Laura's Book "From Paul to Mark" is out!!!!

mbww

Jedi
I think what Paul did was teaching a radical new understanding of religion, but using the vessel of an existing religion, which in Paul's case was Judaism. Paul's Judaism was totally opposite of the Jerusalem Judaism. It was Judaism in brand name only, but clearly anyone could see it was not Judaism when the Law no longer applied.

The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated. It was Paul’s job to clarify the issue. Also it was a universal Messiah from the start, not just limited to the Judaic nation and that’s what Paul's biggest insight was, whereas Peter and other Jerusalem Christians were still limited in their beliefs. So Paul’s Judaism wasn’t any different, but he expanded the scope of the project after the event. Paul didn’t try to deceive anyone, he was just using adaptive language, the same as in the metaphor of having one way of explaining things to children and another way to grown-ups. It did help that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic and probably Latin too. Torah was still out there, if not for the Law, at least as a ledger of record for the 3000 year chronicle that led to the Jesus Christ manifestation. As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.
 

moyal

Jedi
I found more typos.
They are in the family tree chart (Figure 2.) on page 146. This is especially unfortunate, because this chart "should help a bit to sort the mess out" of all these confusing relationships between the members of the Herodian dynasty.

- Herod "the Great" and Herod II Boethus are named Herold
- Philip the Tetrach rules from 4 BCE - 34 BCE
- Herodias dies 43 BCE
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated. It was Paul’s job to clarify the issue. Also it was a universal Messiah from the start, not just limited to the Judaic nation and that’s what Paul's biggest insight was, whereas Peter and other Jerusalem Christians were still limited in their beliefs. So Paul’s Judaism wasn’t any different, but he expanded the scope of the project after the event. Paul didn’t try to deceive anyone, he was just using adaptive language, the same as in the metaphor of having one way of explaining things to children and another way to grown-ups. It did help that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic and probably Latin too. Torah was still out there, if not for the Law, at least as a ledger of record for the 3000 year chronicle that led to the Jesus Christ manifestation. As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.
I don't think you read the book. My understanding is based on the book, and my understanding is that there is no reconciling Judaism and its requirement to follow its Law and a Jewish Messiah for earthly conquest on one hand, and Paul's abolition of the Law and a universal Messiah for spiritual redemption on the other hand. In my view, it's quite deceptive to argue that Judaism and Paul's view are only slightly different, and that was the job of Matthew and the redactors, to harmonize this irreconcilable conflict.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I found more typos.
They are in the family tree chart (Figure 2.) on page 146. This is especially unfortunate, because this chart "should help a bit to sort the mess out" of all these confusing relationships between the members of the Herodian dynasty.

- Herod "the Great" and Herod II Boethus are named Herold
- Philip the Tetrach rules from 4 BCE - 34 BCE
- Herodias dies 43 BCE

Actually, no. It was all CE or AD in the old style.

Notice: Philip the Tetrach rules from 4 BCE - 34 BCE . If he began ruling in 4 BC and ruled for any length of time, it was AD rather soon.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated. It was Paul’s job to clarify the issue. Also it was a universal Messiah from the start, not just limited to the Judaic nation and that’s what Paul's biggest insight was, whereas Peter and other Jerusalem Christians were still limited in their beliefs. So Paul’s Judaism wasn’t any different, but he expanded the scope of the project after the event. Paul didn’t try to deceive anyone, he was just using adaptive language, the same as in the metaphor of having one way of explaining things to children and another way to grown-ups. It did help that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic and probably Latin too. Torah was still out there, if not for the Law, at least as a ledger of record for the 3000 year chronicle that led to the Jesus Christ manifestation. As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.

Have you read the book?
 

John G

The Living Force
The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated. It was Paul’s job to clarify the issue. Also it was a universal Messiah from the start, not just limited to the Judaic nation and that’s what Paul's biggest insight was, whereas Peter and other Jerusalem Christians were still limited in their beliefs. So Paul’s Judaism wasn’t any different, but he expanded the scope of the project after the event. Paul didn’t try to deceive anyone, he was just using adaptive language, the same as in the metaphor of having one way of explaining things to children and another way to grown-ups. It did help that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic and probably Latin too. Torah was still out there, if not for the Law, at least as a ledger of record for the 3000 year chronicle that led to the Jesus Christ manifestation. As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.

