Was Paul the founder of 'christianity'?

[suijurisfreeman]

Back in 1987 I read Myam Maccoby's bookThe Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. I found it to be an interesting read along with another of his books Revolution in Judea.

Here are some of the questions put forth by the author:

[1] Who and what were the Pharisees?

[2] What were their religious and political views as opposed to thoe of the Sadducees and other religious and political groups of the time?

[3] What was their attitude to Jesus?

[4] What was their attitude towards the early Jerusalem Church?

[5] Who and what was Jesus?

[6] Did he really see himself as a saviour who had descended from heaven in order to suffer crucifixion?

[7] Or did he have entirely different aims, more in accordance with the Jewish thoughts and hopes of his time?

[8] Was the historical Jesus quite a different person from the Jesus of Paul's ideology, based on Paul's visions and trances?

[9] Who and what were the early Church of Jerusalem, the first followers of Jesus?

[10] Have their views been correctly represented by the later Church?

[11] Did James and Peter, the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, agree with Paul's views (as orthodox Christianity claims) or did they oppose him bitterly, regarding him as a heretic and a betrayer of the aims of Jesus?

[12] Who and what were the Ebionites, whose opinions and writings were suppressed by the orthodox Church?

[13] Why did they denounce Paul?

[14] Why did they combine belief in Jesus with the practice of Judaism?

[15] Why did they believe in Jesus as Messiah, but not as God?

[16] Were they a later 'Judaizing' group, or were they, as they claimed to be, the remnants of the authentic followers of Jesus, the church of James and Peter?

If you're interested in discussing this book and/or the author's questions pick a number and start posting.

Later I'll post 6 short summaries of the propositions that Maccoby argues in his book.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: suijurisfreeman [8] Was the historical Jesus quite a different person from the Jesus of Paul's ideology, based on Paul's visions and trances?

Actually, it should be Jesuses (Jesi?). We know today that the christ myth is based on not one man, but a group of rabble rousing rabbis from the late first century (bce) and early first century (ce) including, but not limited to Yeshua ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, and Jesus ben Thebuth... all of whom we know of through the writings of Josephus.

I doubt very highly there was a "Paul" or that the individual writing as Paul had any clue about Christian doctrine (largely because it hadn't been fabricated yet). If you read the writings of Paul on their own, you find Paul to be woefully ignorant of Jesus' life. He doesn't know about the three wise men. He doesn't mention walking on water. He doesn't talk about anything from Jesus' life accept his death. Remember: we're not looking at a set of events that may or may not have been accurately represented. We're looking at hoax that was composited together over many decades by many different hands.

[suijurisfreeman]

Quote by: Zhavric Actually, it should be Jesuses (Jesi?). We know today that the christ myth is based on not one man, but a group of rabble rousing rabbis from the late first century (bce) and early first century (ce) including, but not limited to Yeshua ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, and Jesus ben Thebuth... all of whom we know of through the writings of Josephus. I doubt very highly there was a "Paul" or that the individual writing as Paul had any clue about Christian doctrine (largely because it hadn't been fabricated yet). If you read the writings of Paul on their own, you find Paul to be woefully ignorant of Jesus' life. He doesn't know about the three wise men. He doesn't mention walking on water. He doesn't talk about anything from Jesus' life accept his death. Remember: we're not looking at a set of events that may or may not have been accurately represented. We're looking at hoax that was composited together over many decades by many different hands.

Could you post any links to: Yeshua ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Thebuth? I don't have access to my personal library in Kentucky so my copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews isn't handy.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: suijurisfreeman Could you post any links to: Yeshua ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Thebuth? I don't have access to my personal library in Kentucky so my copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews isn't handy.

Yeshua ben Pandira:

The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition 'that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia.' It also says, 'He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod.' That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 BC, although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin — the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 BC. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 BC, and that it could hardly be later than 100 BC when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 BC If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 BC.

Gerald Massey's Published Lectures. (1)

Yeshua ben Sirach has a wiki entry here and Yeshua ben Thebuth (and the rest) have entries here.

[suijurisfreeman]

Quote by: Zhavric Yeshua ben Pandira: The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition 'that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia.' It also says, 'He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod.' That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 BC, although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin — the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 BC. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 BC, and that it could hardly be later than 100 BC when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 BC If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 BC. Gerald Massey's Published Lectures. (1) Yeshua ben Sirach has a wiki entry here and Yeshua ben Thebuth (and the rest) have entries here.

Thanks for that quick info, I'll check it out, print it off and add to my 'collection'.

