• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Origins Of Christianity

A good example is Christmas. The tree was part of pagan rituals.

Co-opted by Christianity when I was growing up the pagan symbolic tree was topped with a Christian cross or an angel. Syncretic.

The Christian halo had pagan roots.

Look at the post WWII global culture.

Hip Hop started as a small American black music form. Today Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean cultures have adapted it and made it their own.
 
Framing it academically does not change the Greek influence on Christianity.
I have not gotten the impression that Learner denies that there was/is Greek influence.
Then you are not very observant.
Learner said, “Paul was an educated man. It would be quite natural for him to have dialogue from a philosophy base to the educated , or even just speaking to the Greek influenced gentiles...for example:” A philosophy base affecting the presentation is an influence.
I think you understand Leaner and his long posting on the form.

That Paul 'may have used Greek philosophy' as a means to explain is not the same as saying Christian theology is based on or heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.

Equating Christianity to Greek or other traditions is antithetical to Christian beliefs and the supremacy of the words in the bbile inspired by a god.. And a Jesus son of a one and only god.
 
Jumping over from a post by DBT.

A wide subject of which I have only an overview.

DBT: Not to mention Paul's plagiarism of Greek philosophy.

Aquinas was another major influence on Christianity. Read a book The Dumb Ox.


AI Overview

Paul the Apostle and the creation of Christianity | All ...

Paul's writings and ministry show significant Greek influence, particularly in his use of Greek philosophical ideas and rhetorical styles. Born in Tarsus, a center of Greek culture, Paul likely received a strong Greek education, which is reflected in his writings. He utilized Greek philosophical concepts, like those of Plato and the Stoics, to explain Christian theology to his audiences. This engagement with Greek thought allowed him to bridge the gap between Jewish and Greek intellectual traditions, contributing to the rapid spread of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world.


AI Overview

Thomas Aquinas - World History Encyclopedia

Thomas Aquinas heavily incorporated Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle's ideas, into his theological and philosophical system, known as Thomism. He viewed reason, as exemplified in Greek philosophy, as a tool to understand and explain Christian doctrine, even to demonstrate the existence of God. Aquinas's synthesis of faith and reason, drawing from both Greek philosophy and Christian theology, became a cornerstone of medieval thought and continues to influence both religious and philosophical discourse.

AI Overview
The concept of "love your neighbor as yourself," though often associated with religious teachings, also resonates with philosophical ideas, particularly within Greek philosophy. While not a direct quote from any specific Greek philosopher, the sentiment of reciprocal care and concern for others can be found in various schools of thought, particularly in Stoicism and its emphasis on virtue and social responsibility.

The Golden Rule in various forms predates Christianity in most or all earlier cultures. It makes sense and is obvious, the Golden Rule is about maintaining social and civil order. The opposite of the stereotypical image of the American Old West where it was everybody for themselves.

Regardless whether it ca from god in a buening bush, the 10 Commandments were about Jewish tribal civil and social order.



The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that one should reciprocate to others how one would like them to treat the person (not necessarily how they actually treat them). Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages.[1]

According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-20"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a> A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-poster1-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#cite_note-poster1-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a> (See also the section on Global Ethic.)



The idea that Christianity has ever represented a who may have been an itinerant Jewish rabbi o0r Jesus was new has no foundation.




Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. While syncretism in art and culture is sometimes likened to eclecticism, in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system.
Your argument does not follow. The faith canmot be based on the teachings of the itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus because they are "actually" based on the writings of Saints Paul and Aquinas. But even the most casual reading of either of those men's works shows that they believed they were carrying on the work of the the itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus. Furthermore, the faith cannot be genuine because it is heavily based on Greek and Jewish thought. The exact two intellectual traditions that would be most familiar to a Roman-era itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus. The phrase "love your neighbor as yourself", is, you say, plagiarized. But you can't supply an example of a pre-Christian text that contains the phrase. So, no, it isn't. Nor is the itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus claimed, by anyone, to have been unwilling to quote earlier works. In fact, the Jesus of the Christian gospels is said to have quoted the Hebrew Scriptures pretty much constantly, as one would indeed expect any itinerant Jewish rabbi to do. I've never known a Jewish rabbi unwilling to reference Plato either. Gentile philosophy may not be held in as high esteem by rabbis as their own tradition, but they do not categorically reject all philosophies from all other faiths, particularly where those faiths and philosophies coincide. Such as over this Golden Rule.
 
