The start of the Jesus story

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:51 am

cora wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:03 pm
Speaking in tongues does not mean different languages. It means religious extasy when people shout intelligible things. Paul did not like it. Irenaeus gave it even a different meaning in Acts, he did not like it too.
Speaking in tongues means speaking different languages in the NT as shown in Acts 2.

In Acts of the Apostles the resurrected Jesus commanded his disciples to stay in Jerusalem to get Power and when they got the Power and filled with the Ghost they preached in tongues [multiple languages] and those from other nations understood them.

Acts 2.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The disciples could not have preached the Gospel to the world if they were not able to preach in other languages. The filling by the Ghost and talking in multiple languages were the very most important events in Acts of the Apostles.

Please, you cannot just change the story in Acts because you don't like it.

Now, in the Epistles it would appear the Pauline writer liked the gift of talking multiple languages.

If Paul was filled with the Ghost he could probably preach the Gospel in every language spoken anywhere in the ancient world.

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all..

It is just a pack of lies that the apostles and Paul were filled with a Ghost and were immediately able to preach and communicate with people of every nation.

Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles are all late unknown writings invented after at least c 175 --no Christian apologist or Christian writer mentioned anyone with the ability to immediately preach multiple languages after getting filled with a Ghost.
cora wrote:The Apology of Aristides must GO. I looked this man up twice. He did not write an Apology. It is a fake. The contents and diverse words show that it must have been written after 170, maybe even after 200. The first Christian writer is Justin.
Well, if the first Christian writer was Justin then the so-called Pauline Epistle are fake.

But, in any event, the apostle Paul must be fake since NT Jesus only had twelve apostles.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by andrewcriddle » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:06 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:50 am
andrewcriddle wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:33 am
Tertullian Apparel of Women
what the same (God) has said through the apostle: Let your probity appear before men.
probably paraphrases 2 Corinthians 8:21
For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.
I am not sure about that:

Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women 2.13.1a: 1a Perhaps someone will say, “To me it is not necessary to be approved by men; for I do not require the testimony of men. God is the inspector of the heart.” That we all know, provided, however, we remember what the same (God) has said through the apostle, “Let your probity appear before men [probum vestrum coram hominibus appareat].”

Romans 12.17: 17 Never repay evil for evil to anyone, taking care to do good things before all men [προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων].

2 Corinthians 8.21: 21 For we take care to do good things [προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλά], not only before the Lord, but also before men [ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων].

Tertullian is closer to 2 Corinthians 8.21 in omitting the πάντων, but closer to Romans 12.17 in the statement being an exhortation. In 2 Corinthians 8.21 Paul is discussing his own honesty, not exhorting others to honesty. I am not sure we need 2 Corinthians 8.21 to explain the omission of the superfluous πάντων from what looks more like a paraphrase of Romans 12.17.
I agree that it is not a close verbal parallel. However Tertullian's basic argument It is Not Enough that God Know Us to Be Chaste: We Must Seem So Before Men. seems closer to 2 Corinthians 8 than Romans 12.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8864
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:16 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:06 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:50 am
andrewcriddle wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:33 am
Tertullian Apparel of Women
what the same (God) has said through the apostle: Let your probity appear before men.
probably paraphrases 2 Corinthians 8:21
For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.
I am not sure about that:

Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women 2.13.1a: 1a Perhaps someone will say, “To me it is not necessary to be approved by men; for I do not require the testimony of men. God is the inspector of the heart.” That we all know, provided, however, we remember what the same (God) has said through the apostle, “Let your probity appear before men [probum vestrum coram hominibus appareat].”

Romans 12.17: 17 Never repay evil for evil to anyone, taking care to do good things before all men [προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων].

2 Corinthians 8.21: 21 For we take care to do good things [προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλά], not only before the Lord, but also before men [ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων].

