Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you know how popular 'lying for Jesus' is amongst Christians.
There we go again. Quite apart from why an atheist wouldn't know the rebuttal to this, why would an atheist even argue it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Here's your problem with this, Trans: how do you know the epistles were written in the 1st century? We haven't a single scrap of manuscript from the epistles that date to the 1st century when they were purportedly written. We haven't a single mention of Paul in the 1st Century. Everything we have to support the existence of the New Testament originates from the 2nd Century at the earliest and possibly later. There is ample evidence to believe it was Marcion who wrote the epistles.
In plain English, Marcion WAS Paul!
I have seen the claim that Paul was invented by Marcion. I reject this for two reasons. One is that Marcion rejected the Judaic basis of Christianity. The Bible was indeed compiled by Rome mainly to counter this rejection by Marcion of the Jewish material.
Paul on the other hand uses the Jewish material to back up this Thesis (Romans).
The other reason is that Paul is a flawed, contradictory, self -justifying person and quite convincingly so. Anyone writing him would not make him such a flawed character. I believe that Paul was a real person and that he was at odds with the followers of Jesus rather than in lockstep with them.
However, if Paul (who was a minor enough figure at the time to slip under the historical radar - unlike Jesus, the historical silence on which is more of a puzzle) is real, and the followers of Jesus are real and thus Jesus was real, we can date Paul by events like the invasion of Aretus' army (36-7 AD), the Judean famine (45 AD I recall), and we have a date -framework.
I have already said that the 1st c figures like Antipas, Pilate and Caiaphas put Jesus into a convincing 1st c timescale. The dating is not the issue, and (for me) not even the reality of the events. It is how it has been altered -or not - as the gospel was altered and edited. This (or so I argue) can be found quite simply - by comparing the contradictory material and finding what has been altered, added to and fabricated.
I would say now that resurrection accounts are probably the best example of three contradictory fabricated accounts that mutually self destruct, with Paul pretty much providing the final debunk as his 'appearances' totally refute the Resurrection appearances and are just in the heads of the disciples, anyway.
The Nativity accounts also mutually self destruct. A long debate with the excellent Pneuma splendidly looked at the events during Archelaus' reign and cleared up a lot of 'excuses' that Christian apologists use to try to fiddle Matthew and Luke together. notably the missing governorship which believers try to slip a 'previous' governorship of Qurinus into. Aside from this still not being when Herod was alive (despite efforts to make Herod's death as late as possible) it is clear that Varus was prolonging his (syrian)governorship and putting down Judean revolts during the time Archelaus was in Rome. And no whisper of Quirinus.
Sorry. that wasn't the point, but I'm saying that Gospel credibility crumbles and for very good reasons and the more deep and detailed one goes, the more they crumble.
Thus or this is why I try to work out what is true story (and I think there was) and what is fabricated. As the Holmes dictum goes 'when you have eliminated the impossible, what is left must be the truth'.
...because Alexander was a real person that did real things.
Yep. In fact, the three 'historical' matters 'Troy, Alexander and Jesus is comparable. As we know Troy was at one time considered fictional. That isn't quite the case now, but the debate goes on about what is based on fact and what is not. Clearly the claim that there was only one Troy built by the gods and destroyed by the Greeks is refuted by the archaeology. So a possible factual basis is credible, but a divine -intervention claim is totally debunked.
Now with Alexander, the situation is a lot more reliable There'a history, there are coins, cities named after him. The events of his time supported by archaeology. But should we accept everything that is claimed? The Divine birth? That odd tale of the 'Gordian knot?' There are matters that we can doubt, but the basis is reliable enough. If anyone doubts, I suppose we could look at the historical and archaeological support for Alexander.
What do we have with Jesus? A historical framework, but surely enough to refute or at least strongly doubt some of the claims.
There we go again. Quite apart from why an atheist wouldn't know the rebuttal to this, why would an atheist even argue it?
I have seen the claim that Paul was invented by Marcion. I reject this for two reasons. One is that Marcion rejected the Judaic basis of Christianity. The Bible was indeed compiled by Rome mainly to counter this rejection by Marcion of the Jewish material.
Paul on the other hand uses the Jewish material to back up this Thesis (Romans).
The other reason is that Paul is a flawed, contradictory, self -justifying person and quite convincingly so. Anyone writing him would not make him such a flawed character. I believe that Paul was a real person and that he was at odds with the followers of Jesus rather than in lockstep with them.
However, if Paul (who was a minor enough figure at the time to slip under the historical radar - unlike Jesus, the historical silence on which is more of a puzzle) is real, and the followers of Jesus are real and thus Jesus was real, we can date Paul by events like the invasion of Aretus' army (36-7 AD), the Judean famine (45 AD I recall), and we have a date -framework.
