Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Did Paul of Tarsus exist?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Thomas_Kempis (U4811770) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
There was a distinct person who wrote most of St Paul's letters in the bible....
However is there any extrabiblical evidence that Paul existed? Apparently he is concidered the founder of Christianity (as we know it) so there should theorectically be more extrabiblical references to Paul then Jesus.
Is this in fact the case - is there non-bible evidence for Paul?
Cheers Tom -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Aside from what he and his followers wrote, no. If he was arrested and executed during Nero's reign, as many assume to be the case, then his death would have hardly rated as a statistic given his station in life. His activities in and around the eastern Mediterranean seem to have raised hackles and drawn attention to himself, but only amongst Jews and Christians and eventually low level Roman authorities.
His status as a real person however was not questioned by Christians in his immediate aftermath (especially those who opposed his rather stringent interpretation of their faith), so we can assume that this was based on a knowledge that he had lived, was responsible for the epistles he was so fond of firing off to keep the Christian structure in check, and had made the speeches attributed to him. Contemporary evidence might not exist, but the circumstantial evidence points to a real person alright. -
Message 3
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Saturday, 16th September 2006
Hello Thomas_Kempis,
I saw this thread over on the Christian MB, it seems to have been hijacked by a discussion on Jesus.
As far as I know there is no extrabiblical evidence of St. Paul/Saul of Tarsus. However, if you want to look into him a bit you could try Michael Grant's (sadly now deceased) biogpraphy of Paul - "St. Paul". I expect you can find it at Amazon. I haven't read it but there might be some sort of non-biblical evidence there.
Regards. -
Message 4
Posted by Teresa gardel (U7049329) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
I read a very interesting book about him written by Gerald Messadié. I read it in Spanish but I´ll try to translate the title for you. More or less is something like " Saulo the incendiary (or inflamatory)". He did exist and the author in this book investigate about his life.Hope you can find it.
-
Message 5
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
The thing with Paul is that he was also known as Saul in the Bible.
Saul/Paul was once apart or attempted to become apart of the inner circle of the Nazerene Church, which is what Jesus was apart of. However they would not initiate him.
Saul then decided to start his own church that was much more "welcoming", in as much that anyone could join as long as they gave a small "contribution" at the door if you know what I mean.
Any way, comparing the life stories of Paul/Saul to another character in history alive at the same time you can see unescapable similarities!
Paul is none other than the historian Josephus!
This may sound a little strange but it won't take you much research to see that this is true.
That is how Josephus knew so much about the religious and historical events in the middle East at this time as demonstrated in his works.
This religion was then adopted by the Roman Empire and declared Christianity, and the members of the Nazerene church were mostly slaughtered and forced into hiding and eventually becoming todays freemasons. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
but it won't take you much research to see that this is true.
Ìý
Explain this research please. -
Message 7
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Research the life story of both characters.
I'm not sitting here spoon feeding you everything. ha.
Hear are a few quick examples:
1. Both raised in Jerusalem.
2. Both had Roman citizenship.
3. Both became Rabbis.
4. Both spoke Hebrew and Greek.
5. Both travelled into Europe and returned to Jerusalem.
6. Both sailed to Rome.
7. Both were shipwreked whilst taking prisoners to Rome.
Need I go on.
Im not throwing around empty ideas here.
These are all deeply researched so don't worry. -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
I'm afraid you do need to go on, yes. Why do you think history has recorded them as two separate characters?
-
Message 9
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
If paul did not exist then someone must have written the letters that are generally acrediited to paul by Historians namely 1 thesselions, Romand, 1 and 2 corinthians, Galatians, Philians and Philemon.
For sake of arguement let us call him Paul.
The first refence outside of the New Testamant to Paul that I am aware of is in the letter of 1 Clement which is normally dated to 96AD.
Paul cAD3 to c65
Born in Tarsus
of the house of Benjemin
Follower of jesus
taught by Gameliel
Josephus c 38AD to 101
born in Jerusalem
of royal and priestly lineage
Commanded forces during the Jewish war
did not believe in Jesus according to Origen
Does not seem to be a lot in common to me.
I guess one could come up with a list of common points between many people if one tried for example Lloyd George and Winston Churchill
Both MPs
Both PMs
Both lead their party during war
Both noted orators
Both married
Both members of the liberal party
Both leaders of a coalition
Both defeated in elections after winning a war.