Tertullian is closer to 2 Corinthians 8.21 in omitting the πάντων, but closer to Romans 12.17 in the statement being an exhortation. In 2 Corinthians 8.21 Paul is discussing his own honesty, not exhorting others to honesty. I am not sure we need 2 Corinthians 8.21 to explain the omission of the superfluous πάντων from what looks more like a paraphrase of Romans 12.17.
I agree that it is not a close verbal parallel. However Tertullian's basic argument It is Not Enough that God Know Us to Be Chaste: We Must Seem So Before Men. seems closer to 2 Corinthians 8 than Romans 12.
If Tertullian's argument is, "Be good not just before God but also before men," as in 2 Corinthians 8.21, but his actual quotation of the apostle is merely, "Be good before men," as in Romans 12.17, is that not a possible indicator that he knows only Romans 12.17 and not 2 Corinthians 8.21? If the latter would have suited his argument better, but his quote is more like the former, then perhaps he did not know the latter.

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:50 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:05 pm
I used to think that perhaps Justin did not know or like Paul. That is no longer a very attractive option for me. I think that his silence on Paul in the works known to us can be easily explained. But a lot of his argumentation seems to be based on Paul. It is more and more obvious the deeper one digs.
After examining your post I don't see any new evidence at all to show that Justin knew or liked the so-called Epistles of an apostle called Paul. In fact, your post confirms Justin did not employ the Pauline Epistles or knew of an apostle called Paul.

Justin specifically claimed Jesus had twelve apostles and they preached about Christ to every race of men.

In the Gospels the twelve apostles are named and Paul or Saul was not one of them.

Justin's First Apology XXXIX
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christto teach to all the word of God

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XLII
"Moreover, the prescription that twelve bells be attached to the [robe] of the high priest, which hung down to the feet, was a symbol of the twelve apostles, who depend on the power of Christ, the eternal Priest; and through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled with the glory and grace of God and of His Christ.

It is extremely clear that Justin's writings could not have included any teaching or writing from the so-valled Paul because he [Justin] claimed it was the twelve apostles, men, twelve in number, through their voice that all earth has been filled with the glory and grace of God and of His Christ. It was the twelve who proclaimed the Gospel to every race of men---not Saul--not Paul--just the twelve.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by arnoldo » Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:13 am

hakeem wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:51 am
<snip>. . But, in any event, the apostle Paul must be fake since NT Jesus only had twelve apostles.
Julian also claims the texts were altered.
But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease,131 and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm


hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:03 am

arnoldo wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:13 am
hakeem wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:51 am
<snip>. . But, in any event, the apostle Paul must be fake since NT Jesus only had twelve apostles.
Julian also claims the texts were altered.
But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered., so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God. But the worthy John, since he perceived that a great number of people in many of the towns of Greece and Italy had already been infected by this disease,131 and because he heard, I suppose, that even the tombs of Peter and Paul were being worshipped ----secretly, it is true, but still he did hear this,----he, I say, was the first to venture to call Jesus God.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

We don't need Julian to tell us the text were altered. The altered texts have been documented in the NT itself for over 1500 years.

Where does the Markan and Matthean Jesus tell his disciples to meet him after he was risen?

Is it not in Galilee?

Didn't the disciples see the resurrected Jesus in Galilee in gMatthew and gJohn?

Now where does the resurrected Jesus tell the disciples to stay to get power from a Ghost in gLuke and Acts?

Is it not in Jerusalem?

The story of Jesus has been altered by the authors of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The so-called Pauline writers used the altered texts in gLuke and Acts of the Apostles to fabricate Epistles and claimed he was a persecutor of the faith that he presently preached.

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by cora » Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:26 pm

Hakeem,
With Christian writer I mean in favour of the church of rome. Justin was the first one, although he did not know it himself. From Aristides there is nothing, his apology is fake. Written much later and putting his name on it. Paul did not write christos at all. (Christos does not even mean messiah.) It is a forgery by the church of rome from chrestos. So I call Christian being from the church of rome, everything that went before was called chrestian as coming from Paul. In fact, Paul does not belong to the church of rome, which is why he was reworked.