I have already said that the 1st c figures like Antipas, Pilate and Caiaphas put Jesus into a convincing 1st c timescale. The dating is not the issue, and (for me) not even the reality of the events. It is how it has been altered -or not - as the gospel was altered and edited. This (or so I argue) can be found quite simply - by comparing the contradictory material and finding what has been altered, added to and fabricated.
I would say now that resurrection accounts are probably the best example of three contradictory fabricated accounts that mutually self destruct, with Paul pretty much providing the final debunk as his 'appearances' totally refute the Resurrection appearances and are just in the heads of the disciples, anyway.
The Nativity accounts also mutually self destruct. A long debate with the excellent Pneuma splendidly looked at the events during Archelaus' reign and cleared up a lot of 'excuses' that Christian apologists use to try to fiddle Matthew and Luke together. notably the missing governorship which believers try to slip a 'previous' governorship of Qurinus into. Aside from this still not being when Herod was alive (despite efforts to make Herod's death as late as possible) it is clear that Varus was prolonging his (syrian)governorship and putting down Judean revolts during the time Archelaus was in Rome. And no whisper of Quirinus.
Sorry. that wasn't the point, but I'm saying that Gospel credibility crumbles and for very good reasons and the more deep and detailed one goes, the more they crumble.
Thus or this is why I try to work out what is true story (and I think there was) and what is fabricated. As the Holmes dictum goes 'when you have eliminated the impossible, what is left must be the truth'.
Excellent exegesis. Now I will tell you why I think Paul is imaginary.
1. There is no evidence for Paul outside the New Testament.
Quote:
The other reason is that Paul is a flawed, contradictory, self -justifying person and quite convincingly so. Anyone writing him would not make him such a flawed character.
The writers of Greek myths made the gods horribly flawed. Being flawed is not the exception, it is the rule in writing. This is why everyone accepts Jesus as real. They've read about him so many millions of times he has become real to them.
2. The seven "authentic" letters of Paul do not prove Paul wrote them, only that one person wrote them. None of the early church fathers mention Paul. The whole period is so mired in opacity that we cannot get beyond mere guesswork, supposition and as you have demonstrated, "If this, and if that, and if this other and if that other, then...."
3. Paul's theology is so "all over the place" it's hard to pin down exactly what Paul wanted his followers to believe. This is an indication that more than a few people were constructing much of what Christians attribute to Paul.
4. He's completely unaware of a recent historical Jesus. This is odd given he supposedly was in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus was.
5. There isn't a single trial record of Paul in Rome, something inconceivable since the Romans kept such meticulous records of who they tried and executed.
6. To me the most damning evidence Paul wasn't real is the effort he makes to completely stamp out Jesus' theology and replace it with his own. No one so dedicated to Jesus as Paul admits to being would then turn and stab Jesus in the back by trying to nullify such a large portion of what Jesus taught.
I'm sure there are more. Those are just off the top of my head.
Excellent exegesis. Now I will tell you why I think Paul is imaginary. <snip>
Your dashed unrealistic expectations fostered by erroneous religious beliefs and your anger because you think God has somehow ignored you are feeding your overreaction and denialist beliefs. They are taking a wrecking ball to your soul and Spirit that cannot have a good outcome. You are injecting certainty where it is impossible and not doing yourself any favors. Cool it, man. You are NOT going to provoke God to "give you a sign" or prove to you that He exists. You are arguing against your own interests NOT for them.
Your dashed unrealistic expectations fostered by erroneous religious beliefs and your anger because you think God has somehow ignored you are feeding your overreaction and denialist beliefs. They are taking a wrecking ball to your soul and Spirit that cannot have a good outcome. You are injecting certainty where it is impossible and not doing yourself any favors. Cool it, man. You are NOT going to provoke God to "give you a sign" or prove to you that He exists. You are arguing against your own interests NOT for them.
Mystic, I think you think I'm crying inside myself that I lost Christianity. I'm not! I've never been so happy that I have finally shaken the Christian monkey off my back. I don't have to carry all this guilt baggage around with me. I don't have to tithe. I don't have to worry if I'm living up to Jesus' expectations of me. I couldn't care less what Jesus or any supernatural figure thinks of me. I know God, who I probably believe in, couldn't care less about me or what I do because He is a deist God--He doesn't intervene in our lives or judge us or do anything to us.