I appeal to the experts here, asking if my ignorant gleanings are mostly correct or not:
* Islam has a 1400 year-old schism into two branches, but those branches are largely in agreement on the nature of the world, humanity's role, their Prophet's character and teachings, the duties of adherents, etc.
* Buddhism has three branches, but again there's wide agreement on fundamentals.
* Other Asian religions are even more self-consistent.
* It is specifically Christianity and Christianity alone which has fractured repeatedly into sects with completely different viewpoints and emphases. Even by the middle of the 1st century there may have been three sects with widely different ideas, antagonistic to other. New sects continued to "spin off" over the centuries, sometimes accompanied by violent fighting between sects.

Why was Christianity especially prone to such fracturing?

I don't know the answers to such questions. What little studying I do attempt focuses on very early Christianity, i.e. the 1st century AD.


Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. While syncretism in art and culture is sometimes likened to eclecticism, in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system.

We often see the claim at IIDB that early Christianity was an amalgamation of earlier teachings and "memes." I think this is wrong.

Yes, other men have been resurrected or granted eternal life, but "Jesus died for our sins." The best prognostic for this is in Isaiah, but the "servant" there "had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him." Not very close IMO.
Isaiah 53 said:
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Of course some of Jesus' teachings were not original with Jesus, but many religious scholars and philosophers who have studied these matters far more than anyone here state that Jesus' sermons were UNIQUE, different from prior teachings. His parables were novel, and even when they taught an already-known lesson, this creative method of teaching was original. Jesus' teachings are given WITHOUT citing scripture, and almost in defiance of Jewish religious authority: this was very unusual for a Jewish rabbi.

An example of a novel parable is the Return of the Prodigal Son. Can anyone show a precedent for the surprising preference for the disgraced son? Matthew 20 has a similar story.

"Love your enemies." :: "Turn the other cheek." -- These teachings were NOVEL.

Jesus of Nazareth had novel ideas. These ideas and their novelty must have been widely admired: The growth of Christianity was phenomenally fast: There was a thriving Christian community in Antioch, 700 km from Jerusalem, within a few years of the Crucifixion. The sentiment often expressed at IIDB that Jesus was a "nobody" or even non-existent is, IMO, uninformed.
There are way more than two branches of Islam, and hundreds of variations on Buddhism. Indeed, plenty of Buddhists would readily disagree that "Buddhism" is a unified whole at all. I'm not sure what other Asian faiths you are referring to, but Hindu history is marked by near-constant conflict and often war between various Hindu kingdoms and sects. Even most Westerners know of the Bhagavad Gita, which begins as an account of a war with a living god, and continues in large part as a diatribe against various incorrect traditions and beliefs.
 
Greek philosophy is not claimed to be divinely inspirated by the God of the bible.
The "Greek influence" dilemma solved. Nice one DBT 😉

Divine inspiration? It's certainly not Greek philosophy as you state above.. ..Paul didn't get it from there. (Pass that on to steve-b)

It was more than just influence. Some of it copied practically ad verbatim.
I'd like to see the comparison you speak of....Verbatim. Oddly enough - there are similar notions regarding Nordic god's Hindu gods etc.

Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“

This verse actually contains two quotations. The first quotation comes from The Kretika by the Greek poet and mystic Epimenides of Knossos. The second quotation comes from line five of the didactic poem Phainomena by the Stoic philosopher Aratos of Soloi.

#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.

#4. 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”

This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides.
The apostle Paul seems to have enjoyed, or at least had extensive knowledge of, classical drama, judging by the fact that he quotes from at least two different classical playwrights.


#5. Titus 1:12: “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”

This quote comes from the Kretan poet Epimenides of Knossos. This quote, like the one found in Acts 17:28, comes from The Kretika. In fact, it seems to come from the exact same passage. Epimenides is not mentioned by name in either of the places where he is quoted and The Kretika has, sadly, not survived. The only reason we know that these passages are quoted from him is because ancient commentators who had access to Epimenides’s writings made note of this fact.

