Paul The First Heretic

reply to post by Akragon

and unfortunatly peter was incorrect about paul....

Naturally, because obviously you're a better judge of Paul's teachings and if they are against Christ than Peter.

reply to post by wildtimes

From the preface to Dear and Glorious Physician, by Taylor Caldwell, Doubleday; 1st edition (June 1959)

I highly recommend it for those wanting to seek further than the Bible.

I read that back in '73 and I thought it was pretty good at the time though I would be more skeptical if I was to try to read it now.
But your point is right, that this was not a eye witness though he claims to have met them. I doubt that but he obviously was very familiar with the traditions available at the time.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

and unfortunatly peter was incorrect about paul....

Naturally, because obviously you're a better judge of Paul's teachings and if they are against Christ than Peter.

Thank you... i agree actually believe it or not...

For example...

22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Dare he rebuke Jesus? I would not have done this if i saw Jesus do what he had been doing... i would not question his motives for his actions and words are the will of God...

And lets not forget he also lied directly to his saviour.... Get thee behind me satan...INDEED...

33Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

34Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

35Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

I trust peters words over paul... but still peter has nothing to offer that Jesus didn't cover either...

Either way, again this isn't about peter who i have only small issues with... No one is perfect...save one

This is about pauls words... who i reject.

reply to post by Akragon


Did Christ place His trust in him to feed His sheep before or after His resurrection from the dead?

Originally posted by Akragon
I trust peters words over paul... but still peter has nothing to offer that Jesus didn't cover either...

Either way, again this isn't about peter who i have only small issues with... No one is perfect...save one

This is about pauls words... who i reject.

Reject them, they are clearly then not meant for you, and you are under no compunction to listen. Peter is the rock, immovable, solid and dependable, something to return to and rebuild from. That is his role, but the structure that is placed upon that foundation must be yeilding in order to accept those who wish to enter and if it is to adapt to the needs of those who seek it's shelter and the comfort offered there in. That is Paul.

reply to post by Akragon

I trust peters words over paul... but still peter has nothing to offer that Jesus didn't cover either...

Let me remind you, 2 Peter was authored prior to his martyrdom, from prison. He says Paul is a "beloved brother" (that would imply, "in the Lord"), and that even while hard to understand, Paul is correct in all his letters. And puts Paul's letters on par with the "other scriptures". Which at that time were the Septuagint LXX OT which he (Peter) thought was divinely inspired. Peter had served with Paul on occasions, been to two Jerusalem Council meetings with him and had read to him "all his epistles", so Peter knew exactly what doctrine Paul was teaching to Greeks and to Hebrews.

And there is prophecy contained in Peter and Paul's writings that "Jesus didn't cover".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Sure, 40 lashes with a cat and 9 tail, beaten, beard pulled out, crucified, and had a spear thrust into His heart from under His ribcage, and somehow without spending 3 days in intensive care at a hospital he rolled His own stone back from inside His tomb and just walked out healthy in 3 days?

I wasn't there. Were you?

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".
Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.

"The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything."

Neither was this chap, but he's written a dissertation after extensive research into the original sources.

The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion."

Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.

"And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."

Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.

Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.

Being emotional about it doesn't make a difference. The claims are just claims, and one must use one's knowledge that stories get elaborated upon...and changed....in the telling. It's common nature. "How big was that fish?"

Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.

He said: "This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be."

Mr Samuelsson said: "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels."
A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.
Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.
Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.
"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.
"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."

www.telegraph.co.uk...
I prefer to heed those who are believers and have studied the sources...over those who tell me to believe because they do, because someone else told them to, who was told by someone else who was privileged to secrets. I am a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian. I haven't set foot in a church in over 20 years. So, I'm well aware of the stories, please do not speak to me as an 'outsider' to the faith.

There's no need to get huffy, NotUr...

reply to post by wildtimes
The 357 page dissertation is available from Mohr Siebeck for 79 € MOHR

GUNNAR SAMUELSSON

Crucifixion in Antiquity

An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion

ETA: instead of buying it from the publisher, you can get it with US $ from Amazon
From the abstract:
"Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary."

reply to post by wildtimes

I wasn't there. Were you?

No, but I hold in my hand a collection of written works from the eyewitnesses. Apparently those are not close enough sources to the events? And there is historical testimony from hostile sources to His resurrection: James, Jude, Paul, Josephus, et al.

There's no need to get huffy, NotUr...

