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 don't get [Harry's] reasoning they were not Jesus' disciples. If Paul mentions having met Peter then certainly the other men he met would have been disciples of Jesus just like Peter.
Well TBH I'm not sure but I always took "disciples" as a loosely-defined word meaning "fellow followers" or similar. I wouldn't get too hung up on the terminology; the key question is, were Paul, Peter, etc., any more literally, historically real or accurately represented in the NT accounts than Jesus? I think there's more evidence there, but it's still thin-ish and dependent on what the porto-orthodox chose to acknowledge and permit. For example we don't know a thing about this Paul fellow outside the NT accounts until Marcion (who was ultimately ejected as a heretic for teaching that Jesus was a different god from Jehovah) lauds him sometime in the early 130's and publishes the first NT canon, consisting of an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's letters exclusively. Or depending on which scholar you chose to believe, Marcion's gospel was the first draft of Luke, and Matthew, Mark & Luke plagiarized FROM it, meaning that the draft of the canonical gospels we now know was not finalized until well into the 2nd century. A minority opinion but one advanced rather convincingly by reputable scholars since the 1990s.
As such, Paul could have been an invented hero with an invented narrative, for all we know.
As you point out, document forgeries were rife in that era, to the point that even some of the canonical Pauline epistles have been outed as forgeries (in the sense of, "not actually authored by Paul as either internally claimed or traditionally attributed").
I don't get your reasoning they were not Jesus' disciples. If Paul mentions having met Peter then certainly the other men he met would have been disciples of Jesus just like Peter.
If Jesus did not exist, then there were no disciples, which is why Paul probably never mentioned any. Mark's fictional disciples were originally caricatures to attack the apostles of the Jerusalem church, and then the other gospel writers used them for their own purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
But that aside, Harry you surprise me. For an atheist you display a remarkable degree of faith. Certainly you know that nearly half of all Paul's epistles have been judged frauds by most scholars.
Correct, so I do not use them. As to faith, all my arguments are based on what is written in the letters. I have no reason to believe the 6 or 7 letters are anything other than a collection of actual letters to actual churches, although the evidence is that some of the letters (such as 2 Corinthians) are actually parts of different letters, either through error or design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
If we have that degree of uncertainty of about their authorship then how can we reasonably trust any of them are authentic? All we can ascertain is that one man wrote a group of 7 epistles because the writing style is similar. But can we be 100% certain even of that? Even Bart Ehrman says nothing with regard to this period is certain. The best historians can do is possibly to probably. That's not good enough for me.
Correct, and that one man calls himself Paul, whoever he was.
Especially Paul's letters, because the versions we have now are rearranged sections of his original letters. I am confident some his religious views have been lost because the second century AD Christians did not like them, so did not copy them.
That's certainly one possibility.
But is it also possible that the rearrangement could have been so others would have a better understanding of what he was trying to say?
If Jesus did not exist, then there were no disciples, which is why Paul probably never mentioned any. Mark's fictional disciples were originally caricatures to attack the apostles of the Jerusalem church, and then the other gospel writers used them for their own purposes.
Correct, so I do not use them. As to faith, all my arguments are based on what is written in the letters. I have no reason to believe the 6 or 7 letters are anything other than a collection of actual letters to actual churches, although the evidence is that some of the letters (such as 2 Corinthians) are actually parts of different letters, either through error or design.
Correct, and that one man calls himself Paul, whoever he was.
Apart from the literal brother of Jesus, I agree with Ehrman.
I have read that Mark was the first gospel written and it's anyone's guess when except that we can be sure it was after 70 CE because it talks about the destruction of the temple. I have also read Mark's gospel was basically a passion play copied from Euripides' passion play, The Bacchae in which Mark tried to portray the struggles between good and evil. From there Matthew copied Mark, refined it and added his own materials including all those ridiculous "Thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets saying..." to give his man-god story more punch and authenticism. And of course we get that even more ridiculous story of the zombies marching on Jerusalem. And then Luke copied Matthew and by this time well into the 2nd Century and added even more of his own creative materials like all those parables and refining what Matthew wrote even more. Clearly, church leaders were trying to define their avatar god Jesus as more than just a prophet son of god but a god himself and so they write John. Which just points out even more the deceit we find in the early church in not writing what they believe is right but what will garner them more converts--in other words selling themselves out for the almighty $. Christians of today don't read history--hell, they don't read anything having to do with their religion or they'd know all this. John was a product of warring factions within the Christian faith of either making Jesus equal with God the Father or keeping him subordinate to him. As I try to point out, early church dogma had nothing to do with the truth, it had everything to do with political correctness and expediency in what would most effectively sell their new religion to Constantine as the official religion for his new Holy Roman Empire.