[suijurisfreeman]

Here are 6 of Maccoby's propositions argued in his book:

[1] Paul was never a Pharisee rabbi, but was an adventurer of undistinguished background. He was atached to the Sadducees, as a police officer under the authority of the High Priest, before his conversion to belief in Jesus. His mastery of the kind of learning associated with the Pharisees was not great. He deliberately misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of his missionary activities.

[2] Jesus and his immediate followers were Pharisees. Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. He regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term, i.e. a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an ear of peace, justice and prosperity ('known as the kingdom of God') for the whole world. Jesus believed himself to be the figure prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things. He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans, since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. This miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah. When this miracle did not occur, his mission had failed. He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice. He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten Commandments.

[3] The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus's death. They were called the Nazarenes, and in all their beliefs they were indistinguihable from the Pharisees, except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus was still the promised Messiah. They did not believe that Jesus was a divine person, but that, by a miracle from God, he had been brought back to life after his death on the cross, and would soon come back to complete his mission of overthrowing the Romans and setting up the Messianic kingdom. The Nazarenes did not believe that Jesus had abrogated the Jewish religion, or Torah. Having known Jesus personally, they were aware that he had observed the jewish religious law all his life and had never rebelled against it. His sabbath cures were not against Pharisee law. The Nazarenes were themselves very observant of Jewish religious law. they practised circumcision, did not eat the forbidden foods and shoed great respect to the Temple. The Nazarenes did not regard themselves as belonging to a new religion; their religion was Judaism. They set up synagogues of their own, but they also attended non-Nazarene synagogues on occasion, and performed the same kind of worship in their own synagogues as was practised by all observant Jews. The Nazarenes became suspicious of Paul when they heard that he was preaching that Jesus was the founder of a new religion and that he had abrogated the Torah. After an attempt to reach an understanding with Paul, the Nazarenes (i.e. the Jerusalem Church under James and Peter) broke irrevocably with Paul and disowned him.

to be continued

[Zhavric]

I don't buy that the gospel Jesus existed.

Are you familiar with the political climate of Judea circa 70 ce?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric Yeshua ben Pandira: [etc]

The proof is this guy named yeshu (ben-pendora). Very little is known about him. Gerald's hypothesis seems to be one of many about the mysterious yeshu. Considering the genuine lack of following in the academic community, this hypothesis is likely to be lacking in factual support. I can see why from reading his speech, considering how he presents his evidence.

"One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod."

The key word here is "one account"

As you can see. Most of his support springs from the assumption that Jehoshua Ben-Perachia was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus. And that all farther testimonies about Jesus are about Jehoshua.

For instance.

"The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C."

One account fails in the face of many other accounts.

However, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this period of time. Nor that I fully understood all the support presented in Gerald's speech. I do think that it is telling that the experts in the academic world, many of them atheists, dismiss this theory as...garbage to put it lightly.

Actually, it should be Jesuses (Jesi?). We know today that the christ myth is based on not one man, but a group of rabble rousing rabbis from the late first century

"We know today?"
I'm not sure that's fair to say Zhavric. Most of the historians in the academic community say other wise.

I doubt very highly there was a "Paul" or that the individual writing as Paul had any clue about Christian doctrine (largely because it hadn't been fabricated yet). If you read the writings of Paul on their own, you find Paul to be woefully ignorant of Jesus' life. He doesn't know about the three wise men. He doesn't mention walking on water. He doesn't talk about anything from Jesus' life accept his death. Remember: we're not looking at a set of events that may or may not have been accurately represented. We're looking at hoax that was composited together over many decades by many different hands.

I would greatly appreciate it if you provided evidence to back this up.

I don't buy that the gospel Jesus existed. Are you familiar with the political climate of Judea circa 70 ce?

Also, could you post evidence that Tacticus was lying when he said that Nero persecuted Christians? It would help facilitate this argument.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind The key word here is "one account"

Woah, woah, woah... Easy there, killer. You, who believes in Christ based on a handful of accounts, don't have any room to discard accounts. We know Pandira existed from the writings of contemporary individuals. Are you really going to toss out the baby with the bathwater? Really?

"We know today?" I'm not sure that's fair to say Zhavric. Most of the historians in the academic community say other wise.

Thank you for that textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

I would greatly appreciate it if you provided evidence to back this up.

Of what? That Paul was clueless about Jesus? It's self-evident. His writings demonstrate almost no knowledge of the critical (alleged) life events of Jesus. That there wasn't a "Paul" in the way we think there was a Paul? Again, the only way to date those letters is by using what apologists call internal evidence. This requires assuming the letters couldn't have been written much later. It would be like me writing a fragment of a journal entry today that reads...