Both Chancellors of the Exchecker
Both with Double barroled surnames -
Message 10
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
The thing is, there are many characters that are mentioned in the Bible but do not appear to be found anywhere in the historical records.
King David, King Solomon, Moses, Abraham, Saul.
All very important characters that have had a huge impact on the worlds history, but why can they not be found any where in the historical records? Unless we're searching for the wrong things!
Anyway, firstly, the chronology of the Bible is notoriously corrupt and distorted almost beyond recognition, so the dates hear are simply invalid and should only be used as a rough guideline. Secondly, Saul/Josephus did not personally think that Jesus was a saviour but used him as an idol for his new commercialised church.
Born in Tarsus? Let me guess...you got that one from the Bible. The Bible is wrong in this case, and they havn't even got the birth place of Jesus correct either!
How can Jesus be from Nazareth AND Bethlehem?
The Bible is simply not authorititive enough on these topics.
Saul/Paul was a follower of Jesus for a while as I mensioned until he split away and formed his own church, hence Saul's two differing opinions on Jesus.
Also as a little point here, Jesus of Nazareth should actually be Jesus of Nazarene, as in the Nazarene church. The Arch rivals of the Church of Saul, or Christianity! -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
You can't have it both ways FTT.
You dismiss the bible as an historical source riddled with intangible detail and then claim portions of it to be true, but only after an interpretation that you impose on it yourself based on nothing tangible either, or at least nothing that you have even tried to demonstrate as a tangible fact.
Calling the bible wrong (or any historical source material for that matter) behoves you to justify your claim to that effect, not simply aver that it is so and refuse to explain further.
And your reference to dates - valid or invalid - in the New Testament is simply evidence that you really haven't a clue what you're on about.
The bible deserves critical scrutiny, but I doubt if you even understand what the term implies. -
Message 12
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
You need to challenge the points and evidence, not me as a person nor my ideas. And may I add that you have no idea about my methods of research.
If I sat hear and explain in grave detail how and why certain parts of the Bible are inaccurate while others remian true, and how I came to those conclusions every message would be very long and tedious to read (and write!).
Also, unfortunatly it was not me who inserted the corruptions and innacuracies into the Bible, so I, or we have to work with what we have been given.
The best way to decifer the truth from the innacurate is to compare Biblical records to historical records and see what matches, and basicly seeing what the Bible is actually talking about in parts. And understanding that some words have hidden meanings.
eg: why was Jesus born a shepherd and died a fisherman?
Believe me, if it was upto me I would just choose the simplist stories that fit the orthodox views perfectly for minimal conflict.
But at the end of the day I prefer to analyse and work with evidence. -
Message 13
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Possibly, but I'd be prepared to wager that you have no idea about your methods of research either and I fear that may be where much of the problem lies...
The nativity feature sees the infant Christ visited by shepherds but then they were forever picking up messages from the angels. Its the wool, it acts like a superconductor for all that spirituality. The stories state his father was a carpenter however. As for the parable of the fisherman, it never said the Christ figure was a fisherman, just that he happened to be taking a stroll across the sea of Gallilee and given thenm advice on the best spot for his mates to cast their nets. -
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
If I sat hear and explain in grave detail how and why certain parts of the Bible are inaccurate while others remian true, and how I came to those conclusions every message would be very long and tedious to read (and write!).
Ìý
Well since tedium is something against which you seemingly have no compunction based on your posts so far, perhaps you might therefore indulge us with at least one example of the exhaustive research to which you frequently allude, but which (it must be said) your hollow declarations to date rather advertise a distinct lack of. You can begin perhaps (in your own time) with your original assertion that the historian Josephus and the biblical Saul/Paul were one and the same person. When I see how well you explain your hypothesis I will take others that you make a little more seriously. On the other hand, in the absence of any evidence of research whatsoever I will take anything further you say as the rantings of a person attracted to a theory which they have neither the intellectual capacity to elucidate or the education to explain in the slightest.
I can help you start if you like - maybe you can begin by explaining the inclusion of Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae and Contra Apionem in several libraries of his contemporaries and succeeding generations of Romans long before christianity meant anything in a Roman context, the reference to his works by later historians such as Dio Cassius and Appian without a single reference to a christian link of any description, and yet a total paucity of documents ascribed to Saul/Paul outside of those assembled in the New Testament, and those all pertaining to nothing else except christian apostolic dissemination. Rather an historical (not to mention intellectual) dichotomy, I would have thought.
