiah from them, but to add
> insult to injury his followers blamed the Jew's for said Messiah's death. ### The New Testament is
> less a Christiad than it is a Pauliad! -- john.ings@ottawa.com
.
tx: Dear John, your arguments are riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies and just plain bullshit. Paul did not 'invent' anything (other than a bit of Christology). He tells us himself that he spent two weeks with Peter learning the 'traditions'. One can hardly blame him for picking up the ball and running with it. Such is the power of zealous conviction. ... May I suggest that you study a book by a historian (Jon Romer) called 'Testament'? It is beautifully well thought out according to REAL historical science, not the crap that your so-called 'authority' picked up in a garbage heap somewhere. If you want to attack Paul, there are - believe me - much better and more effective ways to do so than forwarding the absurd idea that there never was a man called Jesus Christ! ... Think about it!
Defending that Swine Paul
] textman previously wrote: Paul was a prophet, NOT a priest. The difference ought to be apparent.
] One speaks the truth and seeks to do God's will, while the other speaks only priestcraft and seeks
] only Friendship with the World.
.
>>> John Ings replied: Paul went about preaching, seeking converts to a new religion and collecting money.
>>> Sounds very much like priestcraft to me!
.
>> textman answered: Yes, it does ...
>> BUT Paul collected money for the poor, not for a rich and bloated church.
.
> John responds: He collected FROM the poor, not for the poor.
> Most of his converts were slaves and humble tradesmen, not rich folks.
.
On 20July98 textman say: That's true enough; but there were still plenty who were worse off than they. Paul knew this. So did his contributors. The only one who seems unaware of this simple sociological fact is you ...
.
>> tx: In the same way, he preached the true Gospel, the raw gospel - if you will -
.
> JI: Yeah, fresh and raw, made up on the spot to suit the audience.
.
It took Paul many years to develop his gospel and his theology. It was a work in progress; and one can see his thinking grow from the 'simple' ideas in the Thessalonian letters to the full blown theology of his epistle to the Romans. This growth and development did not come easy for Paul. There was a price to be paid every step of the way. Often the price included the loss of the trust and faith of his closest companions (eg. Silvanus and Mark). Paul was often arrogant and adamant that he knew better than anyone what his fresh and new-born Greek churches required. And if you dared question him on any point, he was just as apt to bite your head off for it!
.
>> tx: not the watered down and sanitized version that Christians today think is suitable for the Rich & Lazy.
.
> john: Ah, but it was watered down, textman! Remember what Y'shua had to say about not changing
> a jot or tittle of the law?
.
Excuse me please, but that verse comes from the rabbinic scribe who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew [ie. who re-wrote the gospel of Mark; supposing it to be insufficient for the Post-Fall churches, I guess]; not from Jesus directly. So Joshua was hardly against making changes to the practice of religion. Indeed, one cannot properly understand his ministry without a solid appreciation of the fact that he was a prophetic reformer to the core. Indeed, the Last Supper was just this sort of replacing of the old bloody Passover sacrificing with the new 'bloodless' sacrifice of bread and wine. He always intended to spiritualize the practice of religion. To move the emphasis placed on outward observance to the true seat of religion in the human heart. The gospels are full of just this sort of 'spiritual redirecting of the Law'. One has only to pay close attention to the Lord's diction as presented in the gospels to see how this works. This is why Jesus was far closer to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees or Essenes or Zealots. Check it out ...
.
> None of that for ol' Paul. Nossir! Tell the Greeks, those lovers of statuary, that they should make
> no graven images?
.
The Jewish people were not as opposed to graven images as you suggest. Indeed, by the first century CE, graven images of plants and animals and man-made objects could be found decorating even the synagogues. When you add pottery and coins and whatnot, it becomes apparent that your argument is little more than sheer rhetoric.
.
> Tell the Romans, the inventors of sausages that the must not eat pork? Tell grown men they must be
> circumcised in an age that knew nothing of anesthesia? No, it wasn't selling,
.