"Can't wait to get to New York and climb to the top of the World Trade Center. I want to explore both towers."

... and you concluding that it was written prior to 9/11/01.

Also, could you post evidence that Tacticus was lying when he said that Nero persecuted Christians?

Sure:

Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.

Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

(Book 15, chapter 44):

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

‘Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets.’

– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)

One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric Woah, woah, woah... Easy there, killer. You, who believes in Christ based on a handful of accounts, don't have any room to discard accounts. We know Pandira existed from the writings of contemporary individuals. Are you really going to toss out the baby with the bathwater? Really?

Which contemporary individuals? I'm interested in looking them up.

Thank you for that textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

I know. I was nervous about using it. But I'm not a biblical expert nor am I very knowledgeable about this time period.

But if you want me to present an text like you did, sure...

Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

One example of a group refuting the Jesus myth hypothesis. I can give more if necessary.

It's self-evident. His writings demonstrate almost no knowledge of the critical (alleged) life events of Jesus. That there wasn't a "Paul" in the way we think there was a Paul? Again, the only way to date those letters is by using what apologists call internal evidence. This requires assuming the letters couldn't have been written much later. It would be like me writing a fragment of a journal entry today that reads...

Zhavric, all I'm asking is that you pick a Bible passage and show us why it proves Paul had no idea what he was talking about. It may be self evident, but let's do this one by one. It's just easier to have a debate over a specific argument rather then a general attack. I hope I'm not asking too much.

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero

I must have missed something. Where does it say the word 'Christian' was not used?

there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians.

I have a link that explains this argument as false better then I can.

Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

scroll until you reach the part titled "Tacitus refers to a "great multitude" of Christians at Rome. There would not be this many Christians in Rome at this early time."
It's all the way at the bottom.
"This is rather an empty objection that merely assumes what it sets out to prove! Even so, what does Tacitus mean here by a "great multitude"? 50? 100? 500? Is it a relative term for, "a great multitude, in respect to the crime committed"? (I.e., if we arrested 50 people for holding up a corner gas station, does that seem like a "great multitude" to arrest for such a relatively minor crime?) There is simply no force behind this objection, for it lacks specificity"

That is only the very beginning. Please read the whole thing before attacking it.

Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

I don't fully understand your argument.

So your saying that when Tacticus says "Christians", he really means "Jews?"

Prove it.
But he outlines the Christians specifically and not the Jews. To make himself even more clear, he states who their founder is.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

You state that he doesn't mean Christians, but Jews. Why do you say he's a fraud? What evidence do you have that he isn't telling the truth?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Thank you for that textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

And yet your posts merely rely on the words of a different (in your eyes acceptable and valid, simply because they agree with your predetermined hypothesis) authority to which you "appeal"...

[suijurisfreeman]

Winter wind,

You posted, "Zhavric, all I'm asking is that you pick a Bible passage and show us why it proves Paul had no idea what he was taking about."

I'm obviously not Zhavric but . . .

