Toto

Graves is outdated, Remsburg possibly, but you can't claim that about Doherty.

If I can untangle that sentence, no one claims that there were not multiple wisdom sages and Jewish revolutionaries in the first century. The question is, was there a wisdom teacher who was crucified as a revolutionary and inspired the formation of the Christian religion? We have no evidence of such a person.

This is a hard argument, because you then bear the burden of proof that Jesus did not exist, and the evidence is scarse. Most people try to win the argument by throwing the burden of proof on the other side.

If you ignore the historical basis of Christianity, which is the crux of the belief for many evangelical Christians, there are still many reasons not to be a Christian, but they generally fall outside the scope of this forum.

Zeichman

I assumed it was directed towards me. And it seems that virtually everyone who specializes in the field of New Testament studies DOES find it convincing.

I think the image of "respectful disagreement" is a misassesment. I think that Paul brings up Peter's earlier "hypocracy" points to the fact that there was still animosity between the two.
He has yet to address the issue of Paul's first person claim to have witnessed it, and the fact that essentially all scholars believe such an event to have happened! Reiterating the original thesis is not an argument.
That doesn;t mean that the ancient mind could not have percieved it to have been a miracle, despite the common nature of the event.
These scholars ARE NOT apologists. Besides, that IS ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html). If one is an apologist it does not mean that they are wrong. Please address the issue of Paul which I have repeatedly brought up or stop making this claim. Or address ANYthing I say.

yalla

Galatians 1.16 in which Paul states that god "was pleased to reveal his son IN me" is interesting.

Note "IN".

Not "TO'', as appears in many versions of this verse but, apparently, should not be considered as valid a translation of the Gk. as "in".

"In" suggests to me, and not being religious I find this difficult to express, some sort of mental conversion, intellectual/emotional decision....whatever.
I suspect that such could occur over a period of time, a growing inner conviction and certainty that ...[insert Paul's beliefs]...is correct, true, THE truth.

But "to'' can be interpreted as a outer vision....the shining light sort of thing as in Acts or perhaps an hallucination.

So what I find interesting, particularly given the lack of consensus as to whether the author of Acts actually had access to the writings of Paul, is why did the author of Acts choose to describe Paul's conversion in terms of an experience, vision, that was also witnessed, with some variations in what they witnessed, by Paul's alleged companions?
An external event compared to what Paul describes an an internal event.

Elsewhere Paul describes his learning about JC as a "revelation" [Gal 1.12]
I have no idea what Gk. this translates but note that a revelation need not necessarily imply an external, able to be seen by others, type event but can, again, be an internal /coming to a decision / ah now I understand type of thing.

Also interesting are some comments that I have read along the way about the decision, by Bible editors, to translate ''en" in this context as "to'' rather than the more usual, valid "in".
Presuming "in" is at least equally, or perhaps more, valid than "to'' why would these editors choose to go with "to"?

So without looking elsewhere, eg 1Cor 15.8, at this stage I would suggest that the above does not constitute a claim by Paul that he saw JC at all.

Kosh

Perhaps they were translating through Gospel colored glasses (if I may paraphrase Doherty!)

Sarpedon

Forgive me Zeichman, I assumed that you were a "standard christian"--a thing that seems to be a very rare bird in these parts. I have in the past restricted my arguments to the bible, because many christians won't accept non-biblical sources. Now it is my fate to be arguing someone who doesn't accept the bible. (sigh)

I confess that I am not sufficiently learned in early christian writings to argue with you on them, perhaps Sauron would be able to. My point of view is that the dominant form of christianity is the one to be argued against, and my cult based argument is designed for it. It is the dominant form of christianity, because it has the most powerful cult characteristics, so was able to crush the more reasonable christian sects, like the gnostics, and arianists and so forth.

Anyhow, when I saw the title I assumed that the historical Jesus we were assuming to exist was the one described by the Gospels, and his disciples too, who are, of course, quite important to standard christianity. If anyone wishes to argue with me about that, I welcome it. Otherwise, I will bow out.

I stand by my belief, however, that Jesus, if a real person, was nothing more than a cult leader. Proving that the gospels are later additions to earlier church traditions does nothing to contradict that assertion. Indeed, it strengthens it: If the historical Jesus existed, and his religion was completely crushed and obscured by a later, fabricated religion, why should we believe that it is the True religion? A true religion should be able to defeat any challenge, after all.

Amaleq13

However you would characterize Paul's consideration of the "Pillars", would you not agree that it falls far short of Mark's "complete fools"?

It seems to me that Paul tacitly acknowledges that, even if he did not hold the reputation of the Pillars as significant, he is aware that at least some of his congregation did. Would you agree?

Mountain Man

As I said earlier, but you must have missed: You have no proof of what the person being called "Paul" saw anything. You have no proof it was a hallucination from eating bad bread. You have no proof it was not a Temporal Lobe Epilepsy siesure. It's just an anecdote out of a book of questionable origins that proves nothing. Others have also addressed this problem. This claim of a vision does not prove that the jesus of the NT existed as a god, or even as a person.

Zeichman

Not a problem. Being a Neo-Orthodox Christian does have its own baggage which I have to carry.

Fair enough, while this could work well against inerrantists, I don't restrict myself to such readings/criticisms.

I won't disagree with this.
What my point is is that Christ-devotion was absent in several forms of early Christianity. A cult founded either by Jesus or his disciples seems to be an implausable explanation for such groups to arise.

You do have me there.
Yes. But I don't believe this is sufficient evidence for labelling early Christianity as the "cult" which has been discussed here and in another thread.

THe authenticity of Paul's vision is outside the realm of historical inquiry. It is absolutely impossible to prove or disprove whether or not it was a risen Christ, a hallucination or both. How is 1 Corinthians a "books of questionable origins"? Statements like this require backing it up. No scholar contests that epistle's authenticity, nor Phillipians.

Additionally, you're redirecting my original argument against something which I never sought to address. My argument, for the third time, is that not all of the significant events of the New Testament are far removed from Biblical authors, which you claimed in your initial post. Not the straw man which you have set up here. The deity of Jesus was never brought up, nor a Historical Jesus (which I certainly accept, but I know that many here, more educated than I contest, so I won't argue for it). Since it's becoming obvious that you aren't interested in having an actual debate, I'll stop replying to you until you come up with new arguments which address my concern.

And I apologize for getting the thread way off topic.

Amaleq13

Thanks but I really wasn't trying to "get" you.

I'm not trying to establish that. I'm just interested in explanations, within the context of the OP assumption, for the transition from Paul's time to Mark's. To have the guys who started the movement go from having a "high reputation" to them being called fools who never understood Jesus and even denied him seems like it needs a good one.

This probably deserves its own thread but thanks for replying.

Amaleq13

On second thought, it might be appropriate after all.

Does the notion that, about 40 years after starting the movement, these men came to be depicted fools who did not actually understand Jesus cast doubt on Christianity?