TheInvisibleDan

Interesting point, Larry. Had Jefferson accepted Paul's writings, he would have found admonitions contained therein concerning the attitude of slaves to their masters and masters to their slaves. Danny

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man." - Thomas Jefferson

Shifra, Paul the Herodian and Courtier of Nero gives a fantastic overview of Eisenman's theory on Paul. I found especially interesting the proposal that one of Paul's associates may have been involved in Nero's assassination. Danny

I liked those ancient 1950s technicolor shorts with the goofy music, which featured mother nature's cute crafty critters breaking into cabin-kitchens rummaging for food and trashing the place.

Shifra, Had ever you ever thought about submitting your father's book to a publisher? Danny

Hi Shifra, Don't know if this will contribute anything to your theory, but this article on the Islamic Gospel of Barnabas has an interesting section on "Paul and Barnabas", as well as additional links on the topic. Danny

Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount". The world perhaps would have been a far better place had that been the only Christian writing to survive. Danny

Mr. WW - If you (and Larry) re-read that post, I was poking just much fun at my own self, at my expense. I apologize to you if this is something which went over your head. Danny

This past Sunday, my wife and I dropped off our daughter at Brown University in Rhode Island for a weeklong course on astronomy and mathematics. I'm very thrilled for her, and while there to pick up a course book for her, I was blown away with the variety of material at the university bookstore covering studies in religion and the classics. What a wealth of resources learners and seekers have available to them today, both in print and online. And God only knows what fantastic discoveries our own children will see (and perhaps even make) in their lifetimes. Even as we speak, ancient mss. are being scanned for their 'underwriting', yielding material thought forever lost to us. It's a great time to be living and learning. Thanks Evan for your kind words. But I was more saddened for Mr.WW than insulted, if his posts are actually reflective of his personal attitude toward learning, and toward any "biblical research" done outside the old group. Danny

(lol) It's an old "Wonder Bread" commercial.

Let me break this down to see if I understand you correctly. "You" (=me) are just fracturing [ = "to break, or the act and process of breaking"] the truth (reader, fill in the blank_____) with pure [ spotless, stainless] rhetoric [art of oratory, of speaking or writing effectively, skill in the effective usage of speech]. Why, thank you. Why would I want to do that? Don't get me wrong, you might make an interesting subject, but I have quite a few projects in queue at the moment. Danny

'DrWearWord': When I knew next to nothing about the subject of "Gnosticism" years ago, I erred like you in assuming that this "sound-bite" definition encapsulated and represented the beliefsof all those ancient movements deemed by orthodoxy under the umbrella category of "Gnostics". In certain cases it just as well been a synonym for "heretics". But the idea of "salvation of works, not of grace"was not shared by all those regarded "gnostics" - they had their libertine-to-excess movements as well, from what might be gathered from Epiphanius and other "Church Fathers". But I also think there may be some risk in projecting and imposing this "Lutheran" dichotomy of "works vs. grace" back into the early Christian movements and their writings. It's oversimplistic, especially when contemplated further in light of Hardly sounding like an edict supporting the modern libertine interpretations of "partying-till-one-pukes,no-strings-attached" brand of "salvation" sold in various evangelistic circles. Before Luther, before Bullinger, before Wierwille, an early movement of Paulinists esteemed "The Gospel" and "The Apostle" of their twofold canon; "The Gospel" comprising the sayings of Krestus were regarded utmost as"the new Law", the "new commandments" or "edicts" of the highest God to be exercised and lived. For these Paulinists, the sayings in the Gospel were their new "torah", - no less the edicts of a "new God". So, the "new testament". The "new man". The "new wine". All fragements of ancient ads used in the promotion of this new religion. On the one hand, one will encounter intense rivalries among the adherents of the various "apostles". "Paul" attacks other apostles, assuming the superiority of his revelation over theirs; while on the other hand, polemical traces against Paul may be detected in material attributed to these other apostles. Similarly, there existed rivalries between followers of John the Baptist and those of Jesus - their relationship was not universally viewed as amicably as the orthodox canon depicts. Even long after Christianity emerged, there were still those which continued to pledge their faith and allegiance to John the Baptist against the figure of Jesus. They didn't consider John merely a "forerunner" hailing Jesus as the Messiah - to the contrary, they viewed Jesus as a "Roman Christ" and an imposter, the supposed "holy spirit" as a spirit "thoroughly evil". These attitudes have been preserved and passed down to us through the the literature of the Mandeaens (a few still found today in modern Iraq). I've hardly only "started". And I don't find it necessary to "break up" Paul - material attributed to him does a good job on its own. But if you need a primer in this area, Albert Schweitzer's "Paul and his Interpreters" might be a good place to start. As Knock's "Marcion and the New Testament". Or even any standard, critical introduction to the New Testament. Treat yourself to an afternoon at your local university library and have a look around. Danny

I appreciate the love-bombing. But not having heard back from you, I fear that it might turn out that you were a suicide love-bomber. Please let us know that you're doing okay, and everything's cool with you. If not, grab a sackcloth and join us here at the ash pile. There's always room for one more. You need not suffer alone.