Quoting from Hyam Maccoby's book, The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p.67-8: "Let us turn now to Paul's use a alleged midrash or biblical exegesis to reinforce his arguments. An example often cited to show Paul's rabbinical style is the following:
'Christ brought us freedom from the curse of the law by becoming for our sake an accursed thing; for Scripture says, "A curse is on everyone who is hanged on a gibbet." ' [Galatians 3:13] Here Paul adduces a verse from Deuteronomy in order to explain how great the sacrifice of Jesus was: he voluntarily took upon himself a curse by the manner of his death
so that mankind would be freed from the curse of sin.
It has been assumed by most scholars that Paul's interpretation of the verse in Deuteronomy (i.e. that anyone hanged on a gibbet is under a curse) was part of contemporary Pharisee exegesis of that verse, and that consequently Paul took his basis for argument from the Pharisee stock, though he developed it in his own way. This, however, is an error. The idea that anyone hanged on a gibbet is under a curse was entirely alien to Pharisee thought, and the Pharisee teachers did not interpret the verse in Deuteronomy in this way. Many highly respected members of the Pharisee movement were crucified by the Romans, just like Jesus, and, far from being regarded as under a curse because of the manner of their death, they were regarded as martyrs. The idea that an innocent man would incur a curse from God just because he had been unfortunate enough to die an agonizing death on the cross was never part of Pharisee thinking, and only a deep contempt for the Judaism of the Pharisees has led so many scholars to assume that it was. The Pharisees never thought that God was either stupid or unjust, and he would have to be both to put a curse on an innocent victim.
Even is the hanged person was guilty of a capital crime, he was not regarded as being under a curse, but, on the contrary, as having expiated his crime by undergoing execution.[5] the verse in question (Deuteronomy 21:23) was interpreted by the rabbis as follows: an executed criminal's corpse was to be suspended on a pole for a short period, but the corpse must then be taken down and not left to hang overnight, for to do this would incur a curse from God; in other words, the curse was placed not on the executed person, but on the people responsible for subjecting the corpse to indignity. One interpretation was: it is cursing God, or blashpemy, to allow the corpse of an executed criminal to hang, for the human body was made in the image of God.[6]
The New English Bible translates the verse, 'When a man is convicted of a capital offence and is put to death, you shall hang him on a gibbet; but his body shall not remain on the gibbet overnight; you shall bury it on the same day, for a hanged man is offensive in the sight of God.' This is in accordance with the Pharisee interpretation of the passage, which was a correct reflection of the meaning of the original Hebrew.
Paul's interpretation was thus not taken from any Pharisee source, but was his own personal reaction to the rather ambiguous translation given in the Greek Septuagint. Far from providing an example of Pharisee midrash, Paul shows himself in this passage in Galatians to be far removed from the spirit of the midrashic interpretations. Vague concepts, such as being under a posthumous curse because of the baleful magical effect of the manner of one's death, belong to paganism, not to Judaism, much less Pharisaic Judasim, which regarded the manner of one's life as the decisive means of obtaining the favour or incurring the displeasure of God, not the manner of one's death, especially when the latter was not under one's control. As for the idea that Jesus removed a curse fromother people by taking a curse upon himself, this too is alien to Jewish thinking, but this, of course, belongs to Paul's central theology, not to his style of argument, and will be discussed in a leter chapter."

[5] Tosefta, Sanhedrin 9:5, 'Those who are put to death by the court have a share in the world to come.'

[6] Rabbi Meir's explanation, Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 46b. The Mishnah (Sandedrin 6:4) gives another interpretation: that this punishment is given only in a case of blasphemy, when the accused has 'cursed God's name' (the translation is thus, 'He is hanged because of a curse against God') This interpretation too involves no curse on the executed man, who expiates his sin by his death.

[suijurisfreeman]

Winter wind,

or how about this:

Quoting from Hyam Maccoby's book The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, pp. 68-70: "Some passages in Paul's Epistles have been thought to be typically Pharisaic simply because their argument has a legalistic air. When these passages are critically examined, however, the superficiality of the legal colouring soon appears, and it is apparent that the use of illustrations from law is merely a vague, rhetorical device, without any real legal precision, such as is found in the Pharisaic writings even when the legal style is used for homiletic biblical exegesis. An example from Romans is the following:
'You cannot be unaware, my friends -- I am speaking to those who have some knowledge of law -- that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer. For example, a married woman is by law bound to her husband while he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the obligations of the marriage -- law. If, therefor, in her husband's lifetime she consorts with another man, she will incur the charge of adultery; but if her husband dies she is free of the law, and she does not commit adultery by consorting with another man. So you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ, and accordingly you have found another husband in him who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God. While we lived on the level of our loser nature, the sinful passions evoked by the law worked in our bodies, to bear fruit for death. But now, having died to that which held us bound, we are discharge from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code. (Romans 7:1-6)
The above passage is remarkably muddle-headed. Paul is trying to compare the abrogation of the torah and the advent of the new covenant of Christianity with a second marriage contracted by a widow. But he is unable to keep clear in his mind who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband -- or even who is supposed to have died, the husband or the wife. It seems that the correspondence intended is the following: the wife is the Church; the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband to marry a new husband; this should read, therefore, in the camparison, that the church was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife-Church that dies ('you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ') and there is even some play with the idea that the new husband, Christ, has died. The only term in the comparison that is not mentioned as having died is the Torah; yet this is the only thing that would make the comparison valid.
On the other hand, ther is also present in the passage an entirely different idea: that a person becomes free of legal obligations after his or her own death. This indeed seems to be the theme first announced: 'that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer.' The theme of the widow being free to marry after the death of her first husband is quite incompatible with this; yet Paul confuses the two themes throughout -- so much so that at one point he even seems to be talking about a widow and a husband who are free to marry each other and have acceptable children because both widow and new husband aare dead. Confusion cannot be worse confounded than this.
Thus what we have here is a case of someone trying to construct a legal analogy and failing miserably because of his inablility to think in the logical manner one expects of a legal expert. The passage thus does not prove that Paul had Pharisee training -- just the contrary. What we can say, however, is that Paul is her trying to sound like a trained Pharisee. he announces in a somewhat portentous way that what he is going to say will be understood only by those who 'have some knowledge of law', and he is clearly intending to display legal expertise. It is only natural that Paul, having claimed so often to have been trained as a Pharisee, should occasionally attempt to play the part, especially when speaking or writing for people who would not be able to detect any shortcomings in his performance. In the event, he has produced a ludicrous travesty of Pharisee thinking. In the whole of Pharisee literature, there is nothing to parallel such an exhibition of lame reasoning. [7]
What Paul is saying, in a general way, is that death dissolves legal ties. Therefore, the death of Jesus and the symbolic death of members of the Church by identifying themselves with Jesus' sacrifice all contribute to a loosening of ties with the old covenant. This general theme is clear enough; it is only when Paul tries to work out a king of legal conceit or parable, based on the law of marriage and remarriage, that he ties himself in knots. Thus he loses cogency just where a Pharisee training, if he had ever had one, would have asserted itself; once more, he is shown to have the rhetorical style of the Hellenistic preachers of popular Stoicism, not the terse logic of the rabbis. [8]

