Is this verse (2 Corinthians 5:16) evidence of a post-70 CE time?
Only the time after the 70 CE proved that the Messiah is not more recognized by his military victories in the flesh.
“though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
-
Bernard Muller
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
About 2 Corinthians 5:16: http://historical-jesus.info/20.html Were the earliest Christians of Corinth told about Jesus in a worldly manner?
Cordially, Bernard
Cordially, Bernard
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
Gentile Christians in Corinth who talked about a Jewish Jesus? Not even for idea.
-
davidmartin
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
Not really Giuseppe
When Paul says this, he is saying pay no attention to the earthly life of the man, nor his followers, nor their teachings regarding him
Thus, he is taking a previous movement in a new direction, toward the cosmic Christ and his apostle (himself, of course)
What the previous movement was, you may insert whatever you like into this hole. It can be made to fit given the lack of sources and contradictory information
But a previous movement there was, and Paul was part of it in some sense but he also appears to have broken away from it
The interesting question then becomes, how much of what he took was original, what did he change, what did he add, what did he take away?
To answer that question I use the Odes of Solomon. Anything where the 2 agree is original, anything else falls into one of the other categories
Of course, I realise this theory will never have any support or will ever be taken seriously, which suits my own peculiar personality nicely, so i expect, and hope you will disagree with it
When Paul says this, he is saying pay no attention to the earthly life of the man, nor his followers, nor their teachings regarding him
Thus, he is taking a previous movement in a new direction, toward the cosmic Christ and his apostle (himself, of course)
What the previous movement was, you may insert whatever you like into this hole. It can be made to fit given the lack of sources and contradictory information
But a previous movement there was, and Paul was part of it in some sense but he also appears to have broken away from it
The interesting question then becomes, how much of what he took was original, what did he change, what did he add, what did he take away?
To answer that question I use the Odes of Solomon. Anything where the 2 agree is original, anything else falls into one of the other categories
Of course, I realise this theory will never have any support or will ever be taken seriously, which suits my own peculiar personality nicely, so i expect, and hope you will disagree with it
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
Very clever, davidmartin. And there is information. Look in the first letter: Galatians.
I found that what Paul took, was their written story, nothing more.
All the rest comes from himself (now incredibly forged by the catholic church).
Paul is the one who starts a religion (for which he needed their story), the earlier people from Judea did not.
They were a reform-movement in Judaism, who wanted change there, in the religion there.
They started after 70. To gain members they wrote a story which they read to the people.
Their messengers they called apostles (from the OT).
It was only for jews of course, and it was of course not about the son of god (Jahweh).
We know them by the false name and the false information Irenaeus gives about them (see his book).
greetings, Cora.
I found that what Paul took, was their written story, nothing more.
All the rest comes from himself (now incredibly forged by the catholic church).
Paul is the one who starts a religion (for which he needed their story), the earlier people from Judea did not.
They were a reform-movement in Judaism, who wanted change there, in the religion there.
They started after 70. To gain members they wrote a story which they read to the people.
Their messengers they called apostles (from the OT).
It was only for jews of course, and it was of course not about the son of god (Jahweh).
We know them by the false name and the false information Irenaeus gives about them (see his book).
greetings, Cora.
-
davidmartin
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
Paul took more than a story, he took an essence that gave power to his writings, the concept of Christ wasn't his own creation, Christ is the realised God within yourself which the earlier Judea people also realised that's what i think anyway and they were heterodox to Judaism not ultra pious/orthodox as portrayed falsely by Irenaeus and Acts, what i mean is heterodoxy is actually a form of orthodoxy that orthodoxy rejects, so these terms become meaningless pretty quicklycora wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:31 pm Very clever, davidmartin. And there is information. Look in the first letter: Galatians.
I found that what Paul took, was their written story, nothing more.
All the rest comes from himself (now incredibly forged by the catholic church).
Paul is the one who starts a religion (for which he needed their story), the earlier people from Judea did not.
They were a reform-movement in Judaism, who wanted change there, in the religion there.
They started after 70. To gain members they wrote a story which they read to the people.
Their messengers they called apostles (from the OT).
It was only for jews of course, and it was of course not about the son of god (Jahweh).
We know them by the false name and the false information Irenaeus gives about them (see his book).
greetings, Cora.
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
The Judea movement were jews (circumcision + the law). They had a movement for change: rather big change. They wrote a story. That is it.
You did not look at galatians to see what the conflict with Paul was about. Otherwise you would see that Paul is not a jew, but a greek. Paul has a plan: he is going to found a gnostic religion with the help of a mystery religion (which is also gnostic). They are small, only for men and secret. Paul wants it open and for everybody and big. So he preaches a dying-rising-god, saviour. His god is Isu (this character comes from the story of the jews). So Isu dies and rises, if you trust this you will be saved (meaning you get yourself life after death). Chrestos means saviour. CHRISTOS DOES NOT EXIST.
That is the message, and that is all. Then Isu Chrestos is the son of god. This god the father is the gnostic god. Isu Chrestos is the son who was there from the beginning, the gnostic Logos. Nothing wrong, but he uses the jewish story he has more or less stolen.