Of course not. The Greco-Romans were not stupid! They knew as well as Jesus and Paul that these externals were preventing even the 'god-fearers' from fully embracing the Jewish way. They liked the idea that religion must embrace all aspects of one's daily life; but where is the sense in mutilating yourself? The Greeks and Romans would not go for such nonsense; and many Jews agreed, and even had operations performed to reverse the damage caused by circumcision.
.
> so Paul watered down his Judaism to suit his audience. They weren't rich and lazy, just poor
> and ignorant. They could only contribute small sums, but he found if you got enough of them
> converted, it quickly added up.
.
That's right. Paul was impressed with the generosity and good will that his churches displayed. It's also interesting to note that the last we hear of Paul is when he's taking his huge sack of gold to Jerusalem. Did he make it to his destination? Was he attacked and killed by robbers along the way? Or thrown overboard by greedy sailors? Hey; I know. He took the money with him to India where he lived a long and dissolute life of luxury and self-indulgence! ... Ummm ... On second thought, maybe NOT!
.
] john: Oh come now! NO ONE is able to distinguish fact from fraud in Christian writings.
] Indeed, there may be no difference!
.
>>>> tx: 'No one', you say?
.
>>> john: No one . . .
.
>> tx: Well, maybe just one, eh ... ?
.
> john: You?
.
Well . . . let me put it this way: Our dear Readers could do worse than to consider textman as their favorite Bible scholar . . . Much worse!
.
>>> john: there is plenty of readily apparent fraud in Christian writings. So how are you able
>>> to discern the facts amongst all that "pious legend, pious fable, and pious fantasy"?
>>> Undoubtedly there are some facts in there, but they are well hidden amidst the propaganda.
.
>> tx: It's not that difficult actually, as the historical process is fairly rational and proceeds just so.
.
> john: And doesn't leave much of the Christian myth intact . . .
.
It leaves more than enough for faith to be based on solid realities. The myths may obscure these realities and confuse things all around, but one still cannot say that the Faith is all and only fantasy ... Such a proposition is profoundly unhistorical!
.
>> tx: Thus, for example, the book of Luke-Acts (one book) is an early second century 'history'
>> that contains more legend and story than cold hard fact.
.
> john: Quite.
.
>> tx: By contrast, the Gospel of Mark comes straight from Mark and Peter,
.
> john: Oh come now! We have no idea who wrote any of the gospels.
> The present attribution is strictly tradition and nothing else.
.
The tradition does on occasion get things right. In this case, there is quite enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the traditional view is sound.
.
>> tx: Dear John, your arguments are riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies and just plain bullshit.
.
> john: Invective doesn't cut it. If there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies, point them out.
.
Wut? You mean ALL of them? I don't know that our Readers would have the patience to endure a 3000 line article!
.
>> Paul did not 'invent' anything (other than a bit of Christology).
.
> Paul encountered his saviour Jesus only in his own mind. That it was divine inspiration rather that
> invention is a matter of faith.
.
Quite so. And the faith of Paul changed the World, and started the long process that finally resulted in the Holy Bible as we have it today. Was Paul acting on his own? Or was the Holy Spirit guiding him (almost) every step of the way? Christians say 'yea'. Pagans say 'nay'. But we cannot prove it one way or the other.
.
>> He tells us himself that he spent two weeks with Peter learning the 'traditions'.
.
> Which he then proceeded to bend, break and circumvent.
.
He filtered them through his own proud and arrogant spirit, and made them intelligible to a strange and alien people (ie. the Greeks). In this way the Holy Spirit was able to overpower millions! If it had not been for Paul's bending and breaking, the Faith would surely have died with the Roman Empire.
.
>> One can hardly blame him for picking up the ball and running with it.
.
> Especially as it was so lucrative. Bought himself a Roman citizenship he did, and that couldn't have
> been cheap. He tells us he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, then claims to have been
> born a Roman citizen. To present this in modern terms, imagine a Hasidic Jew. Can you picture
> him in your mind's eye? Scalplocks and beard, black hat and so on? Now imagine him wearing a
> swastika armband and marching to a Nuremburg rally shouting "seig heil!"