Based on these two quotations, we can reconstruct the passage as a refutation of the widely held Kretan belief that Zeus was a mortal king of Krete and that he died there and was buried. This belief is also referenced by the early mythographer Euhemeros (whom you may remember from my previous article “The Original Myth-Busters”).

The authors of the New Testament must have either really admired Epimenides or at least seen him as a useful figure to establish good relations with the pagans because he is quoted, not once, but twice in the New Testament, and in different books no less, making him the most quoted non-Jewish writer in the entire Bible. It is also interesting that this passage directly refers to Epimenides as a “prophet,” which makes him one of a small handful of non-Jewish persons to be explicitly referred to as a prophet.

In addition to these five direct quotes, there are also passages, particularly in Paul’s letters, where Christian teachings are explained using concepts from Greek philosophy. For instance, Paul’s famous description of the body having many parts with different functions in 1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Platon’s Protagoras 349c, in which Sokrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole.''


So again, If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.




The bible mentions at least 30 + pagan God's IIRC .. Some gods are the same gods having different names,depending on the locations and nation. All quite similar.

Jesus is apparently Horus, Attis, Mithra..and um ...you get the score. According to some claims.

If the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, why would this be the case?
Because it's profound in many ways (to mention). Jesus of course is key.

That doesn't address the issue of why Paul used Greek philosophy even while claiming divine inspiration.


Why would Paul need the help of Greek philosophers?
Paul was an educated man. It would be quite natural for him to have dialogue from a philosophy base to the educated , or even just speaking to the Greek influenced gentiles...for example:
Wouldn't that be logically fitting for the educated readers of philosophy of his day, who knows nothing of Christ, would need Paul to be speaking to them on their platform in their language? We have here in the Gospels, a writer for every "class" and 'level' of understanding perspectives for all types of people.
(Although...corruption confuses it of course)

Sorry I was posting in haste. ok I'm off

Paul said that his teachings were not derived from human sources. In Galatians 1:11-12 he says; "For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man.''

Yet he in fact copied from Greek philosophy to flesh out his teachings.
 
Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
"For we are also his offspring", is the quotation? Peter is preaching to an Athenian audience and quotes a Greek poet? That seems like a very likely thing to do in fact... "For in you we live and move and have our being" is more of a reference than a quotation - it reverses the sense of the original line.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
"For we are also his offspring", is the quotation? Peter is preaching to an Athenian audience and quotes a Greek poet? That seems like a very likely thing to do in fact... "For in you we live and move and have our being" is more of a reference than a quotation - it reverses the sense of the original line.

The issue is related to his claim, "for I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man," when this can be shown to be false, that some of what he taught clearly comes from man, in this instance, Greek philosophy.
 
Politesse

My argument is that the gospel Jesus is largely fictional and influenced by Greeks and others. In the past you yourself detailed some of the pagan influences.

The reference to Aquinas is about the link between Christian and Greek ideals.

The scant words attributed to Jesus in the gospels can be found in earlier and contemporary cultures, Jesus is not in any way historically profound.

A supernatural human embodiment of god called a son of god would b extreme blasphemy to Jews. The question then is who were the target audience of the gospels? Certainly not Jews. Iwould be Romans and Greeks who would respond to Greek themes and images.

Fictionalized Jesus.

You used to ID yourself as atheist Christian or something like that did you not? So you were or are a follower of Jesus?

You are defending the gospel Jesus?

The OP is origins of Christianity. Are you arguing that the Christianity which began with Paul represents Jewish thought, principles, and customs? If anything Paul took the Jewish out of Jesus.

In your studied opinion what does the Christianity that stems from Paul represent?
 
#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.
This is likewise not exactly a quotation, and likely not a reference. The line in the play is "Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."
Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
"For we are also his offspring", is the quotation? Peter is preaching to an Athenian audience and quotes a Greek poet? That seems like a very likely thing to do in fact... "For in you we live and move and have our being" is more of a reference than a quotation - it reverses the sense of the original line.

The issue is related to his claim, "for I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man," when this can be shown to be false, that some of what he taught clearly comes from man, in this instance, Greek philosophy.
What is 'the gospel', according to this author? Do you believe thay he meant "a literalist reading of every word of a small selection of the public letters I sent to the churches"?
 
#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.
This is likewise not exactly a quotation, and likely not a reference. The line in the play is "Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."

