Am I a Christian?

[RJM]

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I WILL GIVE YOU,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

This just shows the Christ as fully God yet fully human was open to temptation?

My kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest"

So? To me that's quite clear? He wasn't a revolutionary.

The meak SHALL inherit the earth

What's the difficulty?

The lost sheep of ISRAEL" (the decendants of Jacob)...

Yes. But then he healed the centurion's servant and said: I have not found such faith in all Israel.

There is a lot of paradox in the NT as already discussed:

Christ often taught by paradoxical opposites? He at first refused to heal the woman because he said he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and then he healed the Roman centurion's servant saying he had not witnessed such faith in all Israel.

In one place he says: those not against me are for me. In another place he says: those not for me are against me.

The New Testament is full of such paradox. Truth obviously can't be simply boxed?

Where are the Edomites now? What are they upto nowadays?

I'm sure this is a rhetorical question, and you will be pleased to supply the answer, lol?

EDIT
But are you using these quotations to show Jesus as a revolutionary, or to show that the gospels were made up by Paulists?

 

[Thomas]

Do you think Eisenman is a plant or a kook?

Neither.

Rather I think Eisenman is a product of his place and time. Something of a beat scholar, in the tracks of Kerouac et al. He became caught up in the hype surrounding the discovery of the DSS, like so many convinced that these documents would 'blow the doors off' institutional Christianity. Herein lies the problem — this is paramount to him, and he was determined to find 'the truth', but, as ever, it would seem 'the truth' is in fact his own, highly subjective interpretation of the texts, making claims which did not stand the light of scrutiny.

One of these purposeful "renegade/maverick" type plants to steer the narrative back to..... the narrative?

Nope. I reckon he's a 'renegade/maverick' who has to find a 'renegade maverick' reading of the narrative ... so he's not reading what's there, he's reading what he is determined to see ...

I think this is something particular to American scholars who can become celebrities and best-selling authors in a field, theology, which is notoriously dry and disinteresting. You come up with a 'sensational' interpretation of the data, and for a while your star streaks across the firmament. He's not alone in that.

I haven't read him, so I might be unfair, but it seems to me he's done the same thing as other, Elaine Pagels springs to mind, who made claims (hers being about gnosticism) that make her famous, a best-seller, but who ends up dismissed by scholars for her partisan interpretations and indeed her false claims, playing to an audience of non-scholars who want to be told The Institutional Church Is A Bad Thing, and lap it up when they read it. Again, look at The DaVinci Code and the industry its spawned, people making trips to Europe to see the place where these events supposedly took place ... and still believe it, even when the evidence before their eyes says it couldn't have.

In Eisenman's case, it's simply that there is nothing revelatory about the DSS, they contained no incendiary material ... they're not the thing he was convinced they were, but being convinced, he's found a way to read them as if they were.

I think he baits the reader with 95% truth and slips in 5% dis-info which is why hes there (I might be wrong and reserve my right to be wrong)

Everybody has the right to be wrong, if that's what they want. But everyone has the right to point out you've taken the bait ...

... on account that he alone played a big part in making the access of the scrolls attainable to the general public...

And are the general public interested in the DSS? No. And nor is he an expert on the DSS.

 

[RJM]

We have an example of how an initially rebellious, local, armed movement got turned into a very peaceful if small worldwide religious movement relatively recently in history: The progression from the Babis to Baha'is. And the message was radically changed. Baha'u'llah got rid of a large number of laws which the Bab instituted, and the writings and teachings of the latter eclipse those of the former. And yet there is continuity there.

... it does show that a religion can shift its focus from armed political activism to peaceful social activism within a generation and by spreading to places beyond its origin.

Very interesting observation. I didn't know about that.

 

[Thomas]

Remember these "learned" people will not have the option of claiming innocence in ignorance, they claim their right to give advice for the sole reason they believe they have the knowledge because they have the access to the source material and claim to have the gift of interpretation and thus the authority backed by mans accolades.

You'll get genius and charlatans and people who've fallen over their own egos in every field.

Conspiracy nuts are meant to be looked at as mental cases ...

Well not as severly as that, but yes, they are nuts. Look at the Flat Earthers.

Personally I think 'conspicacy theorist' is just a secular term for 'superstition'. It's the same impulse. The belief that I'm not in control of my destiny, that unseen forces are manipulating history, etc.