Paul's epistles are not the productions of only one writer. I've personally detected (as a number of others before me) at least 3- 4 hands throughout canonical material attributed to "Paul", in many cases, within the same "letter". The canonical epistles are essentially orthodox reworkings and expansions of a group of writings which first enjoyed circulation in a much shorter form among the "gnostic" circles. The earliest known NT canon published by the Marcionites contained these shorter versions of Paul (circ.120-130), which interestingly enough, did not include "Acts" or the "Pastoral epistles", most likely because they had not been invented yet by their rivals. Now consider for one moment: the earliest known "Pauline" enthusiasts - to whom Paul was the only true Apostle - among the most intense zealots for anything Pauline - were vegetarians and ascetics- almost like Essenes, really - which practiced various rituals of water baptisms and fastings - which teachers and ministers comprised of both men and women. They didn't know, recognize or accept the version of "Saul/Paul" as depicted in our "Acts". Nor those sections interpolated into the Pauline material by their orthodox competition, which re-cast Paul in their image, and gave him a new identity and history, and tweaked his theology to counter the beliefs of the earlier movement out of which the figure of Paul originally emerged. Among the beliefs concerning the life of the apostle of this earlier movement, was that Paul had actually witnessed the crucifixion, and had even written "the Gospel". (which hardly accords with the spin of material on Paul in the later production of "Acts"!) Who was "Paul", really? It's a very good question, when considering there are versions of the life of Paul which preceded the mix presented through the essentially anti-Marcionite propaganda of our orthodox material. "Paul" may indeed have been an alias. I've heard Simon Magus, Marcion of Sinope, and even Judas Iscariot proposed. Danny

Awesome avatar, Watrix! Welcome.

Congratulations, and best wishes to them both.

In the gospels, Jesus takes every opportunity to "short-circuit" the law at many turns. How many times was He accused of “breaking the Sabbath” for one reason or another? The Gospel of Marcion (of which our canonical Luke is a later, grotesque expansion) opens up with Jesus at Capernaum inaugurating His work on the Sabbath, the “day of rest” decreed by the God of this World. He touches and heals a man with leprosy, a menstruating woman, hangs out with tax collectors and sinners (He had no interest in “the Righteous”), blesses the poor, the outcasts, encourages love for ones enemy, overthrowing “an eye for eye, tooth for tooth” for His God is kind even “to the evil and the ungrateful” -even proceeding to demonstrate such love and compassion in healing a Roman Centurion’s sex-slave (an act which really outraged the Baptist to great doubt and indignation), and atop it all, He traveled with an entourage of “certain wealthy women”, which I don’t think was the cultural norm of the day. And throughout all this, His disciples never really “got” Him. Between the gospels of Mark and Luke, I must confess as to actually feeling quite embarrassed for them. “They had no understanding, because their heart was blinded” (Mk.6:45-52/Luke 8:22-25); when He sent them out to preach into the surrounding territories for the purpose of proclaiming His Kingdom, they completely garbled his message - they declared Him as “John [the Baptist] raised from the dead”, “Elijah”, a “Prophet of old” and even “The Messiah” (In Marcion‘s Gospel, Jesus rebukes them strongly for these assertions, rather than praising them -Peter in particular -as depicted in our canonical versions).Even after the Mount of Transfiguration, His disciples remain clueless to his sayings concerning his ransom that should transpire at Jerusalem - “They did not understand this word! It remained concealed to them, that they should never grasp it. They were even afraid to ask him…” Further in the gospels, the twelve are depicted as bickering with one another over whom among them was “the greatest” , further on even encouraging Jesus to “command fire to descend from heaven” to fry those inhospitable Samaritans - to which Jesus replied “You do not understand the kind of Spirit…the Son of Man came not to destroy souls, but to save them”. They could not entirely leave all behind, and let go the old religion. Which compelled Jesus to ultimately commission 70 new disciples, whose mission enjoyed great success, in contrast to the earlier failed mission of the twelve. I subscribe to the possibility that Paul may have actually been among this wave of disciples mentioned in Luke 10, as opposed to the depiction of Paul in the material of “Acts”, which is extremely problematic for some reasons raised by others here. Temple Lady’s “Paul the Mythmaker” (by Hyram Maccoby, I recall) points to the various contradictions between the “Paul” of Acts and what Paul himself writes in Galatians (though I would also recommend A. Powell Davies’ “The First Christian”, which no doubt influenced Rabbi Maccoby in his work). The compilation of the canonical Luke-Acts probably emerged about the same time as the pseudo-Pauline works of 1 & 2 Timothy, about the middle of the second century, most specifically to counter the rival Marcionite movement, which had compiled and circulated the earliest known NT canon at the time. "Acts" is somewhat of a prototype for the tall tales found in "The Way: Living in Love" centuries later - complete rubbish, produced by balding, middle-aged flunkies in checkered togas, using old wine bottles to shake their martinis. Danny