Gnosticism has no churches, only independent communities. Paul founds a lot of them in the west of Turkey, and then travels to Greece trying to do the same there. Then he goes back to Turkey where he lives. He answers letters he gets from Greece. When he is old he dies. His preaching took place roughly between 90 and 125. This preaching is genuine. The original jewish movement he never saw again since he left there with the title apostle and their story. (a second visit there etc is fake, the whole of acts is fake). It is surprising that these jews have been in Greece, also for Paul, since it is a pure jewish movement.
Paul's successor is Marcion. The story, which is called now gospel, is spreading. Also the gospel of John, Paul and John know each other since they have exactly the same message, is spreading. John's gospel is gnostic. I think only Marcion has the letters. Marcion takes his papers to the church of rome, I don't know why. The church of rome is OT/Jahweh, jews and others. They only have the OT. No gospels. They are not Christian. They have probably no idea what it is about. They kick out Marcion with his gnostic god.
Marcion starts a church of his own, and gets very successful. He is competing with the church of rome and its sister-churches. The church of rome hates Marcion (and Paul) with their gnostic god who they say is higher than Jahweh. They start planning a take-over from Marcion, where they are so-called earlier and Marcion is the heretic (and all the gnostic communities too). It is about 160.
A period of forging, inventing and false writings follows. They have an evil genius there who does it. In 185 he is ready: the NT is ready and the catholic church is set up. The catholic church starts in 200, which is 100 years later than the gnostics. Of course they have their own version of what when happened, which has nothing to do with reality, but which becomes the story since 200. The NT is fake, or forged. The gospels are fake, except John which is forged. They dump the name Isu since Justin Martyr has invented the name Jesus. The gospels are written after 170, with all kinds of inventions from Justin inside. They get power under Constantine. Th word chrestos stays in the NT until after 450. Only after that it is replaced by christos.
That is it. It took me 3 years but that is the outcome. Historical study, not bible study which is generally useless. And now seems to be fake anyhow. Of course nobody agrees, but that is because they have no idea what historical study is. It can bring you everything the bible and the catholic church don't. Cora.
You did not look at galatians to see what the conflict with Paul was about. Otherwise you would see that Paul is not a jew, but a greek. Paul has a plan: he is going to found a gnostic religion with the help of a mystery religion (which is also gnostic). They are small, only for men and secret. Paul wants it open and for everybody and big. So he preaches a dying-rising-god, saviour. His god is Isu (this character comes from the story of the jews). So Isu dies and rises, if you trust this you will be saved (meaning you get yourself life after death). Chrestos means saviour. CHRISTOS DOES NOT EXIST.
That is the message, and that is all. Then Isu Chrestos is the son of god. This god the father is the gnostic god. Isu Chrestos is the son who was there from the beginning, the gnostic Logos. Nothing wrong, but he uses the jewish story he has more or less stolen.
Gnosticism has no churches, only independent communities. Paul founds a lot of them in the west of Turkey, and then travels to Greece trying to do the same there. Then he goes back to Turkey where he lives. He answers letters he gets from Greece. When he is old he dies. His preaching took place roughly between 90 and 125. This preaching is genuine. The original jewish movement he never saw again since he left there with the title apostle and their story. (a second visit there etc is fake, the whole of acts is fake). It is surprising that these jews have been in Greece, also for Paul, since it is a pure jewish movement.
Paul's successor is Marcion. The story, which is called now gospel, is spreading. Also the gospel of John, Paul and John know each other since they have exactly the same message, is spreading. John's gospel is gnostic. I think only Marcion has the letters. Marcion takes his papers to the church of rome, I don't know why. The church of rome is OT/Jahweh, jews and others. They only have the OT. No gospels. They are not Christian. They have probably no idea what it is about. They kick out Marcion with his gnostic god.
Marcion starts a church of his own, and gets very successful. He is competing with the church of rome and its sister-churches. The church of rome hates Marcion (and Paul) with their gnostic god who they say is higher than Jahweh. They start planning a take-over from Marcion, where they are so-called earlier and Marcion is the heretic (and all the gnostic communities too). It is about 160.
A period of forging, inventing and false writings follows. They have an evil genius there who does it. In 185 he is ready: the NT is ready and the catholic church is set up. The catholic church starts in 200, which is 100 years later than the gnostics. Of course they have their own version of what when happened, which has nothing to do with reality, but which becomes the story since 200. The NT is fake, or forged. The gospels are fake, except John which is forged. They dump the name Isu since Justin Martyr has invented the name Jesus. The gospels are written after 170, with all kinds of inventions from Justin inside. They get power under Constantine. Th word chrestos stays in the NT until after 450. Only after that it is replaced by christos.
That is it. It took me 3 years but that is the outcome. Historical study, not bible study which is generally useless. And now seems to be fake anyhow. Of course nobody agrees, but that is because they have no idea what historical study is. It can bring you everything the bible and the catholic church don't. Cora.
-
Bernard Muller
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: “though we once acknowledged a Christ after the flesh, yet now we acknowledge such no longer.”
to Giuseppe,
Actually, you question should: be Gentile Christians in Corinth were talked about a Jewish Jesus?
That what I answered in my webpage with a YES.
Cordially, Bernard
Paul did not hide he was a Jew.Gentile Christians in Corinth who talked about a Jewish Jesus? Not even for idea.
Actually, you question should: be Gentile Christians in Corinth were talked about a Jewish Jesus?
That what I answered in my webpage with a YES.
Cordially, Bernard