A Different Passion of Christ

if paul had created christianity in its entirety, explain peter, john, james, and the other apostles. i do not doubt christianity wouldn't have spread the way it did without paul, or that he influenced the theology, but i highly doubt he made it all up.

the main point of this thread is to discuss how an ALT-Christianity, if it would exist, would develop without Judas' betrayal, or the story of Judas' betrayal, however you want to view it.

I suppose one would assert that Paul is making them up out of whole cloth. Which, honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they're all made up by the same guy, why are they all written so different? Hell, why don't they agree with each other more, or with Paul for that mattter? It smacks of conspiracy theory.
 
I suppose one would assert that Paul is making them up out of whole cloth. Which, honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I stated clearly in my previous posts that Paul never mentions a historical Jesus, but only a crucified and resurrected savior. Now, unless you're asserting as historical fact Paul's assertion of the divinity of Jesus, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Christian concept of Jesus as the messiah was invented out of whole cloth by Paul. And I further stated that any claim to the historicity of Jesus or assertion that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are historical fact must be proven using evidence.

If they're all made up by the same guy, why are they all written so different? Hell, why don't they agree with each other more, or with Paul for that mattter?

You're confusing two different arguments, (1) that Paul's preaching of the crucified and resurrected savior was wholly fictitious, with (2) that Paul wrote the Gospels/New Testament. At no point in my original post did I ever assert or claim that any one person (let alone Paul) wrote the Gospels/New Testament. On the contrary, I stated clearly, and more than once, in two different posts, that the Gospels have been heavily rewritten, edited and altered over many generations (the assumption being that this was done by many persons), which would account for the fact that the Gospels don't agree with each other.

I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (published in 2005) by Bart E. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

It smacks of conspiracy theory.

Sigh. You'd save us both a lot of effort if you could just carefully read what I post.
 
Passion

Ok, now assuming Jesus Christ was a historical figure (I think so, but anyway), I was wondering how or if Christianity would develop had Judas Iscariot not turned Him over.

Would Jesus still have been crucified or sentenced to death in some other way eventually?

Would Jesus not be seen as the Messiah because he didn't rise on the third day? Or would he have (according to Alt-Christianity) rise after a natural death?

How would Judas Iscariot be viewed?

And would Christianity had even caught on? Is the existence of this religion all thanks, ironically, to the man who betrayed Jesus Christ himself?
What is the source/sources for this story, other than the Gospels?
 
Passion

I stated clearly in my previous posts that Paul never mentions a historical Jesus, but only a crucified and resurrected savior. Now, unless you're asserting as historical fact Paul's assertion of the divinity of Jesus, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that the Christian concept of Jesus as the messiah was invented out of whole cloth by Paul. And I further stated that any claim to the historicity of Jesus or assertion that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are historical fact must be proven using evidence.



You're confusing two different arguments, (1) that Paul's preaching of the crucified and resurrected savior was wholly fictitious, with (2) that Paul wrote the Gospels/New Testament. At no point in my original post did I ever assert or claim that any one person (let alone Paul) wrote the Gospels/New Testament. On the contrary, I stated clearly, and more than once, in two different posts, that the Gospels have been heavily rewritten, edited and altered over many generations (the assumption being that this was done by many persons), which would account for the fact that the Gospels don't agree with each other.

I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (published in 2005) by Bart E. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.



Sigh. You'd save us both a lot of effort if you could just carefully read what I post.
I agree. From what I've read in many sources, was that Paul was not familiar with the Gospel Jesus because the Gospels had not yet been written during his lifetime.
 
Actually, I wasn't accusing you of taking that viewpoint. You yourself make that quite clear in your previous post. Rather, I was just responding to Errnge's post (boy is that a mouthful), since I *have* seen people take that position (not you, of course). I figured it'd be best to dispell it before someone brought it up.

Misquoting Jesus is quite a good work, and a good introduction to Biblical textual criticism. My only complaint is that it seemed to me that he occasionally tried to make it a bigger deal than it actually it is, that it was some sort of great secret that's been hidden. However, many of the facts he is presenting are already fairly well known to biblical scholars-hell, even my priest loves to indulge in textual stuff in his sermons. Of course, he's writing to a popular audience, some of whom probably aren't aware of it after all, so for them it may be a surprise. Especially given the amount of bibilical literalists in this country (blech!)
 
Top