Come back with some thoughts on that (however tedious they are to write out), or retort with more bluster and lose your audience. -
Message 15
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
I can see you know your stuff, and I am impressed by your knowledge.
However, the real meanings of the shepherd and fisherman references are slightly different. To find the real meanings we must look to the origins of Jesus' line and the Nazarene church...Egypt.
In egypt they worshipped/observed the zodiac. Due to the precessional cycle that takes almost 26,000 years to complete, the sun rose behind a different zodiac in the sky on the same date every 2160 years, roughly.
During the period of Jesus, the zodiac actually changed in our night skies from Aries (the lamb) to Picies (the fish)!
This is why you also see references to cattle and bulls, because of the age of Taurus which ended 1800BC, was the dominant zodiac before this date. Eg: the Golden calf saga at Mt Sinai. This is why Moses had a very negative reaction to these bull worshipers, as the time had come to worship the lamb.
As to the reference to Jesus' father being a carpenter, this is actually a slight mistranslation from the Ancient Egyptian to Hebrew. It actually just means a skilled or adept person, which had VERY strong connotations to an architect. Weather he was a genuine architect or it was meant in the same sense as is applied to the modern word freemasonry, is entirely unknown at this time.
However, may I point out that the Nazarene church is what is now freemosonry, so I would be tempted to suggest that this is the meaning. But I only work with evidence, never with guesses, so I wouldn't like to say. -
Message 16
Posted by CrusaderPete (U1811057) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Modern Freemasons may claim to be the Nazarene Church, but in all honesty its a bit like "Wiccans" claiming to be the direct descendents of "Witches and Warlocks".
-
Message 17
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
This is not actually what the freemasons claim, I don't think.
But yes you are right, they are a VERY watered down version. -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Hi Fox,
It is a commonplace that anyone who studies ancient history will deal in imperfect and incomplete evidence and sources. Forming conclusions about Roman Britain or Saxon England is difficult enough, but when we come to the New Testament the situation is complicated by the fact that the important figures still have an enormous spiritual significance for many people. I had better admit that I myself would find it very hard indeed to sweep Jesus and Paul away into non-existence when discussing their historicality.
There is indeed very little contemporary extra-biblical evidence for Jesus and none (so far as I am aware) for Paul. This is not surprising since, as has frequently been written, their beliefs would not have seemed of any significance to Roman officialdom until, and unless, they were involved in civil unrest.
You say Fox that you prefer to work with evidence and that is fine of course. But in this thread alone you have made several statements which it is really hard to believe are evidentially based. I’m not precisely sure what you mean by the Nazarene Church but perhaps this was the church led by James the Brother of Jesus who wished to remain a reforming group within Judaism. Just how have they evolved into today’s Freemasons? In fact what evidence is there that the Masons are older than the 18th century, Knights Templar and Da Vinci Code notwithstanding?
I have been studying Roman history for several decades and have read Josephus and several modern works describing the principate of Vespasian and his sons. I’ve never met the hypothesis that Josephus and Paul were one and the same person before. Clearly neither have Tim and Nordmann, and both (whilst not always in agreement) have the most admirable and extensive knowledge of ancient history. I’m not saying that I reject the idea out of hand, although I have to say that it does not appear very probable, but if as you say these matters have been ‘deeply researched’ I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to ask you by whom, and where full accounts have been published.
I fully admit that I have no idea about your methods of research and I would be grateful if you would now describe them in greater detail.
TP -
Message 19
Posted by CrusaderPete (U1811057) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
I can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure I read that the adoption of Christianity by the Romans, came way after Saul/Paul's death and that it was the Romans who suppressed those versions of Christianity that did'nt suit them.
Was'nt there about 40 odd Gospels that were destroyed/ removed (whatever) and those that attempted to follow them gave birth to the term "Heretics"?
Sorry, I'm a Heathen (and proud of it) so my in depth knowledge here is lacking. -
Message 20
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Hi twin probe.
When refering to the Nazarene church, this was, as you said, the church led by Jesus and James. But, this was based on a system that is identical to that of modern day freemasonry. In as much that it involved initiation processes, where only a small cirle were taught the true nature of religion.
The ideas and beliefs held by the rest of the population are what we know as Judaism. So yes the Nazarene Church was apart of this religion, however they had very different concepts.
