Barrie Wilson, Ph.D.
You will discover that I contend the tradition “miscarried,” that Christianity became over time something radically different from what its originator intended. The faith that emerged was not the religion practiced by its founder. There was a switch. I call this the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis. This stance has three components.
First of all, the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis contends that the original message of Jesus and the Jesus Movement, Jesus’ earliest followers in Jerusalem, became switched for a different religion.
Second, according to the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis, there was an important shift away from the teachings of Jesus to those about the Christ.
The third component of the Jesus Cover-Up Thesis is this: it proposes a new way of understanding Christian anti-Semitism.
Paul’s religion was not the religion of Jesus.
There was a cover-up. The divine Gentile Christ was switched for the human Jewish Jesus. A religion about the Christ was substituted for the teachings of Jesus. Moreover, the religion of Paul displaced that of Jesus.
The Book of Acts presents us with a fictitious history of early Christianity and represents an unreliable source of information.
Some things I say about Paul and the Book of Acts are not run-of-the-mill observations. I point out, for example, how Paul’s religion emerged out of a separate revelation, not from the religion of Jesus as is often assumed. That is new. I also argue that the Book of Acts glued Paul’s Christ Movement onto the earlier Jesus Movement, switching the Christ for Jesus. That also is new, and I contend that this represents historical fiction on the part of whoever wrote the Book of Acts. Why the author of this work felt he had to invent this linkage is interesting and we will probe his probable motivation.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
You should entertain the idea that the Jesus of the gospels came after the Pauline Jesus.
Stephen said
Nobody planned all this. Could there be a more contingent, probabilistic process than the development of Christianity? Remember Emerson who grew dizzy when he contemplated the spinning wheels of history. There was no cover-up.
Obviously, you are part of the conspiracy. (And, yes, I am kidding, but I may be part of the conspiracy too.)
Alright, I’m going to get down to business with this video. (P.S., Richard Burton was a good actor.)
= = =
Steefen
Pauline Christianity called the Christ Movement, that is sort of interesting.
So far as the Jesus Movement, for the first part of Jesus’ ministry, I have used, “The Son of Man Movement.”
Paul Williams
Why was the religion about Jesus by Paul more popular/acceptable than the religion of Jesus?
Barrie Wilson
The audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
pick up at 8:35 / 57:52
I think Richard Burton was a good actor, but I do not think of him as a great actor. He unquestionably had a great screen/stage presence, but the range of characters he portrayed actually seem to me to have been fairly limited. But he is one of those people who could have read the phone book and made it compelling.
Steefen said
Alright, I’m going to get down to business with this video. (P.S., Richard Burton was a good actor.)= = =
Steefen
Pauline Christianity called the Christ Movement, that is sort of interesting.
So far as the Jesus Movement, for the first part of Jesus’ ministry, I have used, “The Son of Man Movement.”
Paul Williams
Why was the religion about Jesus by Paul more popular/acceptable than the religion of Jesus?
Barrie Wilson
The audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
pick up at 8:35 / 57:52
Steefen
Christ is more of a Paul thing rather than a Jerusalem church thing.
If that is true, Peter saying You are the Christ shows that phrase is not authentic (Matthew is using Pauline language), is that not so?
Matthew 16: 16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Before Matthew 16:16, in Matthew, the Cross References section at biblehub only show for “Christ”:
Matthew 1:16 …born Jesus, who is called Christ
Christ doesn’t seem to be a Hebrew Bible term explicitly.
Christ doesn’t seem to be a term in 1 Enoch or 2 Enoch.
Christ doesn’t seem to be a term in the second decade, 20 BCE up to that point.
Furthermore, Jesus, in the next verse speaks of the uniqueness of “Christ”: no one on earth would have said that: my Father in heaven [who? Paul who has died by the time Matthew was written] revealed that wording to you.
Comments?
Peter, why are you using a Greek term rather than a Hebrew or Aramaic term?
Born of the sun…
Judith you seldom post but when you do it’s always a ray of light.
I have an old recording of Richard Burton reading the poetry of Dylan Thomas that is utterly brilliant.
The audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
The whole “dying and rising gods” thing is completely overblown and tends to evaporate under a modicum of scrutiny. Get down to business and read yourself some Jonathon Z Smith.
Robert said
‘Christ’ is merely the Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic terms for anointed/messiah. Paul and Matthew wrote in Greek but the Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents were certainly known in the Jerusalem church and earlier.
Peter, merely called Jesus by a Greek term.
No, Robert.
Stephen
The audience was more familiar with dying and rising savior/god/human cults than a Jewish messiah.
The whole “dying and rising gods” thing is completely overblown and tends to evaporate under a modicum of scrutiny.
Steefen
I do not sustain your objection, Stephen. It was not persuasive against how Barrie Wilson, Ph.D. mentioned it.
If you think Barrie Wilson needs to read Jonathan Z. Smith, write to Barrie Wilson or leave a comment on the YouTube video.
Let us know.
Steefen said
Robert said
‘Christ’ is merely the Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic terms for anointed/messiah. Paul and Matthew wrote in Greek but the Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents were certainly known in the Jerusalem church and earlier.
Peter, merely called Jesus by a Greek term.
No, Robert.
Jesus supposedly did not speak Greek: “Whatchu talkin’ ’bout, Peter?, Aramaic or Hebrew, please?”
Jesus was not anointed by Mary of Bethany, yet. Matthew 16: 16 “Thou art the Christ” and the anointing by Mary of Bethany does not happen until Matthew 26: 6-13.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert