Away in a manger... The Influence of Paul?

reply to post by adjensen

... and so the thread ends, with you unwilling to answer a simple question to vindicate your claim, which may now be relegated to the trash bin.

Uh, MrJensen, the thread does not "end" just because the OP chooses to ignore your persistent denigration, which he describes accurately as smug and other unpleasant things.

And who made you the "trash police" of the forums?

I agree that Paul was an ambitious politician who distorted the words of Jesus, developed his own "agenda", and then went about establishing "franchises" of HIS VERSION of things. There is ample evidence of this, in many works on the history of the Christian religion. No matter how often or how rudely you protest it, it is there all the same. Paul was a usurper, and modern Christianity is HIS invention, NOT JESUS's.

reply to post by wildtimes


Hi Wildtimes! Good to see you.

I agree with your assessment of Paul the usurper, all except for the following line

I agree that Paul was an ambitious politician who distorted the words of Jesus,

Paul never even quotes Jesus' words, he just makes up his own gospel and makes up his Jesus and his religion as he goes along, being guided by his own ego and biases. He makes it gospel that men should not have long hair, women should be silent and homosexuals are awful!.

The idea that he influenced the book of Luke, is new to me, but I don't doubt it. It makes sense that the sensationalism of the birth Jesus and the discrepancies of the story as it is written in Matthew then embellished in Luke makes sense and exposes the manipulation by Paul, in my opinion..

reply to post by windword

The idea that he influenced the book of Luke, is new to me, but I don't doubt it. It makes sense that the sensationalism of the birth Jesus and the discrepancies of the story as it is written in Matthew then embellished in Luke makes sense and exposes the manipulation by Paul, in my opinion..

Heya, wind!!

Thanks for the shout out...good to see you, too!!

I agree with you; and I admit I haven't actually studied his exact words (as translated ad nauseum and also ad infinitum)...but I have studied ABOUT him via others' very intensive criticism and assessment of him.
Have you happened to read "Dear and Glorious Physician", by Taylor Caldwell? It's a heft tome about the life of St Luke, a historical fiction piece based on research (at the time...it was written about 40 years or so ago).

reply to post by wildtimes


Never heard of it before, but it sounds like a good read!

This is the story of Luke, who wanted above all things to be a healer and who found that healing was not only a function of the body and of the mind but also of the spirit. While learning about the growth and training of a healer and the influences that shape his early life, we realize something of the struggle this man is having with the concept of God and the beliefs of the people with whom he lives. The young Luke is embittered when he fights for the life of Rubria, the girl he loves, and loses her in spite of his desperate efforts. His faith shattered, Luke tries to bury himself in his work, only to find that he must somehow rediscover the faith he's lost. Bare stage w/props.

It brings to mind a book I read a while back called "God Knows" by Joseph Heller. It's a biblically factual account of King David that takes a lot of assumptive liberties and is hilarious!

Joseph Heller's powerful, wonderfully funny, deeply moving novel is the story of David -- yes, King David -- but as you've never seen him before. You already know David as the legendary warrior king of Israel, husband of Bathsheba, and father of Solomon; now meet David as he really was: the cocky Jewish kid, the plagiarized poet, and the Jewish father. Listen as David tells his own story, a story both relentlessly ancient and surprisingly modern, about growing up and growing old, about men and women, and about man and God. It is quintessential Heller.

Originally posted by Akragon
Away in a manger, no crib for a bed... the little lord Jesus lay down his sweet head...

Just so long as no one shuts him out, and that we "prepare him room" (in our hearts), then all is well and it's all good.

ie: that none attempt to bind him, as depicted here


Salvation Army Emblam (compliments of the Rothschild family, bankers of the Vatican in Rome)

and after all, who could bind the unbounded love of God in Jesus Christ who has bound the "strong man" leaving nothing whatsoever of any value, in his wake.

Hey guys!

Welcome to my thread, Tis an interesting theory indeed

The Lord in a manger, no room for a bed... with the influence of Paul hanging over his head

A census, an inn... with no mention of which... in three other books... kinda gives me the itch

Well im off to work, i've no time to play... but thanks for opinions...

I do hope you'll all stay

Luke's prologue indicates that he based his historical monologue on sources, but as far as I know there is no evidence which suggests that Paul informed part of Luke's birth narrative. Clement indicated that Mark received his information directly from Peter, as he travelled with him, but there is no similar account in early church literature concerning Luke and Paul. Furthermore, in Paul's writings there is no mention of Jesus birth, nor the events surrounding his birth. This "conspiracy" is really a hypothesis, and like all hypotheses it must meet three criteria to be considered viable: 1) It must explain the relevant data 2) It must do so with simplicity, as opposed to requiring a slew of ad-hoc and unfounded assumptions for support 3) If this is truly as good hypothesis it should be able to shed light on related areas of investigation. I don't think your hypothesis fulfills these criteria so at present it remains unconvincing to me. Also, by "discrepancies", do you mean "differences", or "inconsistencies"? It should come as no surprise that different authors would include different data in their treatments of a certain topic. It would be unreasonable to expect that Luke and Matthew's birth narratives should only contain the same information. As for inconsistencies, they are exactly of the nature that one would expect to arise in ancient biographies/histories written by different individuals based on different strands of oral tradition and eyewitness testimony. If there were none of these inconsistencies among the secondary details of the Gospels then it would be quite plausible that their authors had been in collusion. What we have in the gospels, from a literary/historical point of view, is exactly what we should expect to find. Anyone who claims that they are "infallible" probably has an unciritical and naive view of them, and almost no understanding of their historical context.

reply to post by srjenks


thanks for the input brother...

Welcome to ATS