... this is the beauty of "equality" we can now be allowed to judge people on their OWN terms, their laws and using their OWN words....the only way they will understand!!!

LOL, that rather assumes everyone has an equal ability to make such judgements, which is patently not the case.

The truth fears no scrutiny, so why would any scholar try to hide things?

I don't think they do. I think people like to think they do ...

 

[Thomas]

... it brought in new "teachers" who had found violence and coersion a more speedy way for things to be brought up to date as it were ...

Sorry, who were these violent and coercive teachers? And where's the evidence of violence and coercion?

Are you saying these persons are spoken of in the DSS?

 

[Thomas]

I think the big problem with the thesis is if Christianity was hijacked by Paul and carried off in a different direction, then we'd have no evidence of what the original message was. Paul's writings predate the gospels, and as the thesis says the Gospels were a product of Pauline-influenced vested Gentile interests, then any contrary message would have been stripped away... all the texts are unreliable.

And this is the nub: Eisenman treats documents that are widely regarded as spurious as authentic and true. Based on what? His own opinion. Why? Because they say what he wants. Anything that does assert his thesis is spurious ... again, based on opinion. This is not scholarship.

Look at Edmond Bordeaux Szekely (1905–1979) and The Essene Gospel of Peace, which he supposedly translated from an ancient text he discovered in the Vatican in the 1920s. Now regarded as a forgery.

 

[RJM]

@usernamed
The discussion has been a bit skewed by some of your posts landing late, after moderator approval, etc.

But I think @Thomas response have well covered the points they made, in depth?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think the big problem with the thesis is if Christianity was hijacked by Paul and carried off in a different direction, then we'd have no evidence of what the original message was.

I think it more a matter of understanding the context of Paul's writings.
The NT is a collection of scrolls. Those in authority decided which ones were included, bearing in mind that
the history of Christianity spans many decades, in which there was SERIOUS political conflict.

Faith is the central component of Paul's doctrine of justification — meaning that Gentiles don't need to become Israelites when they convert to Christianity, because God is not just the God of one nation, but Gentile and Jew alike

Makes sense .. Almighty God knows who are "the chosen ones".
..so, is it necessary to "follow the law" or not?
..and who says what the law is .. Rabbi's or Vicars?

 

[RJM]

No one can really avoid the Pauline question and the Scrolls are perhaps the only thing that offer the clearest distinction to this power struggle.

Only accepting Eisenman's theory that the scrolls are post-Jesus and that the teacher of righteousness and the lying priest are James and Paul? Most scientists and scholars think that's pure hokum?

 

[wil]

Seems in science we make postulates and then attempt to prove them, which works fine if we accept the facts without discoloration from the postulate.

 

[RJM]

Seems in science we make postulates and then attempt to prove them, which works fine if we accept the facts without discoloration from the postulate.

Exactly. We have to accept evidence that weighs against the postulate, also theories are open to peer review and testing attempts to falsify them, including using new methods, such as dna evidence in cold criminal cases?

I believe there is a sigma point system in science, of probability a finding is correct? The bar is set high.

 

[wil]

The NT is a collection of scrolls.

A side note. The OT was a collection of Scrolls. And the combined collection with some very big Scrolls.

Some big changes happened during that time between the end of the Jewish prophecy and Scrolls and the beginnings of the sharing of Paul's letters and the other booklets that were circulated. The scribes were bouncing back and forth between the old Scrolls and the new pamphlets and then of course methods of printing we're improving times they were changing. The outlawed Christian pamphlets where easier to hide then had they been Scrolls. And where read and reread and shared surreptitiously amongst the faithful the converted and they interested. The Bible's collection of pamphlets was our first book and along with the Advent of the printing press the latest and greatest best seller and do the folks like us with all the discussion of nuance we have hundreds of of languages keeping it on the best seller list

 

[Thomas]

I think it more a matter of understanding the context of Paul's writings.

Yes. I grew up in a Catholic family and my mum in particular was no great fan of Paul.

I was indifferent until I began my degree. Then you get the insights. OTOH, I was (and remain) a huge fan of Athanasius, but sheesh, that guy was a bruiser! He'd 'knock some sense into you' in more ways than one.

He was a champion of what is now orthodox Christian teaching, hence the saying 'Athanasius contra mundum' (Athanasius against the world) coined for his arguments with the Arians. So he's definitely 'our boy' — but if half what the conspiratorialists would have us believe is true, then the Church would have 'cleaned up' his biography. They didn't. That says a lot.

