My Sordid Sins

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What Jesus is "reported" (by later followers, two decades or more after-the-fact) may be very little like what he actually said. There's some inference that can be drawn by agreement from the older sources about stuff like the Sermon on the Mount, but most of it seems to have formed (and grown vastly) in the decades after his death. By the time you get to the Gospel of John, almost 70 years later, the story is MUCH more miracle-filled, and the claims made so much more strident for the whole Jesus-as-God thing, that people call the first three the "synoptic gospels" (meaning "with one eye-view") and place John outside of it.

If you don't believe me, Google a list of the "miracles" they claim Jesus did in each of the books, in the order they were published: Mark, Matthew, Luke, then John, and keep track of the increasing claims of miracles and other wonderous signs performed.

The legend grew, and the signs are as plain as day, the moment you stop thinking of the Bible as emerging all-at-once in intact, modern form. The books we know as the New Testament weren't assembled until 300 years after Jesus' death... literally longer than the United States has been a country, by a fair margin.

[drfuzzy]

I have actually read a few articles that assert the Paul hijacked the whole "religion".  Some people believe that the followers of Jesus simply wanted a new type of Judaism . . . one not so limited by law.  The original followers of Jesus were still Jews.  And then Paul stepped in, claiming to have seen a vision, and started preaching a whole different take on the teachings of Jesus.  Many passages in his writings state clearly that he was at odds with the church leaders in Jerusalem.

In your own opinion, is what Paul wrote that substantially different than what Jesus is reported to have said?

Actually, in my humble non-theologically trained opinion - - (although, how does one study a bunch of myths about something that doesn't exist, and call it scholarship?) hell yes.  
Just scan through the gospels, and focus on what Jesus said.  He isn't referring to himself as a sacrifice, heck, unless you count the "my Father" quotes, he isn't referring to himself as god.  He gives a lot of parables and teachings for how to treat each other, and why following the law instead of taking care of your fellow man is NOT the path to god.  He talks a lot about the "Kingdom of God" but most scholars don't really agree on what that means.  But it seems clear that, according to the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, he was a Jew, who was envisioning a new type of Judaism, one that would benefit his people.
     There are many miracles attributed to this teacher.  Many scholars agree that in all of the "god" traditions of that time, the god or god's prophet would work miracles.  Therefore, the writers of the gospels, whoever they were, 30 - 70 years after the death of Jesus, inserted miracles, including the requisite virgin birth. We will probably never know whether they actually happened, whether the followers 10 - 30 years after his death had inserted them into oral tradition, or whether the gospel writers added them.
     But unless my memory fails me completely, Jesus never referred to himself as equal with god.  And while he supposedly hinted that his final journey into Jerusalem would not make the disciples very happy, he did not say that he was going as a cosmic sacrifice.  There is the quote about the temple "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" that is supposed to refer to his death . . . but seriously?  He has to refer to a temple?  He couldn't hint any better than that?   No "it's time for me to prove my ministry now . . . this crucifixion will not last . . . I have a greater purpose than teaching."?  No.  Instead, he is reported as spending hours in the garden of olives, begging God (so he's not god?) to let him off the hook.  Wasn't he supposed to be god?  Didn't he know that the pain would be temporary?
    The Jesus of the Jerusalem church was a great teacher, one who would breathe new life into Judaism.  The Jesus of Paul's church was a re-working of the dying and rising god, who had been known in various incarnations in the Mediterranean area for centuries.

[Combanitorics]

In your own opinion, is what Paul wrote that substantially different than what Jesus is reported to have said?

Actually, in my humble non-theologically trained opinion - - (although, how does one study a bunch of myths about something that doesn't exist, and call it scholarship?) hell yes.  
Just scan through the gospels, and focus on what Jesus said.  He isn't referring to himself as a sacrifice, heck, unless you count the "my Father" quotes, he isn't referring to himself as god.  He gives a lot of parables and teachings for how to treat each other, and why following the law instead of taking care of your fellow man is NOT the path to god.  He talks a lot about the "Kingdom of God" but most scholars don't really agree on what that means.  But it seems clear that, according to the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, he was a Jew, who was envisioning a new type of Judaism, one that would benefit his people.
     There are many miracles attributed to this teacher.  Many scholars agree that in all of the "god" traditions of that time, the god or god's prophet would work miracles.  Therefore, the writers of the gospels, whoever they were, 30 - 70 years after the death of Jesus, inserted miracles, including the requisite virgin birth. We will probably never know whether they actually happened, whether the followers 10 - 30 years after his death had inserted them into oral tradition, or whether the gospel writers added them.
     But unless my memory fails me completely, Jesus never referred to himself as equal with god.  And while he supposedly hinted that his final journey into Jerusalem would not make the disciples very happy, he did not say that he was going as a cosmic sacrifice.  There is the quote about the temple "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" that is supposed to refer to his death . . . but seriously?  He has to refer to a temple?  He couldn't hint any better than that?   No "it's time for me to prove my ministry now . . . this crucifixion will not last . . . I have a greater purpose than teaching."?  No.  Instead, he is reported as spending hours in the garden of olives, begging God (so he's not god?) to let him off the hook.  Wasn't he supposed to be god?  Didn't he know that the pain would be temporary?
    The Jesus of the Jerusalem church was a great teacher, one who would breathe new life into Judaism.  The Jesus of Paul's church was a re-working of the dying and rising god, who had been known in various incarnations in the Mediterranean area for centuries.