The thing is, the way to best research these difficult topics is to just search for matches in the historical resords. Now this alone may not be enough for some.
Scientists today dont certify a thoery as fact until this theory doesn't just solve the existing problems, but when it can predict the answers to future problems that appear.
What I am trying to say is that when this type of open minded research is done, you get answers to your questions and then much more, as it gives you the ability solve many other problems and discrepancies you come across.
Having a huge knowledge is very good, but without the understanding of the underlying intended concepts, that knowledge is almost useless.
I will be fair, your knowledge is probably greater than mine. So if you had the understanding, imagine what you could do with it!
What in particular do you want me to adress in more detail for you?
I will try my best. -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 19th February 2007
Hi Fox,
After your recent contributions your views are much clearer. As you rightly say there have been many organizations in which knowledge is slowly ‘released’ to initiates. I believe that this is true of modern Freemasonry (I am not a mason), but I still see no direct link between Freemasonry and the Nazarene church. A number of early Christian groups subsumed under the description of ‘Gnostics’ also seemed to subscribe to the view that there was secret religious knowledge which had to be restricted to the few. These opinions were eventually pronounced heretical. The Roman religion of Mithrasism also enabled the believer to progress through initiations into higher degrees of knowledge.
You views about scientific theories are simply mistaken I’m afraid. Such a theory can never be certified as ‘fact’. The best we can say about any scientific theory is that it has not yet been falsified by observation. Your point about predictive power is perhaps a better guide to the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory.
I can’t quibble with anyone’s wish to be open-minded, but as an American commentator said (in the context of alternative medicine) ‘don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out’. I’ll spare you the quote from Alexander Pope, but nonetheless I’m very much afraid that I don’t see that one can arrive at the underlying concepts of history without a substantial background in the ancient and modern sources. Without this knowledge base one just cannot distinguish between the plausible, the barely possible and the totally quixotic.
Clearly you are very devoted to Egypt, and why not since they are a most impressive civilization. But, IMO, they cannot be used to solve every historical problem in the ancient world. If you are looking for another religion to which the precessional cycle was important then the said Mithrasism is a far more likely candidate than Christianity. A writer called David Ulansey pointed out that Mithras is portrayed with stars beneath his cape and that every figure in the standard tauroctony representation has a parallel among the constellations. He also mentioned the equinoctial precession from Taurus, to Ares, and Pisces. So can we celebrate the dawning of the Age of Aquarius by leaving St Paul out of it?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 22
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Monday, 19th February 2007
Please Twinprobe, attack the evidence, not me as a person nor my way of thinking.
If you can come up with stonger evidence and meanings for these things then don't hesitate to tell me as any evidence will help me out.
Also may I quickly say that at one time religion was nothing more than science. When priests were astronomers, architects and doctors. So the observation of the stars would not be an activity that silly for a an acient priest of this sort to engage in.
This is a known and inescapable fact. -
Message 23
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
Hi Twin Probe
Thank you for your kind comments and I am pleased to find myself in agreement with Nordmann on the New Testamant for once.
FoxtheTeacher
What recognized historians or theologians can you come up that agree with your views. I have been reading on the New Testament period for around 40 years and I have never come across anyone suggesting such an inherently likely idea that Paul and Josephus were the same.
I cannot say that the excepted Pauline letter’s read at all like Josephus, I also have a complete set of Josephus’ works.
On the subject of the existence of Paul outside the NT then the following is from the epistle of 1 Clement which is most commonly dated to around 96AD, that is while Josephus was still alive and yet it reckons that Paul was not only dead but implies he died sometime ago.
“Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.â€
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.â€
Paul’s 1st letter to the Thesselonions, which is one of the letters that is widely acreditted to him is dated to about 51AD, that is when Josephus was about 13; some people date Galatians to 47AD. I know Josephus claimed he was a child progidy but that is taking things a little too far.
“King David, King Solomon, Moses, Abraham, Saul.
All very important characters that have had a huge impact on the worlds history, but why can they not be found any where in the historical records? Unless we're searching for the wrong things!â€
There is actually a Stele referring to the house of David. You are also treating the Bible as if it is one book, which it is not. How much reference is there to Alfred the Great outside Anglo-Saxon documents?