What I am trying to do as I've stated before numerous times (and I have no idea how you could have missed it) is to demonstrate with excellent exegesis and historical content that Christianity is a religion founded on lies and exaggerations. The early Christians had no god figure so they made Jesus of Nazareth into a god when he clearly started off as just a prophet of God in Mark. That's only one of many sins which I have enumerated in dozens of threads. I am trying to save confused people thinking of becoming Christian to think twice, even three times before they do. Christianity is not the good thing you seem to think it is. It is nefarious, and I don't want others making the same mistakes I did. Does Christianity have anything good to offer? Yes! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The golden rule. That's all.
Excellent exegesis. Now I will tell you why I think Paul is imaginary.
1. There is no evidence for Paul outside the New Testament.
Hardly more than there is for Jesus. Josephus on Jesus is at least partly forged and good reason to suppose it all is. The 'James' reference, too, is likely a different 'James' altogether and the Jesus he was a brother of is more likely Jesus son of Damnaeus which the passage is really about. After the death of James he got the job of High Priest. Tacitus is more probably relating the claims of Christians than Roman records, Suetonius the same - if his 'Chreshtus' is even Jesus at all. The other supposed historical references are even less helpful.
And Jesus was surely going to attract more notice than Paul did.
Quote:
The writers of Greek myths made the gods horribly flawed. Being flawed is not the exception, it is the rule in writing. This is why everyone accepts Jesus as real. They've read about him so many millions of times he has become real to them.
I can tell you that I do not find the gospel Jesus very attractive. He is moody, snappish, contradictory and not good for social health. There is some material examining the Sermon on the Mount - supposedly the best summing up of his advice to society. It shows it to be far less god than is generally supposed.
Quote:
2. The seven "authentic" letters of Paul do not prove Paul wrote them, only that one person wrote them. None of the early church fathers mention Paul. The whole period is so mired in opacity that we cannot get beyond mere guesswork, supposition and as you have demonstrated, "If this, and if that, and if this other and if that other, then...."
Yet they fit nicely into the history of the time. So does Jesus of course. Somebody had to start gentile -friendly Christianity off and Marcion is surely too late.
Quote:
3. Paul's theology is so "all over the place" it's hard to pin down exactly what Paul wanted his followers to believe. This is an indication that more than a few people were constructing much of what Christians attribute to Paul.
I agree that Paul's arguments are flawed, but that doesn't mean that he didn't write them. In fact, I'm inclined to think that someone who 'made paul up' would have done a better job. Paul in the course of his letters appears to modify (if not moderate) is views in the course of the letters. The flaws rather persuade me of their authenticity.
Quote:
4. He's completely unaware of a recent historical Jesus. This is odd given he supposedly was in Jerusalem at the same time Jesus was.
I think that he wasn't so much unaware of the 'jesus in the flesh' but didn't care about him. If Jesus has really spouted the Paulinist views we find in the Gospels, he'd have been quoting that, rather than mangled quotes from the OT, and a 'gospel' that he seems to have worked out for himself.
Quote:
5. There isn't a single trial record of Paul in Rome, something inconceivable since the Romans kept such meticulous records of who they tried and executed.
The story ends around 60 AD. It is assumed that he appealed to rome, was sent there and was done to death by Nero. So far as i know, this is just the views of Luke (who wrote Acts) and there is no real reason to suppose that he ever went there.
Quote:
6. To me the most damning evidence Paul wasn't real is the effort he makes to completely stamp out Jesus' theology and replace it with his own. No one so dedicated to Jesus as Paul admits to being would then turn and stab Jesus in the back by trying to nullify such a large portion of what Jesus taught.
Paul was dedicated not to the Jesus of Jewish Messianism, as were the disciples, but a Jesus of his own invention. So far as theology goes. The Gospels, I would argue, are not so much eflecting Jesus' views, but Paul's but moved along considerably so that Pauk's rejection of Jewish law as being useful for salvation becomes a positive hatred to Judaism as a barrier to salvation.
Quote:
I'm sure there are more. Those are just off the top of my head.
Any that you can think of. I could be quite wrong, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your dashed unrealistic expectations fostered by erroneous religious beliefs and your anger because you think God has somehow ignored you are feeding your overreaction and denialist beliefs. They are taking a wrecking ball to your soul and Spirit that cannot have a good outcome. You are injecting certainty where it is impossible and not doing yourself any favors. Cool it, man. You are NOT going to provoke God to "give you a sign" or prove to you that He exists. You are arguing against your own interests NOT for them.
There you are - a succinct and closely reasoned response to your arguments. How can I possibly compare with that?
Not really. Your situation resembles the kid who never got picked for the team.
The simile is lost on me , but....okay.