I see...that could explain a lot of the differences between various churches.

[robvalue]

A lot of Paul's letters are suspected of being forgeries.

Carrier holds that all the letters referring to a human Jesus are among them.

[Minimalist]

A lot of Paul's letters are known forgeries. The rest have been worked over by later editors to make them say what the fucking church needed them to say.

[robvalue]

Some bibles even reference forgeries, don't they?

Except they call them "later interpolations" of course.

[Combanitorics]

A lot of Paul's letters are suspected of being forgeries.

Carrier holds that all the letters referring to a human Jesus are among them.

I didn't know that.  How do you tell real Bible from forged Bible?  Is it a case of someone only pretending to be Paul?  If so, was there also a real Paul?

[robvalue]

That's the job of historians. They study various aspects of all the evidence, and look for differences in style, language and so on. Also dating them to see when they were written. I don't know too much about all this, but I'm sure Min can elaborate

So yeah, it's someone later pretending to be "Paul". Whether or not there ever was a real "Paul" is another question. There was someone who wrote the letters. How closely he actually matches what the letters contain, if at all, is going to be extremely hard to tell. I couldn't comment in this case. If he was real, I'd still expect the accounts to be exaggerated/edited.

Here's a little something by a leading biblical scholar:

http://youtu.be/63QvWMBxsW4

[drfuzzy]

What Jesus is "reported" (by later followers, two decades or more after-the-fact) may be very little like what he actually said. There's some inference that can be drawn by agreement from the older sources about stuff like the Sermon on the Mount, but most of it seems to have formed (and grown vastly) in the decades after his death. By the time you get to the Gospel of John, almost 70 years later, the story is MUCH more miracle-filled, and the claims made so much more strident for the whole Jesus-as-God thing, that people call the first three the "synoptic gospels" (meaning "with one eye-view") and place John outside of it.

If you don't believe me, Google a list of the "miracles" they claim Jesus did in each of the books, in the order they were published: Mark, Matthew, Luke, then John, and keep track of the increasing claims of miracles and other wonderous signs performed.

The legend grew, and the signs are as plain as day, the moment you stop thinking of the Bible as emerging all-at-once in intact, modern form. The books we know as the New Testament weren't assembled until 300 years after Jesus' death... literally longer than the United States has been a country, by a fair margin.

Not only that, but this morning I was wondering (again) about the origins of the gospels, as I listened to the Beatitudes being read.  

In Roman-ruled Judea, there were very few literate individuals.  We know that the Jews (and Romans?) had "scribes" - and that it was a well-paying job.  We know that the people had a very strong oral tradition.   I read somewhere that even the schools, which taught Jewish law to wealthy young men, were almost never "reading from scrolls", they were memorizing what was told to them.   Most people assert that Jesus was illiterate, although in Luke 4:16 it states that he stood up in the synagogue to read from a passage in Isaiah.   IF Jesus could read, he somehow got training that most young men of his time and place did not have.
    BUT, he apparently did not take the time to write down his teachings.  His (mostly fisherman) followers did not.  But either someone did, and it became the "Q" document, or the gospel writers just collected good stories from . . . what the early church told them?   The problem with a completely oral tradition is:  I heard a short sermon only a two hours ago.  My memory is decent.  And I can barely tell you what the main points were.
    And yet, someone, 2-3 decades after the death of Jesus, writes down a sermon Jesus gave as a word-for-word accounting.
 
    Have none of the people who believe the Bible was literally written by God ever played the game of "telephone"?  A whole bunch of stuff just doesn't make sense here.

[vorlon13]

I'm imagining some reluctant angel taking Jesus aside and giving Him the bad news he is going to have to do another stint on the cross to redeem just the sins I have committed with my anus.