“Anyway, firstly, the chronology of the Bible is notoriously corrupt and distorted almost beyond recognition, so the dates hear are simply invalid and should only be used as a rough guideline.â€
There are books that reckon the accepted ancient history chronology is hopelessly wrong and one of the biblical events at the tail end of the Davidic empire is even used in the ‘accepted chronology’.
“Secondly, Saul/Josephus did not personally think that Jesus was a saviour but used him as an idol for his new commercialised church.â€
You will need to produce reasonable evidence to demonstrate this, you have yet to do so.
“Born in Tarsus? Let me guess...you got that one from the Bible. The Bible is wrong in this case, and they havn't even got the birth place of Jesus correct either!â€
Can you prove it? I have never read a biography of Paul that does not and I am afraid the E.P.Saunders and Michael grant, to name but two, carry somewhat more authority than you do.
“How can Jesus be from Nazareth AND Bethlehem?
The Bible is simply not authorititive enough on these topics.â€
Historian’s generally agree that Jesus was born at Nazareth and then the birth at Bethlehem was added to meet the biblical prophecy. But where in the NT does it actually say that Jesus was born at Nazareth rather than came from there. Where I was born is different from where it would be said I come from. Also as Nordmann had said you cannot both dismiss the books of the bible and then use them. Unless you give some credence to the NT books you have no Paul.
“Saul/Paul was a follower of Jesus for a while as I mensioned until he split away and formed his own church, hence Saul's two differing opinions on Jesus.â€
You will need to produce reasonable evidence to demonstrate this, you have yet to do so.
“Also as a little point here, Jesus of Nazareth should actually be Jesus of Nazarene, as in the Nazarene church. The Arch rivals of the Church of Saul, or Christianity!â€
You will need to produce reasonable evidence to demonstrate this, you have yet to do so. -
Message 24
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
Ah. At last, someone who challenges the evidence.
Thank you for your reply Tim.
As regards to the birth/death of Paul/Josephus, these dates cannot be fully relied on to this extent either way, let me make that clear.
But what is more important is that the dates of these letters definatly cannot not be relied upon! In fact the entire authenticity of these letters is highly suspect, rendering them as invalid evidence. This mat also explain the problem you spotted that they do not read at all like Josephus' works.
These letters have also come under a barrage of questions regarding there authenticity from a hugely diverse group of people in recent times.
Also, in the unlikly event that they were genuine, Paul had a nasty habbit of changing identities, hence why Josephus is not linked to Paul, and hence why he managed to survive most effectively on multiple occasions despite the rapidly changing tides of war. This is why the letter may have considered him deceased, but believe me, he was live and well!
There are actually many other references to King David and Solomon, just in places that you wouldn't expect. But thats a subject for another day.
Just because something is regarded as "accepted chronology" by a few top experts who get paid what to say, doesn't mean that it's true. If we listen to them, and only them, we are completely at the mercy of the few and no longer think for ourselves. Also, just because one small era can be considered as the correct chronolgy doesn't mean that the entire Bible is correct.
Saul/Paul also at one point was working for the Romans alongside the the Jewish authorities in the persecution of the church of James and Jesus. He must have had a very high opinion of Jesus then, eh?
Saul actually worked closely with the Romans to rapidly put an end to many Nazerenes, ensuring most of them were put to death.
Also if you think about it, Saul, a commentator suddenly stopped his narrative at the beginning of the jewish rebellion. At the hight of the political events he quits the best oppurtunity for his reports. But it makes all the sense if he was Josephus as well, as he has plenty of material on the war.
Also, nowhere does Saul mention Jesus or John the baptist at all. The two paragraphs that they are mentioned are obviously later insertions that differ from the surrounding text.
Also, after the crucifixion, the Romans under the command of Saul declared Jesus and his followers (Nazerene Church) as rebels and hunted them down. Yet another act of Saul's love for Jesus! What is interesting though is that at this time Josephus was actually governer of Galilee, and made a huge effort to "police" this region.
So how is it these slaughterings of the Nazerene church went unoticed by Josephus and unreported?
But SAUL did mention hese events, and so the whole thing makes sense again if you accept that they are one and the same.
So, just by simple deduction, you don't have to be too clever to see that it makes MORE than sense for these characters to be the same person. -
Message 25
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Wednesday, 21st February 2007
Hi FoxTheTeacher,
You haven't read Caesar's Messiah, have you? Its by a bloke called Joseph Atwill and he asserts that the Flavian Dynasty made up Christianity as a means to control Judaea. He also states that Josephus was hired by the Flavians to make up this new religion, basing the Jesus figure on Titus. Ridiculous.