I don't think you read the book. My understanding is based on the book, and my understanding is that there is no reconciling Judaism and its requirement to follow its Law and a Jewish Messiah for earthly conquest on one hand, and Paul's abolition of the Law and a universal Messiah for spiritual redemption on the other hand. In my view, it's quite deceptive to argue that Judaism and Paul's view are only slightly different, and that was the job of Matthew and the redactors, to harmonize this irreconcilable conflict.
Paul could certainly use Judaic scripture to support his very different ideas compared to the Jewish Christianity of the pillars but Paul was very different. Mark in addition to showing Paul's theology was trying to help distance Christians (Pauline and former Jewish pillar followers) from the revolting the pillar followers had previously supported. Previously the Pauline Gentile Christians had kind of ignored the Pillar followers but they now had to avoid association with those revolutionary ideas and the way Mark did that was to rebrand the previous Jewish Christians as well as put Pauline Christians under the new brand. This did give Matthew a little wiggle room to make things less Pauline though obviously still more Pauline than under the pillars. Matthew also had to battle the emerging Rabbinic Judaism so it wasn't just Paul, Matthew was trying to wiggle away from. There were now three players.
 

mbww

Jedi
I don't think you read the book. My understanding is based on the book, and my understanding is that there is no reconciling Judaism and its requirement to follow its Law and a Jewish Messiah for earthly conquest on one hand, and Paul's abolition of the Law and a universal Messiah for spiritual redemption on the other hand. In my view, it's quite deceptive to argue that Judaism and Paul's view are only slightly different, and that was the job of Matthew and the redactors, to harmonize this irreconcilable conflict.
That's what you get if you subscribe to the idea that Paul "invented" Christianism based on just the abstract/spiritual Christ notion in his head, like a philosophical concept in Plato or Kant, devolved of any real-life events and historicity. And other 'creative minds' after him took the idea and run away with it further building around it a full-fledged new religion complete with a telenovela, theology, a set of sacraments, three centuries of very real persecutions and martyrdom, and the next two thousand years of spiritualism in which the Jesus 'story' worked surprisingly well.

Whereas if you accept the historical Jesus Christ, who was born and grew up in Judaism and fulfilled his mission in a given frame of time and space, it makes more sense to understand the notions of Jewish Messia and Christian Messiah. Torah did include the promise of a Messiah (Christ) along with the Law, a set of rules to abide by including differentiation from the rest of the world, dietary and behavioral norms, etc. With Jesus, Paul tells the Jews: look, it happened already, this is it. No need for the Law anymore, let's take this up on another level. Judaism however wasn't convinced, and insists the promised Messiah still didn't happen (i.e. Messiah hasn't arrived yet) and just keep doing what you've been doing, read the Torah and keep the law, business as usual. You can't beat it on technicality, since God doesn't take his word back (God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable) - as Paul himself acknowledges in Romans 11.

So does one religion or messianic belief exclude or cancel the other? Not at all. Is it the same Judaism as common ground? Of course, just the perspective is different for a Christian and a Jew. A Jew can chose to be a good Christian or just be a good Jew. A Christian can only be a good Christian.:-)
 
The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated. It was Paul’s job to clarify the issue. Also it was a universal Messiah from the start, not just limited to the Judaic nation and that’s what Paul's biggest insight was, whereas Peter and other Jerusalem Christians were still limited in their beliefs. So Paul’s Judaism wasn’t any different, but he expanded the scope of the project after the event. Paul didn’t try to deceive anyone, he was just using adaptive language, the same as in the metaphor of having one way of explaining things to children and another way to grown-ups. It did help that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic and probably Latin too. Torah was still out there, if not for the Law, at least as a ledger of record for the 3000 year chronicle that led to the Jesus Christ manifestation. As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.
"The Law no longer applied because it was superseded by the new Christ/Messiah message albeit slightly different than what Judaism believers had anticipated."

Could you elaborate on this thought?
 

mbww

Jedi
Have you read the book?

Actually, I did.

