Facing the Morally Bad Future

[FallentoReason]

One man, one idea, and an idea that was against most of Jewish thought, I thought you were interested in the history and not one person's philosophy.

What I've been implicitly saying is that history points towards one of many men's philosophy this whole time.

I did take those references out, not before I read them. Also I'm not sure what you mean I'm catching on.
Paul never taught about a spiritual Christ as you state, Paul started out persecuting Christians that believed in the physical Christ, he was part of those who stoned Stephen to death. Why do you think he persecuted these Christians, because he was part of the Temple crowd, those who also believed there would be a physical Christ, just not this One. Paul writes many times about being with the disciples, those who were there with Christ while He was on earth. He refers to the resurrection as a physical event. There is so much Paul has to say about a physical Christ, I can not understand how it's possible that you see he teaches of an allegorical Christ. Paul was always speaking of literal events. Most people who get confused about Paul's writings are the ones who question that he did not write about the life of Christ. Paul knew others had already accomplished this and had no need to repeat it. He also was preaching to the Gentiles who would not necessarily need to know the daily details of His life.

To begin with, Paul never once quotes Jesus. Secondly, he never speaks of the life of Jesus; where he was born, his mother Mary, his father Joseph, miracles, parables, his trial... pretty much take your pick from the Gospels and Paul wouldn't have the slightest clue.

In Galatians 1:9-12 he makes a pretty explicit statement of where he has gotten his wisdom from:

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Through revelation OF Jesus Christ, not FROM Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:1-6

1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Again, the mysteries (I'll get to that in a second) have been revealed by the Spirit. If all these Christians believed in a physical Christ, then a) how is any of this a mystery? He was just on earth, there should be no mystery about anything. b) He says that the Gentiles have 'become fellow-heirs' through the gospel i.e. good news. There is no physical Jesus, NOR Christians. Paul never uses the word Christian once and the reason being because of the mystery cults of the time. It was all one big collection of slightly differing beliefs from Mithras to other cults like that of Osiris, which all believed in the 'mysteries' of saviour gods like Jesus and his Father.

These are just two examples. His letters are plagued with similar phrases. I also believe he uses the word 'mystery' 25 times if my memory serves me right.

Yes we are still talking about historical events, you are the one who said that it was historical events that caused your unbelief. Paul never writes about anyone he associated with who had an allegorical-philosophical idea of Christ. He never lived his life in a manner that would speak of that kind of idea.

I believe I have shown enough evidence throughout threads that the burden of proof lies with you in terms of showing me where 'genuine Christianity' lies within the NT. As I said, Paul repeatedly refers to the mysteries of Christ and revelation through the Spirit, which sounds awfully different to what is preached today.

P.s. I also looked up the rest of Paul's confirmed letters. All 7 were in fact written before Mark, which is important information here.

That statement you will have to prove, Philo is a man that believed his way and it did not speak to the way the Jewish people believed, they always believed in a physical Messiah, never a spiritual One, they believed Christ would come and restore the throne of David and free them from the slavery-captives they lived as so many times.
Let me ask you this how do you fit John the Baptist into a philosophical Christ. This is one of the purposes of John and he gave his life for it.

But Philo was a Jew. The burden of proof lies with you. Show me where it says they believed in a physical Messiah.

John the Baptist is embedded within the pages of the Gospels. Therefore there's not going to be a problem with that if we're supposing the Gospels are allegory.

That is a copy we do not know that the original did not contain the resurrection. We see the copy of Mark as the earliest, this doesn't mean his was the first account written. Without the originals, which we will never have, we can only speculate about who's first and who's last.

The earliest surviving manuscript of Mark has no resurrection accounts. Also, according to the Synoptic tradition and Markan priority, it seems logical that Mark would have been written first. Mark is the shortest of the three by a considerable amount of chapters. Matthew and Luke have a good chunk of Mark plus more (in terms of chapters and things that Mark 'somehow' missed like a birth narrative).