Cheers -
Message 26
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007
Foxthe Teacher
I cannot see that you have actually produced any concrete evidence.
I shall continue to believe along with pretty well every other historian that Paul is Paul and Josephus is Josephus. -
Message 27
Posted by grannieval (U3909013) on Saturday, 24th February 2007
What about the idea that Marcion, recreated Paul/Saul as a rebel against the followers of Jesus led by James? Perhaps he did this to in order to give credence to his own views and spread his own authority in Rome?
Maybe Marcion was trying to make Jesus and his ideas understandable to Roman minds used to many gods. That may be where the idea of Jesus as God developed. -
Message 28
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Monday, 26th February 2007
I think we will just agree to disagree on this one Tim.
What you say? -
Message 29
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
At first I thought it must be April 1st already - Josephus as Paul?! But then I realised that someone was actually being serious. This saddens me - from a historical and scholarship point of view.
To even suggest that Paul and Josephus are the same person displays a willful disregard of what the 'two' people actually wrote. Their works are completely different in terms of theme, scope, audience... etc etc. Was Josephus having some kind of personality altering therapy perhaps? Or was he just moonlighting as a Christian zealot in his spare time?
The two corpuses of works are very very distinct - I think we should be respecting the efforts of both of these authors in their own right, rather than making up crazy theories. If I was Josephus I would feel insulted by such theories! Though I expect Paul might feel the same way to an extent! -
Message 30
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
As to the reference to Jesus' father being a carpenter, this is actually a slight mistranslation from the Ancient Egyptian to Hebrew. It actually just means a skilled or adept person, which had VERY strong connotations to an architect. Weather he was a genuine architect or it was meant in the same sense as is applied to the modern word freemasonry, is entirely unknown at this time.Ìý
A carpenter is trained to do drawings of his work before he does it. A competent carpenter IS an architect.... one who ONLY does the drawings!
Masons respect the trade; Grand/Master architect is a high calling. -
Message 31
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 22nd March 2007
Fox
just looking back on this one can you quote any recognised historians or theologians who hold to your view? -
Message 32
Posted by SafricanAndy (U7173046) on Monday, 26th March 2007
Just a quick comment to the OP's statement that Paul is considered the "founder of Christianity (as we know it)"...
Well, perhaps. The question for me is this: Did he provide the body of doctrine that ultimately evolved into Christianity i.e. as an original work? Or was he merely "reforming" or "re-assembling" those bodies of doctrine that had existed previously (presumably in Asia Minor) into a more coherent (to him, at least) form? Lets be honest: There's plenty in Pauls letters that smack of the ancient mystery cults... -
Message 33
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Tuesday, 27th March 2007
SafricanAndy,
I agree. Been reading up and watching some pretty good documentaries lately on the early Church, so much of Christianity has been heavily influenced by mystic cults and the Zoroastrian religion.
In my opinion, the cult of Jesus found itself having to compete with rival groups, and the early Christians 'borrowed' some ideas, like the Virgin birth.
If I remember right, wasn't Zoroaster supposed to be born of a vigin, and the Emporers of Rome themselves were devine, claiming decent from Jupitor/Zeus or whoever ( Jesus the Son of God ).
If people are seriously interested in the forces that shaped the early Church, it's teachings, and how or why some of it's beliefs came about I reckon reading anything on Roman history in general, anything on the Emporers and their cults, Zoroaster and keep an open mind on the topic.
Mind you, listening to current church doctrine becomes almost laughable when you understand where it came from in the first place, made up or 'borrowed'. -
Message 34
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Tuesday, 27th March 2007
Dionysus worship, Orphism, the neoplatonists, cynic philosophy and more all seem to have influenced the early church.
-
Message 35
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 27th March 2007
Hi TattooedThug,
You might find this post interesting:
The post started off discussing when was JC born and then went into quite a bit of detail on the early church and if he even existed in the first place. There were two or three really good posters from different sides of the argument so it avoided too much bias.
Cheers,
RF
P.S. Dionysus - absolutely top god and one you would never have had any problems with when it came to buying his round.
-
Message 36
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Tuesday, 27th March 2007
Cheers Panda...
Loads on there, just goes to show how much info is out there if you really wanna look.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.