Apparently the author of the article took some liberties of his own, yet It doesn't appear to make much difference to the meaning of the verse;
''And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.’'' - KJ



Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
"For we are also his offspring", is the quotation? Peter is preaching to an Athenian audience and quotes a Greek poet? That seems like a very likely thing to do in fact... "For in you we live and move and have our being" is more of a reference than a quotation - it reverses the sense of the original line.

The issue is related to his claim, "for I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man," when this can be shown to be false, that some of what he taught clearly comes from man, in this instance, Greek philosophy.
What is 'the gospel', according to this author? Do you believe thay he meant "a literalist reading of every word of a small selection of the public letters I sent to the churches"?

The issue is the question of Paul using the work of Greek philosophers to flesh out his own teachings, which is clear that he did, even while claiming that his work did not come from man, which it clearly did.

That is the problem. The claim of divine inspiration when the evidence supports the opposite, that much of what Paul wrote was neither original or divinely inspired.
 
The issue is the question of Paul using the work of Greek philosophers to flesh out his own teachings, which is clear that he did, even while claiming that his work did not come from man, which it clearly did.

That is the problem. The claim of divine inspiration when the evidence supports the opposite, that much of what Paul wrote was neither original or divinely inspired.
The argument, such as it is, seems to presume that any divinely inspired thinking or understanding must of necessity never employ or refer to previous and supposedly non-divinely-inspired thinking and expression.

If the argument is as it so seems, then the argument fails for having not established that way of understanding inspiration as the sole possible way for divine inspiration to be actual. That way of defining/describing inspiration denies any role for the human in the development of an understanding to follow from divine inspiration. However, expression that is divinely inspired is not transcription of divine expression, and divinely inspired understanding is not necessarily divine understanding.
 
The issue is the question of Paul using the work of Greek philosophers to flesh out his own teachings, which is clear that he did, even while claiming that his work did not come from man, which it clearly did.

That is the problem. The claim of divine inspiration when the evidence supports the opposite, that much of what Paul wrote was neither original or divinely inspired.
The argument, such as it is, seems to presume that any divinely inspired thinking or understanding must of necessity never employ or refer to previous and supposedly non-divinely-inspired thinking and expression.

If the argument is as it so seems, then the argument fails for having not established that way of understanding inspiration as the sole possible way for divine inspiration to be actual. That way of defining/describing inspiration denies any role for the human in the development of an understanding to follow from divine inspiration. However, expression that is divinely inspired is not transcription of divine expression, and divinely inspired understanding is not necessarily divine understanding.


The wording in Galatians has it - "For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man" - yet what Paul taught and wrote was devised by man, Greek philosophy being the work of man.
 
#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.
This is likewise not exactly a quotation, and likely not a reference. The line in the play is "Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."

Apparently the author of the article took some liberties of his own, yet It doesn't appear to make much difference to the meaning of the verse;
''And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.’'' - KJ



Quote:
''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''

The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:


#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
"For we are also his offspring", is the quotation? Peter is preaching to an Athenian audience and quotes a Greek poet? That seems like a very likely thing to do in fact... "For in you we live and move and have our being" is more of a reference than a quotation - it reverses the sense of the original line.

The issue is related to his claim, "for I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man," when this can be shown to be false, that some of what he taught clearly comes from man, in this instance, Greek philosophy.
What is 'the gospel', according to this author? Do you believe thay he meant "a literalist reading of every word of a small selection of the public letters I sent to the churches"?

The issue is the question of Paul using the work of Greek philosophers to flesh out his own teachings, which is clear that he did, even while claiming that his work did not come from man, which it clearly did.

That is the problem. The claim of divine inspiration when the evidence supports the opposite, that much of what Paul wrote was neither original or divinely inspired.

Firstly, Paul did not write The Acts of the Apostles, from whence came the pasage I was discussing, nor was the passage about him. Or are you claiming that he did write Acts?

Secondly, Paul made no such claim about "his work", but about "the message I preached". What do you believe he meant by "the message I preached"? I think it would be difficult to claim that Paul thought his letters were written by someone other than him, aside from his scribe of course. His letters are not the message he preached. The message he preached was Christ crucified, and he preached it in person. The letters are a follow-up.
 
So, again debate descends into parsing the few unconnected sound bites attributed to a Jesus whose true identity is not known assuming they are actually his words.