The NT is a collection of scrolls. Those in authority decided which ones were included,

Well who else was there equipped to make such decisions? I see your point, but often people make it as if highlighting a conspiracy? It's a moot point. It's the same with your own faith — someone edited the texts to arrive at an approved Qran. Does that mean there were texts which refuted Moslem orthodoxy which were destroyed? Unlikely. And who decided what was acceptable?

... the history of Christianity spans many decades, in which there was SERIOUS political conflict.

Yes, but we know that because they were recorded, that's the point. Again, the conspiratorialist would have you believe the history was rewritten (based on the fact that the absence of evidence is proof that the evidence was destroyed ), when all the evidence suggests the contrary.

Makes sense .. Almighty God knows who are "the chosen ones".
..so, is it necessary to "follow the law" or not?
..and who says what the law is .. Rabbi's or Vicars?

Quite ... rabbis or priests or imams? When you've answered that question, let's talk!

 

[Thomas]

Exactly. We have to accept evidence that weighs against the postulate, also theories are open to peer review and testing attempts to falsify them, including using new methods, such as dna evidence in cold criminal cases?

Exactly ... but in certain places this will never be accepted. The conspiracy theorist treats 'the authority' as suspect, presenting all manner of arguments to dispute the 'authority' version, but applies none of those rules to their own favoured versions ... there, for me, is the litmus test, and time and time again the conspiracy fails when subject to the same degree of examination.

Take the Gospel of Thomas. There is no more evidence to suppose the text is as old as or older than the canonical gospels, or more 'accurate' or 'authentic'; they'll dispute the authenticity of the canon, then accept the GoT without question... it's all a matter of bias.

And JEPD? Still undergoing revision and review, and still some staggering 'revelations' coming out, not from 'mavericks' or the outsiders, but from the hard grind of scholarship ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's a moot point. It's the same with your own faith — someone edited the texts to arrive at an approved Qran.

True, but it's not quite the same thing..
eg. The Qur'an is not "according to" anybody but G-d!

Yes, but we know that because they were recorded, that's the point. Again, the conspiratorialist would have you believe the history was rewritten (based on the fact that the absence of evidence is proof that the evidence was destroyed ), when all the evidence suggests the contrary.

I don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories. It is easy, however, to miss important points which only serve to confuse.
eg. our Lord Jesus == G-d

Quite ... rabbis or priests or imams?

Mmm .. the problem is that the world as a whole does not subscribe to ANY of them .. they change them as time goes by.

 

[RJM]

The Qur'an is not "according to" anybody but G-d!

What does this actually mean?

 

[usernamed]

......

So? To me that's quite clear? He wasn't a revolutionary.



.....


I'm sure this is a rhetorical question, and you will be pleased to supply the answer, lol?

EDIT
But are you using these quotations to show Jesus as a revolutionary, or to show that the gospels were made up by Paulists?

You prove my earlier point that Jesus while not exactly a revolutionary (he brought out treasures "old and new") he is coming back with a sword! This I find hard to fit into the "God loves all/universalism" that Paul preached and which denominational Christianity pioneered after the death of James and still champions today.

 

[RJM]

And JEPD? Still undergoing revision and review, and still some staggering 'revelations' coming out, not from 'mavericks' or the outsiders, but from the hard grind of scholarship ...

What is the JEPD?

 

[RJM]

You prove my earlier point that Jesus while not exactly a revolutionary (he brought out treasures "old and new") he is coming back with a sword! This I find hard to fit into the "God loves all/universalism" that Paul preached and which denominational Christianity pioneered after the death of James and still champions today.

Personally I really wish the Christ had not used a sword as the analogy here. It is pounced on by so many #!*s out of context.

EDIT
But the point is: did he say it or not? What part of the gospels do you want to accept as true writing, and what parts do you want to reject as false forgery?

 

[usernamed]

Admin: Would I be allowed to bring into the debate other outside links/sources to bring in other peoples points regarding Paul? Weblinks etc... Or c&p with link provided?

I have to ask first....you never know how people react and it might give me a chance to discuss things from a "more scholarly" perspective where the points of debate can be seen less coming from me entirely.

I have found one website that discusses Paul' political thrust as essentially "pharisee" and another from a "sanhedrin" viewpoint, both at odds with eachother but both strangely linked by details.