Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-03-2005, 12:25 PM

Paul himself never uses the term "Christian" - he persecuted followers of "the Way." He only relates that Jesus revealed something to him spiritually. Acts was written much later and contains a lot of fanciful stuff, including three different versions of Paul's conversion, a pretty good indication that none are to be taken as literal history.

Biff the unclean · 11-03-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Or maybe Paul just did have some sort of religious experience or lifechanging epiphany or whatever, as so many countless people do today.

One problem is that Lukes version is the same persecution followed by the same religious experience that Euripides wrote in his play Bacchae even going so far as to have Jesus repeat Dionysus' dialogue. Makes it sound more likely that his epiphany happen at the theater.

babelfish · 11-03-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDuffie

Actually, some ill informed unbelievers think that Paul actually invented Christianity. I can accept that he possibly reinvented it, but Christianity existed before Paul.

If Christianity existed before Paul, who were these Christians following, if anyone?

My theory is there really was a person, some person, who was charismatic enough to have gained a following of Jews, and whose followers were seen as threatening to the status quo. Paul was hired to nip this rebellion in the bud. He may have had a seizure or a dream or a vision (or not) and decided it would be judicious to not only join this cult, but to co-opt it and make it conform to his own ideas of what a perfect religion would be.

So when people ask "was Jesus a real historical figure?" I always think well, yes and no.

babelfish · 11-03-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

then spending the next 20 years living this invention out through letters and travelling as if it was entirely real. quite the hoax. Paul the bandwidth wasting lifelong hoaxster. He fooled me....and the entirely scholarly world as well. Too smart for us. :thumbs:

I don't know about the entire scholarly world . . . .

Paul may have been the genius of his day, but he could still have been wrong. A lot of geniuses misuse their talents. I'm sure you can think of a few examples yourself.

Jobar · 11-03-2005, 08:27 PM

Hiya babelfish! You should ask this in BC&H, I think.

My own theory is that Paul was persecuting Jews who were melding Greek mythology and practices with Jewish ones, a definite no-no to the Jewish authorities.

If you read Paul's works, you'll notice that he never claims to have met Jesus save in a vision, and his Christ was "unknown to the world." He never writes of meeting anyone who even claimed to have met a historical Jesus, and seeing as how he was writing within twenty or maybe thirty years of the supposed date of the crucifixion, you'd think he would have met at least one eyewitness.

The glaring differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels is very strong evidence that no historical Christ ever existed, IMO.

babelfish · 11-03-2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Hiya babelfish! You should ask this in BC&H, I think.

My own theory is that Paul was persecuting Jews who were melding Greek mythology and practices with Jewish ones, a definite no-no to the Jewish authorities.

If you read Paul's works, you'll notice that he never claims to have met Jesus save in a vision, and his Christ was "unknown to the world." He never writes of meeting anyone who even claimed to have met a historical Jesus, and seeing as how he was writing within twenty or maybe thirty years of the supposed date of the crucifixion, you'd think he would have met at least one eyewitness.

The glaring differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels is very strong evidence that no historical Christ ever existed, IMO.

Hi Jobar,

I think I like your answer best of all. I really have been wondering about this ever since I watched that DVD.

I thought about posting this in another forum, but actually my questions have been answered so I don't think I need to.

:wave:

Alethias · 11-03-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Hiya babelfish! You should ask this in BC&H, I think.

I agree. Moving this thread to BC&H

SwordOfTruth,
GRD Moderator

Zeichman · 11-04-2005, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Hiya babelfish! You should ask this in BC&H, I think.

My own theory is that Paul was persecuting Jews who were melding Greek mythology and practices with Jewish ones, a definite no-no to the Jewish authorities.

If you read Paul's works, you'll notice that he never claims to have met Jesus save in a vision, and his Christ was "unknown to the world." He never writes of meeting anyone who even claimed to have met a historical Jesus, and seeing as how he was writing within twenty or maybe thirty years of the supposed date of the crucifixion, you'd think he would have met at least one eyewitness.

The glaring differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels is very strong evidence that no historical Christ ever existed, IMO.

Do you have any evidence that Paul was the great Hellenizer of a formerly innocent Christianity? It certainly does not seem to be a controversy with these good Jews who were apostles before him.

Also, he makes no mention of it being a post-ressurrection appearance in 1 Cor 9:1. Why should Paul have to mention that these people were eyewitnesses? If Jesus lived just 20 years ago, wouldn't everyone KNOW that Peter and James "the Brother of the Lord" would have known the guy? Arguing that this kind of silence is significant is laughable.

And would you care to argue that this difference between Paul's Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels is significant? It is nothing out of line with the Big Bang Christianity which Burton Mack proposes.

Jobar · 11-04-2005, 08:51 AM

Zeichman, I don't claim to be any sort of scholar on BC&H topics; I haven't read Mack, so I don't know what he proposes. But I have read Wells, years ago; the ideas from "The Jesus of the Early Christians" and "Did Jesus Exist?" still ring true to me, and though I've read here that some few of Wells' points have been countered, the main thrust of his works are still the most logical and coherent explanation of Christ, IMO.

At 14, I read the Bible cover to cover; that led in short order to my own atheism. Part of the reason for that was my deep puzzlement at the differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels, and that puzzlement stayed with me until I read Wells. I've been a Jesus-myther since the late eighties.

Perhaps some of our acknowledged experts in this forum may offer you answers to most your specific questions. However, I will say that if Paul knew of eyewitnesses to Christ's miracles and crucifixion, he wouldn't have presented his version of Christ as an unknown, now would he?

added- One of my few contributions to BC&H was on this subject.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2005, 12:25 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Paul himself never uses the term "Christian" - he persecuted followers of "the Way." He only relates that Jesus revealed something to him spiritually. Acts was written much later and contains a lot of fanciful stuff, including three different versions of Paul's conversion, a pretty good indication that none are to be taken as literal history.

11-03-2005, 08:27 PM	#15
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Hiya babelfish! You should ask this in BC&H, I think. My own theory is that Paul was persecuting Jews who were melding Greek mythology and practices with Jewish ones, a definite no-no to the Jewish authorities. If you read Paul's works, you'll notice that he never claims to have met Jesus save in a vision, and his Christ was "unknown to the world." He never writes of meeting anyone who even claimed to have met a historical Jesus, and seeing as how he was writing within twenty or maybe thirty years of the supposed date of the crucifixion, you'd think he would have met at least one eyewitness. The glaring differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels is very strong evidence that no historical Christ ever existed, IMO.

11-04-2005, 08:51 AM	#19
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Zeichman, I don't claim to be any sort of scholar on BC&H topics; I haven't read Mack, so I don't know what he proposes. But I have read Wells, years ago; the ideas from "The Jesus of the Early Christians" and "Did Jesus Exist?" still ring true to me, and though I've read here that some few of Wells' points have been countered, the main thrust of his works are still the most logical and coherent explanation of Christ, IMO. At 14, I read the Bible cover to cover; that led in short order to my own atheism. Part of the reason for that was my deep puzzlement at the differences between Paul's Christ and the Christ of the Gospels, and that puzzlement stayed with me until I read Wells. I've been a Jesus-myther since the late eighties. Perhaps some of our acknowledged experts in this forum may offer you answers to most your specific questions. However, I will say that if Paul knew of eyewitnesses to Christ's miracles and crucifixion, he wouldn't have presented his version of Christ as an unknown, now would he? added- One of my few contributions to BC&H was on this subject.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.