The book is thick with NT exegesis, history, theology, quotes and references from other biblical studies and other books, yet for the general audience I’m afraid it’s too hard to follow and as a scholarly study it may not be in the best company. I did appreciate the book’s all-encompassing approach having some of the known facts and notions revisited, others less known or just good to know as conjectures. Armed with a decent critical thinking, no thesis is anathema or trigger as long as it comes from earnest endeavor. If that’s a project that someone put effort and passion in, who am I to dismiss it or criticize it;

With that being said, at first I thought this could be a book on Christianity’s role and place in history in the big scheme of things more akin to the Secret History of the World, yet this is just what its title sounds like, a lengthy exegesis on early Christianity, with a heavy personal bias towards denial of general accepted Jesus Christ narrative and historicity. So, it’s not about the religion ‘psy-op’, but the religion ‘fake-op’.:-)
(I’m writing these notes lightheartedly on a relaxed afternoon Memorial Day, no mean to be mean or sound dismissive - with all there’s written out there on Christianity nothing can be taken as outrageous anymore and everything can have its place under the sun, all is learning even in denial, plus when it comes to history in general everything is relative after all, right? So these are not value judgments, just personal notes).

The Christ myth theory has been around for a while (over a century now) and while it’s an intellectual exercise that can be passed along as legit truthism, it's in the fringe territory. It sits somewhere in between the ‘suppressed’ ancient technology and the flat earth theory. This book in its entirety is built on the Christ myth theory, with solid arguments otherwise and re-iterations picked up from the abundant genre of its kind, bundles of notes and references which otherwise is a significant effort by itself. Only towards the end it diverges from the Christ myth and brings in Divus Julius as a punch line, marrying the two together. I suppose that’s the goal of the book and its note of originality. Now if you add two wrongs it won’t make a right one, and that’s the self-realization “unfortunately ...no cigar”;

I enjoyed reading-listening to the ebook as a biblical refresher with its abundance of text quotes, although not sure how palatable that is to the untrained reader. Moreover, I appreciated some of the comments and personal interpretation of pauline excerpts - yeah, I used to quip a lot on Paul, he’s the gift that keeps on giving. Some assertions maybe go a little bit haywire even from the Christ mythicism line such as “Paul baptized by John the Baptist” (how'd you come up with that?) and “Judah the Galilean executed in 19 AD by Pontius Pilate” (source!?), but again it’s the exegete’s freedom of interpretation;

I’m not going to take issue with any of the assertions made in the book nor with the Christ myth theory - for a Christian believer that’s a non-issue and for a spiritual seeker there’s more to Jesus than historical Jesus -, neither with the Caesar is so good I’ma take him home fandom. Can’t help noticing however that pinning Caesar as leitmotif for Paul sounds like the worst matchmaking job ever, as in: the movie was okay, but there’s just no chemistry between the two actors - unless Paul had a secret thing for shaved men dressed in togas;

My only question is, as George Noory would ask with a faux-bafflement tone in a radio-show at the end of the day: ‘Why would someone in their right mind, during the birth pangs of Christianity, switch Caesar for Jesus the Nazarene as a narrative?' Yeah, that Jewish son of carpenter that you deem not a good fit for the role. What’s the political gain or whatever other interest for pulling such a three-card monte when a gentlemanly Julius from the ruling nation would have made for a far better story to pass along and digest, and an easier ride to a sanitized new religion infused with pedigree, drama and people’s appeal…unless the obscure Judaic Jesus was the real deal. Anyways, I digress, enjoy reading the book and looking forward to the next one.
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
As for the proponents of Paul as both the prophet and the player in the new religion, that’s just a stretch of mind and can be used as a philosophical exercise, but otherwise a huge waste of time.
Actually, I did.
a heavy personal bias towards denial of general accepted Jesus Christ narrative and historicity.
Why don't you show yourself to the door and get out. Reading your words is a huge waste of our time.
 

primeaddict

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
There are obviously advantages to using an existing religion to seek converts, so it is understandable why Paul did it. We might be faced with the same dilemma as Paul. People today can accept Paul, at least a lot more readily than people can accept anything to do with the Cassiopaeans. There are some of Paul's teachings that align with what the Cassiopaens have said. So it might seem easier to present Cassiopaean ideas as a new understanding/interpretation of Paul as to piggyback on the thousand year old household name of Christianity. Paul seemed to do the same thing by piggybacking on Judaism. I think it is a mistake.
Another factor of the time for Christians was that Rome demanded tribute to their gods from all religions except Judaism. Judaism was exempt because it was considered an ancient religion which predated the Rome's. So Christians claimed to be a sub sect of Judaism to avoid defilement from offerings to other gods. If Christians professed to be a new religion than they would have to give tributes or face imprisonment. This maybe another reason for Paul's method of acceptance among the Jews.

Of course this conflict with Rome's demand for tributes to their gods did come to a head when Christians finally professed their unique religious status and were fed to the lions.
 
Top Bottom