.
Your comparison leaves much to be desired.
Indeed, your Pharisees look to be far more like zealots than anything else.
.
> A jarring contradiction? Not as jarring as the idea of a Pharisee claiming Roman citizenship.
> Lots of Jews were Roman citizens of course,
.
You just destroyed the entire basis of your argument ...
.
> but they were Sadducees who affected Greek dress and Roman ways. The Pharisees viewed the Romans
> as the conquerors and oppressors of the Jewish people, and considered the Sadducees to be quislings.
.
Here again you are confusing Pharisees with Zealots. The former were not all clones cut from the same cloth. Some hated the Romans, others didn't. In the same way, the Sadducees would have been perfectly happy to see the Romans leave Judea. They too wanted a return to the former glory of Solomon's great Kingdom.
.
>> May I suggest that you study a book by a historian (Jon Romer) called 'Testament'?
.
> I have it in my library.
.
>> It is beautifully well thought out according to REAL historical science, not the crap that your so-called
>> 'authority' picked up in a garbage heap somewhere.
.
> As I said, invective doesn't cut it. I've read Romer.
.
Well, you may have read it; but obviously nothing therein has stuck to you. Hey; why don't you send it to someone who can appreciate it? I'll gladly send you my address so you can snail-mail it to me ... ?!
.
> Now you try some Maccoby and Crossan. Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" might give you some
> insight too. Then there's Funk's "Honest to Jesus" and Shorto's "Gospel Truth".
.
Sure John. And if you add all these authorities together, you'll find that they don't outweigh a single page from 'Testament'!!! ... Yes, an honest historian is worth a thousand second rate scholars ...
.
>> If you want to attack Paul, there are - believe me - much better and more effective ways to do so than
>> forwarding the absurd idea that there never was a man called Jesus Christ! ... Think about it!
.
> You think about the fact that there were four main languages spoken in Judea in the 1st century. Aramaic,
> Greek, Hebrew and Latin. None of the first three have anything resembling the letter J in their alphabet.
> Neither did Latin until the 4th century. Julius Caesar never heard himself called that, and Rabbi Y'shua ben
> Yusef never heard himself addressed as Jesus Christ.
.
The significance of all this quite escapes me ...
.
> And he damn sure would not have approved of Paul's followers making a god out of him in later centuries.
.
You may well be right about this. I personally am not overly impressed with the episcopal controversies that led to such animosity and bloodshed among Christians as required the intervention of the Emperor just to cool things down a bit. ... Are theological ideas and speculations worth killing and dying for? ... Somehow I tend to think maybe not.
.
> Not even Paul had the gall to do that.
.
Paul saw very clearly that the whole purpose of the Incarnation was that God emptied himself of divine attributes and prerogatives. Otherwise how could Jesus rightly call himself the Son of Man? But the bishops were more interested in the glorious post-Ascension Pantocrater (created in their own episcopal image) than with the life and ministry of a humble carpenter.
.
> ##A historian's first duties are sacrilege and the mocking of false gods. -- john.ings@ottawa.com
.
Noooo; actually the first duty of the historian is to the truth of things. The historian is not a kind of super-pagan intent on destroying faith wherever it may appear. The historian must rather have an unbounded faith in the consistency and rationality of the historical process as a whole. This does not mean that there is no room for mystery, the unknown, and the unique. Only that these unrepeatable events (the very stuff of history) are balanced out with the universals of the human and physical realities that constitute the canvas upon which all human lives are lived. Thus the historian cannot say that the Resurrection actually happened; although he can admit that *something* (we don't know what) DID happen. And it is at that very point that faith steps in and says what that something is. Thus historical science is certainly a serious threat to an uncritical and overly pious faith that MUST accept everything (and the more absurd the better); but it is not, and cannot be, the enemy of a rational faith that respects both providence and the so-called 'laws' of human/social development.