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by cora » Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:49 pm

Hai Lane,
I hope to reach you in this way. I have read all the things you sent me and I have seen your view on Paul. I must say this is clearly out of the box thinking!! I really like that because, true or not, it shows independent thinking and studying, which is in these days very rare. So some kind of new world opened itself to me. I would like to talk with you about it, but can that be done off-line, via private messages or so?? Because your view touches my view and I do not want my view any further explained in the open. And I want to spare you the embarrassment of having your view explicitly connected to mine. Okay?
greetings from Cora.

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:56 am

cora wrote: With Christian writer I mean in favour of the church of rome. Justin was the first one, although he did not know it himself. From Aristides there is nothing, his apology is fake. Written much later and putting his name on it. Paul did not write christos at all. (Christos does not even mean messiah.) It is a forgery by the church of rome from chrestos. So I call Christian being from the church of rome, everything that went before was called chrestian as coming from Paul. In fact, Paul does not belong to the church of rome, which is why he was reworked.
Writings attributed to Aristides are extremely important to determine the start of the Jesus story since this author contradicts Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles.

In Aristides' Apology it was the twelve disciples of the Jesus who preached the Gospel to the known world--not Saul, not Paul, not Silas, not Timothy, not Philemon not Barnabas or Titus. It was the twelve.

Aristides' First Apology
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High......... This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

So, we know that when Aristides' "Apology" was written the author had never heard of the evangelist called apostle Paul and never knew that he documented his evangelism with Epistles and that his travels to many, many cities and conversion of thousands were also recorded in Acts of the Apostles.

Aristides, in his Apology, c 117-138 CE, single-handedly, has completely obliterated Acts of the Apostles and all the so-called Pauline Epistles and lay them in the garbage bags of history.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Jax » Mon Apr 05, 2021 9:35 am

cora wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:49 pm
Hai Lane,
I hope to reach you in this way. I have read all the things you sent me and I have seen your view on Paul. I must say this is clearly out of the box thinking!! I really like that because, true or not, it shows independent thinking and studying, which is in these days very rare. So some kind of new world opened itself to me. I would like to talk with you about it, but can that be done off-line, via private messages or so?? Because your view touches my view and I do not want my view any further explained in the open. And I want to spare you the embarrassment of having your view explicitly connected to mine. Okay?
greetings from Cora.
Hi back Cora,

I usually prefer to discuss this subject out in the open, if for anything else just to crowdsource information for or against any position that I might hold, it is after all the reason that I post here on the forum. But if you feel more comfortable in a private format then by all means feel free to PM me.

Don't worry about "tainting" my 'research' with your participation, you won't. I consider my threads a free-for-all anyway and never take myself too seriously, so feel free to add comments to the threads as they are now. Or start some new ones. Either way.
It is in fact not my original idea anyway, I have simply tried to take something that someone on another forum had suggested and take it to it's logical conclusions. In no way am I emotionally invested in the hypothesis as it was never original to me in the first place.

I find the idea of Paul actually being in the 1st century BCE attractive for multiple reasons but am not married to it. I don't see any way clear for proving it anyway. It's simply an interesting point of view that helps me further understand the history of the ancient world. The history of the 1st century BCE and how it influences the development of the Christ cult is neglected far to often IMHO, to many just concentrate on the first couple centuries of the common era and call it a day. By neglecting the centuries before ground zero with all of the activities surrounding the world wars (to the peoples in the Med. anyway) they are not getting a very nuanced view of the whole picture. People tend to forget, I think, that the year "Ano Domini" is a much later creation that has consequently confused what should otherwise be a much more straightforward way to view that period in time.

Anyway, I'm glad that you enjoyed my attempts at reconstruction and I look forward to any input that you may have.

Lane

Post Reply