Afterthought: Mystic, I'm at a loss to understand why you're so offended at my posts. You're fundamentally against the fundamentalists too, aren't you?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 03-01-2019 at 07:40 PM..
Hardly more than there is for Jesus. Josephus on Jesus is at least partly forged and good reason to suppose it all is. The 'James' reference, too, is likely a different 'James' altogether and the Jesus he was a brother of is more likely Jesus son of Damnaeus which the passage is really about. After the death of James he got the job of High Priest. Tacitus is more probably relating the claims of Christians than Roman records, Suetonius the same - if his 'Chreshtus' is even Jesus at all. The other supposed historical references are even less helpful.
And Jesus was surely going to attract more notice than Paul did.
Those are all good observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I can tell you that I do not find the gospel Jesus very attractive. He is moody, snappish, contradictory and not good for social health. There is some material examining the Sermon on the Mount - supposedly the best summing up of his advice to society. It shows it to be far less god than is generally supposed.
Very human, right? Nothing like the god he became in John's gospel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yet they fit nicely into the history of the time. So does Jesus of course. Somebody had to start gentile -friendly Christianity off and Marcion is surely too late.
Marcion is too late, yeah, which is why I think the epistles were an earlier effort though much later than the middle of the 1st century. I cannot believe a figure as prominent as Paul escaped notice by somebody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I agree that Paul's arguments are flawed, but that doesn't mean that he didn't write them. In fact, I'm inclined to think that someone who 'made paul up' would have done a better job. Paul in the course of his letters appears to modify (if not moderate) is views in the course of the letters. The flaws rather persuade me of their authenticity.
And again we're back to "Who is Paul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I think that he wasn't so much unaware of the 'jesus in the flesh' but didn't care about him. If Jesus has really spouted the Paulinist views we find in the Gospels, he'd have been quoting that, rather than mangled quotes from the OT, and a 'gospel' that he seems to have worked out for himself.
I cannot see how Paul who knew Jesus in the flesh could avoid saying something...ANYTHING about his earthly life. "I saw him whipped and he didn't flinch or cry out". That alone would be convincing. The guy writing the epistles never laid eyes on Jesus and didn't know the first detail of his earthly life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
The story ends around 60 AD. It is assumed that he appealed to rome, was sent there and was done to death by Nero. So far as i know, this is just the views of Luke (who wrote Acts) and there is no real reason to suppose that he ever went there.
Exactly. No record of him being there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Paul was dedicated not to the Jesus of Jewish Messianism, as were the disciples, but a Jesus of his own invention. So far as theology goes. The Gospels, I would argue, are not so much reflecting Jesus' views, but Paul's but moved along considerably so that Paul's rejection of Jewish law as being useful for salvation becomes a positive hatred to Judaism as a barrier to salvation.
And there goes this passion he claims to have had for his own people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Any that you can think of. I could be quite wrong, of course.
There you are - a succinct and closely reasoned response to your arguments. How can I possibly compare with that?
The simile is lost on me, but....okay.
Afterthought: Mystic, I'm at a loss to understand why you're so offended at my posts. You're fundamentally against the fundamentalists too, aren't you?
I am not offended at your posts, Thrill. I am concerned that you have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Your denials and rejections go farther than you can possibly support intellectually. You are operating with certainty in an area where no such certainty is possible. We do not disagree that the fundies have corrupted and misunderstood the Christ narrative and the result is evil and lack of love. They do not understand syncretism and the spiritual template that underlies the various Savior or Avatar narratives. But the existence of that template as the way humanity is to evolve their spiritual understanding of God is the important point, not your focus on historicity and tearing down every semblance of the narrative as fiction which it is not. Fiction is a deliberate creation and use of imagination. That is NOT what is going on here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never been so happy that I have finally shaken the Christian monkey off my back. I don't have to carry all this guilt baggage around with me. I don't have to tithe. I don't have to worry if I'm living up to Jesus' expectations of me. I couldn't care less what Jesus or any supernatural figure thinks of me. I know God, who I probably believe in, couldn't care less about me or what I do because He is a deist God--He doesn't intervene in our lives or judge us or do anything to us. 
Your denials and rejections go farther than you can possibly support intellectually. You are operating with certainty in an area where no such certainty is possible. We do not disagree that the fundies have corrupted and misunderstood the Christ narrative and the result is evil and lack of love. They do not understand syncretism and the spiritual template that underlies the various Savior or Avatar narratives. But the existence of that template as the way humanity is to evolve their spiritual understanding of God is the important point, not your focus on historicity and tearing down every semblance of the narrative as fiction which it is not. Fiction is a deliberate creation and use of imagination. That is NOT what is going on here.