Hi Shifra, I heard my name being paged over the Worldmart loudspeaker, and came rushing up to the GS courtesy booth as fast as I could. Robert Eisenman’s “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” is a good (very long) read , if you haven’t got a copy already. Your theory provoked an entertaining thought on the heels of the “Lonnie Frisbee” thread . Could “Paul” have indeed been a spy who infiltrated the early Christian movement, steering it in a whole different direction (favorable to the Roman government) , in much the same way our desperate “martini-swilling-plaid-pant-squares-pretending-to-be-hip” middle-aged guys did with the 60s Jesus freaks - ultimately transforming this filthy hippy pool into an army of squeaky-clean, fundamentalist right-wingers of one mutated form or another? And Could Wierwille ( and other pastors) have been on the FBI’s “lockbox” payroll at one time? It’s so insane…that it just might be true. Look forward to hearing more on your theory.

Loose pages out of the "Advanced Class" syllabus, hung upside down from the rafters in the attic to render it more "potent".

In a top-secret NASA mission, Disney's cryogenic seed was shot into outer space, where it descended into a "Black Hole", emerging on the other side in that phantom zone of "the Great Deep" - where all frozen spermcicles are farmed by a host of gigantic archangels for producing baby "Derbil Spurts". Or something to that effect.

Disney is reputed to be a frozen sperm-cicle.

Lonnie's notion that Jesus came "from another world" would have found abundant confirmation in the beliefs of some of the earliest Christian movements. It's too bad the "Jesus freaks" didn't hook up with others better acquainted with early Christian history, or that Harnack's "Marcion" (still not translated into English until the 1980s) wasn't more readily accessible to that generation at the time. They would have encountered a wonderous playground where to explore and expand their minds, their ideas. Even for all the supposed "wealth" which came to any of us here via the Way, appears to me now by and large devoid of a wider comprehension and appreciation of Christian history, because at some point the youthful spirit of open inquiry and expression became choked in these franchises lorded over by desperate opportunist, middle-aged martini-sipping, sideburn-sporting, wide-lapel-checkered-pant squares pretending to be hipsters. In any event, this documentary does well in illustrating the wider context of our own personal experiences, showing that we were not alone or unique in our "special" group, or in how nasty it could become, even the more supposedly successful ones to which Lonnie contributed. This is underscored for me when browsing the articles and forums of an ex-pentecostal & ex-charismatic website. Anyone going there will encounter many startling resemblances to our own background and experiences - it's almost like looking into a mirror. Danny

Or they could splice the DNA with that of pot belly pigs, so we can have for pets pint-sized wooly mammoths.

Excellent program. I can't possibly do justice in expressing all my thoughts on it in one post at the moment. But in joking to myself: with folks back then even getting "born again" tripping on acid, how many of the reported signs, miracles, and wonders (I wonder) might have actually been "hallucinations"? How could some of these "slain in the spirit" experiences be attributed to a form of hypnosis? (somewhere it was mentioned that this was also something Frisbee had experimented?) And could Dead Sea scholar John Allegro have been so far off course in his proposal that Jesus was a magic mushroom, or that Christianity started out as a mushroom cult? In that respect, the 60s would have provided fertile soil for a resurgence of a more "grassroots" form of Christianity. Lonnie was quite a unique charismatic. Fascinating stuff. Danny

No, but with a little cloning, they can roam once again.