to be continued

[Winter wind]

Ugh, suijurisfreeman. I have four ap test coming up. Give me a day or so to respond please. (massive post)

[Voluntary]

All theism is hearsay.

[Walrus]

Whilst Paul was probably the founder of Christianity, the creeds and doctrines were developed later by synods of bishops within the early Roman Church. It was St Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430) a bishop and philosopher, who is considered by many to be the founder Christian theology, amongst other things he established the official canon, defended the concept of hell and formulated as to who would be sent there, endorsed warfare providing it was done in the name of Christ and contended that the original sin of Adam was of a sexual nature and that this sin would be inherited by mankind, (he seems to have been somewhat obsessed with sex and had guilt feelings about his own early sexual exploits.)

For anyone interested in the origins of Christianity, then St Augustine and these early synods are well worth looking at.

[suijurisfreeman]

Quote by: Zhavric I don't buy that the gospel Jesus existed. Are you familiar with the political climate of Judea circa 70 ce?

It's been something like 20 years since I did most of my research but I have fairly good understanding of the 'political climate' in Judaea during that time period and prior.

Here's an interesting site:
Rejection of Pascal's Wager: Opposition to Paul from the Jerusalem Church

also:James D. Tabor's Amazon Blog: Where Did the Apostle Paul Get His Authority? Permalink

[Winter wind]

Quote by: suijurisfreeman Quoting from Hyam Maccoby's book, The Myth-Maker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p.67-8

I've had an SAT, and two massive AP tests back to back. I've got more AP tests coming up (two more) and SAT IIs, not to mention semester exams. Not only that, but I'm a very lazy person. To facilitate the debate, could you just pick one of the many and we can do this one at a time rather then in one massive block of quotes.

If not, I understand, but I'm just drowning right now, so could you please shorten your argument to a few key points.

[loser]

[1] Who and what were the Pharisees?

One of four Jewish sects prevalent at the time of the Second Temple era, the others being the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the revolutionaries (the Sicarii and the Zealots). Source: Josephus

The Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism.

The Pharisees of Jesus' day were akin to our religious leaders today (for the most part, corrupt and self-serving).

[2] What were their religious and political views as opposed to thoe of the Sadducees and other religious and political groups of the time?


Basically, the Sadducees recognized only the Tanakh (the written word) while the Pharisees recognized additional oral traditions/Rabbinic interpretations (the Talmud). It was for these "traditions of men" that Jesus lambasted the Pharisees.

Also, the Pharisees believed in a future bodily resurrection and the Sadducees did not (they were sad, you see).

[3] What was their attitude to Jesus?

He was a thorn in their side and a troublemaker who they feared was going to bring upon them the wrath of Rome and disturb their tenuous (but prosperous) alliance with the Hellenists (Romans).

[4] What was their attitude towards the early Jerusalem Church?

Intolerant and antagonistic, for the most part. However, they were pleased that (during the early years) the Christians received the blunt of the persecution by the Romans.

[5] Who and what was Jesus?

Too complex of an answer in the scope of this response but, shortly, a mediator between God and man who died a physical man but was resurrected a spiritual 'god'; the first-fruit of many more to come and the Savior of mankind. IOW, He is the Way (to eternal life).

[6] Did he really see himself as a saviour who had descended from heaven in order to suffer crucifixion?

Yes, the unique circumstances of His birth (fathered by God) and His unique relationship with God (literal communication with God's extraterrestrial agents) made Him KNOW that He was more than a mere human.