And parsing a very small limited set of writings in the NT.

Simple question.

Is Christianity based in Judaism of the day, or is it a synthesis over time of non Jewish influences.

I am sure there are books on it.

I know Evangelicals identify with ancient OT Jews, but they do not live as Jews.

The RCC bases its authority as ordained by god based on 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church'. Peter being the first bishop of Rome and a claim popes trace back to Peter. A claim of Christian exclusivity.

One can find all sorts of 'meaning' and ;truth'.

It becomes an academic debate of verses, secular or htheist.

Jesus never in the gospels never renounced being Jewish and reinforced Mosaic Law. Fornication listed with murder.

Christianity in no way is Jesus, it iswhatever one wants it to be.

Paul's version is one version. Paul references others preaching Jesus who he says are false, implying of course he is truth. Just like all Christian leasers today.
 
Last edited:
Also, what you call "parsing a few soundbites", I call "discussing the only available evidence relevant to the claim". I know not everyone is a big fan of scholarly study, but it sure beats uninformed emotional reactions and wild swings if you ask me. If we're discussing a text, at least our conversation is grounded by the objective reality of what that text contains or does not contain.
 
The wording in Galatians has it - "For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man" - yet what Paul taught and wrote was devised by man, Greek philosophy being the work of man.
That "gospel I preached" is, as Politesse says, the "message I preached", and that message is not the words used but, rather, an understanding which is merely represented by the words used. It is a message and an understanding which continually surpasses all attempts at expression; it regards and focuses on matters beyond the limits of language. It is, nonetheless, an understanding which itself calls for some sorts of expression, because it is an understanding hoped to be communicable for beneficial internalization by others.

The fact that previous expressions and forms of thought can be utilized in Paul's attempt at communication shows that the understanding which always requires yet further development and ever newer attempts at expression is, nonetheless, an understanding which is never uttely alien to what the audience already grasps. For the sake of any benefit for others that might come to fruition, it is absolutely essential that the speaker include references to matters already familiar to the others. This is simply a fact about humans and about how humans develop understandings.

Even if a divinity inspires an understanding, even if a divinity inspires a furthered development of understanding, communication and inspiration by that divinity is limited by (the limits of) human language. Even if a divinity provides what amounts to transcribed words, those words are not sufficient for - and are not identical to - human understanding, certainly inasmuch as words themselves very often do not assure immediate understanding on the part of those exposed to the words.

The fact that Paul or anyone else refers to or utilizes expressions authored previously (even by other human persons and regardless of the status of those persons) does not contradict or preclude the actuality of inspiration, even divine inspiration.
 
You might say Christianity as we have it began with the alleged split between Peter and Paul over mixing with Gentiles. Jews were and are very parochial.

There is reference in Acts I think about Pail carrying funds between groups. As it is today money would have been a motive behind preachers developing a following.

Paul would have needed money to support his travels.

Human nature has not changed much in 2000 years.


AI Overview
Paul did not completely abolish Jewish law, but he did argue that Gentiles didn't need to adhere to Jewish customs and laws, including circumcision and dietary restrictions, to be considered part of the Christian community. He emphasized that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through adherence to the law. While he didn't reject the moral aspects of the law, he did highlight that the law's ceremonial and ritualistic aspects were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding for Gentiles


Christianity should be called Paulism. Like all Christians who followed pick and choose what to follow.
 
Even if a divinity inspires an understanding, even if a divinity inspires a furthered development of understanding, communication and inspiration by that divinity is limited by (the limits of) human language. Even if a divinity provides what amounts to transcribed words, those words are not sufficient for - and are not identical to - human understanding, certainly inasmuch as words themselves very often do not assure immediate understanding on the part of those exposed to the words.
As Paul himself observes, perhaps we should never expect to see such things except "as through a looking-glass, dimly."
 
There is reference in Acts I think about Pail carrying funds between groups. As it is today money would have been a motive behind preachers developing a following.

Paul would have needed money to support his travels.
Not just in Acts, many of his letters mention fundraising. He seems to have supported himself as he traveled with his original trade (he had been a tentmaker, a conveniently mobile profession), but Paul was also supposedly raising money for the poor of Jerusalem. Of course historians have wondered, at times, whether they ever saw a silver denarius of that money.
 
Back
Top Bottom