I haven't been huffy with you, what are you talking about?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I was referring to the gruesome description you offered up that has been refuted by scholars who have studied the original documents, not the umpteenth translation into modern English. Or, do you have the original, authentic scrolls there? Do you know the language in which they are written/coded? What about the missing vowels that were not provided, so that the insertion of any vowel might produce as many as 70 different meanings?

What about those ancient documents?

There is plenty of data and research and decoded review; there is also evidence that the Pauline Bible was slanted for Constantine's purposes.

Do you feel those studies and researched and painstaking reviews of the results are invalid?

If your only source is the KJV or the New International, or whichever flavor you have....how do you explain all the other versions as being invalid? How do you prove that your version is accurate to the 2000-yr old originals?

Scholars have determined that the crucifixion may not have happened the way that you think it did.
Did you look at the articles I linked to?

What do you think of those?

Thanks in advance for your consideration and explanation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, but I hold in my hand a collection of written works from the eyewitnesses. Apparently those are not close enough sources to the events?

No, you hold in your hand a bastardized and translated representation that may or may NOT have lost MUCH of its original meaning.
Lost in translation.

It happens a lot. Especially over millenia and into so many different languages.

Translation is a painstaking, precision task. It demands of the translator a perfect knowledge of the original language, as well as an indepth and very experienced knowledge of the language into which they are translating that original.

Euphemisms, figures of speech, turns of phrase, every language has their own. Syntax can change the meaning of a sentence or statement entirely. Poetic style can be ripped to shreds in the process. We don't know what the vernacular phrases were at the time of Jesus' life. Even regionally, phrases are different.

If a person who speaks English as a second language is at a celebration, and stands and raises his glass and says, "I would like to make some toast!" Is he asking for directions to the toaster? Or does he want to share a common acknowledgment?

I am bilingual, and have taught my second language to others in my first, and vice versa. I have worked shoulder to shoulder with normal, everyday people who have corrected my mistakes in their native tongue, as I have done with theirs, in a friendly and supportive manner.

I've also done formal interpretation in high-stress, precision-demanding situations like ER and Operating Rooms; and formal translation of official documents from one to the other.

The rule is that it takes at least two people to confirm a translation. Person X translates Doc from language A to B. Person Y takes the B translation and translates it into language A once more. The two Documents in language 'A' must be identical for the translation to be considered accurate. It's not a 'close-enough' type of thing.

And in this case, it's not a 'Well, I paraphrased' type of thing.

And why do you accept the Bible as truth, but not the Roman myths and legends, or the Celtic, or the oriental, or the Native American (of both continents), or the King Arthur story? We all know the King Arthur story. No one believes its 'true', although we wish it might be. Why can I not say King Arthur is absolute truth, but you can say the Bible's story is absolute truth? What about Ulysses? Hercules? Achilles?

They are all hero legends....
so is the Bible.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I was referring to the gruesome description you offered up that has been refuted by scholars who have studied the original documents, not the umpteenth translation into modern English. Or, do you have the original, authentic scrolls there? Do you know the language in which they are written/coded? What about the missing vowels that were not provided, so that the insertion of any vowel might produce as many as 70 different meanings?

Have you heard of the "Septuagint" (LXX)? It was codified 3 centuries before Christ was born. All prophecies written about Him were set into black and white in 270 AD. The 70 greatest Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.

There is plenty of data and research and decoded review; there is also evidence that the Pauline Bible was slanted for Constantine's purposes.

Who? From Dan Brown?? The historical record and accounts of the council of Nicea show they never discussed the canon of scripture. the council was called to address the Arian heresy. And btw, Constantine didn't have a vote. What books by "scholars" are you referring to specifically?

Nicea Myths
Did Jesus Become God in 325 AD?
First Council of Nicea ~ Wiki

Do you feel those studies and researched and painstaking reviews of the results are invalid?

I haven't looked at them, if you'd tell me which critiques and books specifically you've read then perhaps I could look at them also. Which books are you referring to specifically?

If your only source is the KJV or the New International, or whichever flavor you have....how do you explain all the other versions as being invalid? How do you prove that your version is accurate to the 2000-yr old originals?

Of course the originals are more accurate, Hebrew and Greek are ridiculously precise languages compared to the laziness of English. Now, there were a group of folks from Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd and 4th centuries who came out with their own versions of the Bible manuscripts. These people were overwhelmingly criticized for shortening the scriptures. (Expurgating portions they didn't agree with)

Scholars have determined that the crucifixion may not have happened the way that you think it did.