If Christians would just get their heads out of the Bible and study a little they'd learn all this. Instead they just sit glued to TBN and the God channel soaking up all that propaganda that televangelists spew out at them. Pathetic.
I have read that Mark was the first gospel written and it's anyone's guess when except that we can be sure it was after 70 CE because it talks about the destruction of the temple. I have also read Mark's gospel was basically a passion play copied from Euripides' passion play, The Bacchae in which Mark tried to portray the struggles between good and evil. From there Matthew copied Mark, refined it and added his own materials including all those ridiculous "Thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophets saying..." to give his man-god story more punch and authenticism. And of course we get that even more ridiculous story of the zombies marching on Jerusalem. And then Luke copied Matthew and by this time well into the 2nd Century and added even more of his own creative materials like all those parables and refining what Matthew wrote even more. Clearly, church leaders were trying to define their avatar god Jesus as more than just a prophet son of god but a god himself and so they write John. Which just points out even more the deceit we find in the early church in not writing what they believe is right but what will garner them more converts--in other words selling themselves out for the almighty $. Christians of today don't read history--hell, they don't read anything having to do with their religion or they'd know all this. John was a product of warring factions within the Christian faith of either making Jesus equal with God the Father or keeping him subordinate to him. As I try to point out, early church dogma had nothing to do with the truth, it had everything to do with political correctness and expediency in what would most effectively sell their new religion to Constantine as the official religion for his new Holy Roman Empire.
If Christians would just get their heads out of the Bible and study a little they'd learn all this. Instead they just sit glued to TBN and the God channel soaking up all that propaganda that televangelists spew out at them. Pathetic.
Any Christian who is familiar with the development of the canon of scripture will learn nothing new from your version of history.
Although those unfamiliar will, perhaps be motivated to learn.
Christians have, by and large, accepted that the scripture they have inherited works for them. That's pretty much the nuts and bolts of it.
Some ( not all ) Christians are theologians.
Some theologians ( not all ) are Christian.
The Christians you refer to " glued to TBN" are your audience.
Take me to task for anything I've said. I'm prepared to defend it.
I can sum up all of what you say in a few sentences: There are a lot of people that believe The Bible (and other Theological writings) literally...and I don't think they should.
So...I get on the internet and harass, interrogate, mock, and insult Religious/Theist strangers in every way, from every angle...to assuage my overwhelming frustration that the percentage of people that believe Theological writings literally is growing, and it is my position losing ground.
I think you are all delusional fanatics that embrace woo, woo, woo, woooooo!
There ya go...just copy and past that...and you will save lots of precious hours of what is left of your remaining life.
And accomplish no less than you are now.
You all are working off a obsessive biased agenda to discredit and insult Christians and Christianity...and I know that. And that is a big factor to whether I view you as credible.
I don't know why you continually have your panties in a wad about atheists insulting Christians. As I've stated before... It's Christians that are claiming that atheists are going to burn in hell because they won't bend the knee and believe.
If anything is worth being discredited and insulted... it is that.
They won't leave us alone. So why should we be obligated to be nice to them.
Where I live a common question when you get introduced to new people is "have you found a church home yet?" Yet, to you and others like you... if the first thing out of our mouths when we met a new person was "have you realized there is no God yet?"... you would think that was terrible and hateful.
My tactic is this. They say "have you found a church home yet?" I then ask, "no, what church to you go to?"
Then they tell me the church the attend. And then I say, "I'm sorry, but I'm an (pick out a church with significant doctrinal beliefs than theirs) and we think the people in your church are going straight to hell... with all those atheists."
I don't know why you continually have your panties in a wad about atheists insulting Christians. As I've stated before... It's Christians that are claiming that atheists are going to burn in hell because they won't bend the knee and believe.
If anything is worth being discredited and insulted... it is that.
They won't leave us alone. So why should we be obligated to be nice to them.
Where I live a common question when you get introduced to new people is "have you found a church home yet?" Yet, to you and others like you... if the first thing out of our mouths when we met a new person was "have you realized there is no God yet?"... you would think that was terrible and hateful.
My tactic is this. They say "have you found a church home yet?" I then ask, "no, what church to you go to?"
Then they tell me the church the attend. And then I say, "I'm sorry, but I'm an (pick out a church with significant doctrinal beliefs than theirs) and we think the people in your church are going straight to hell... with all those atheists."
I got that same question a lot when I moved to Colorado Springs. I gave a very simple answer: "You don't know me well enough to ask that question. Mind your business." I eve got that question from the clerk at the grocery store checkout that I didn't even know.
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.