You mean the way the eyewitnesses stated it happened. I "think" it happened that way based largely upon their eyewitness testimony. I believe eyewitness testimony is much stronger evidence than some academic's bloviating from his ivory tower thousands of years removed from said events.

But that's me.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and explanation.

No thanks necessary, I post here as a hobby, it's enjoyable for me.

reply to post by wildtimes


Interesting...why does he disregard Seneca? And Homer's Odyssey for that matter?

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Interesting...why does he disregard Seneca? And Homer's Odyssey for that matter?

I don't know if he does or not, but most people agree those are hero legends that have been romanticized and exaggerated. I haven't heard back from him regarding my question yet.

Ahh...just looking at this article...it seems the issue is not whether crucifixion took place, that is pretty much accepted, but whether nails were used....


www.centuryone.org...

Of course, nails is in some way kinder, in the long term, a quicker death...by binding them with ropes, the agony is prolonged, the victim having to wait until their heart failed, which could, by numerous accounts, take days. I suppose the Romans wanted to see him bleed, and then finished him off in order to ensure his silence, sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by wildtimes

Originally posted by Biliverdin
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Interesting...why does he disregard Seneca? And Homer's Odyssey for that matter?

I don't know if he does or not, but most people agree those are hero legends that have been romanticized and exaggerated. I haven't heard back from him regarding my question yet.

Oh...so you haven't actually read it? I see.

reply to post by Biliverdin

Ahh...just looking at this article...it seems the issue is not whether crucifixion took place, that is pretty much accepted, but whether nails were used....

Thomas put his fingers into the nail holes in the risen Christ's hands/wrists. I cannot fathom how ropes would make the holes in His hands and feet. I also cannot fathom why Roman executioners would use ropes to hang a person when they could drive spikes into the most sensitive nerve clusters in the human body.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The historical record and accounts of the council of Nicea show they never discussed the canon of scripture. the council was called to address the Arian heresy. And btw, Constantine didn't have a vote. What books by "scholars" are you referring to specifically?
....
You mean the way the eyewitnesses stated it happened. I "think" it happened that way based largely upon their eyewitness testimony. I believe eyewitness testimony is much stronger evidence than some academic's bloviating from his ivory tower thousands of years removed from said events.

Well, this one is the one I was referring to today, as mentioned in jmdewey's response to you on this very page.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 357 page dissertation is available from Mohr Siebeck for 79 € MOHR

GUNNAR SAMUELSSON

Crucifixion in Antiquity

An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion

ETA: instead of buying it from the publisher, you can get it with US $ from Amazon
From the abstract:
"Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary."

Then there's also: Karen Armstrong's A History of God; the 4000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
c 1993, Alfred A Knopf, New York

And: Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln
www.amazon.com...

Publication Date: January 15, 1983
Is the traditional, accepted view of the life of Christ in some way incomplete?

• Is it possible Christ did not die on the cross?
• Is it possible Jesus was married, a father, and that his bloodline still exists?
• Is it possible that parchments found in the South of France a century ago reveal one of the best-kept secrets of Christendom?
• Is it possible that these parchments contain the very heart of the mystery of the Holy Grail?

According to the authors of this extraordinarily provocative, meticulously researched book, not only are these things possible — they are probably true! so revolutionary, so original, so convincing, that the most faithful Christians will be moved; here is the book that has sparked worldwide controversey.

"Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."
— Los Angeles Times Book Review

"Like Chariots of the Gods?...the plot has all the elements of an international thriller."
— Newsweek

And....Here's a website also:
The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website

Welcome to The Tomb of Jesus Website
This website presents evidence that Jesus Christ survived his crucifixion and travelled to Kashmir, India.
It presents evidence that he lived the rest of his life in Kashmir, and his tomb is located in the Kan Yar section of Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, India.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Oh...so you haven't actually read it? I see.

Read what??
I asked NotUrTypical a question about his opinions on those. I didn't say anything about the dissertation's author. No, I haven't read the actual work.

What 'he' are you talking about?
Have you read it?

reply to post by wildtimes

Well, this one is the one I was referring to today, as mentioned in jmdewey's response to you on this very page.

JM wasn't making a response to me when he posted that. You didn't notice this:

"reply to post by wildtimes"

at the top of the post you linked?