the_cave

I think that a legendary figure can have a historical core, and still be legendary. But this is not all that important.

I think it's absurd to assume that everyone mentioned in Paul's letters is a fictional character. Silas/Silvanus is one of those people; and others here have noticed that Silas may make more sense as a gentile name of Saul than Paul. I have no idea what this means, but it seems to me that if you can turn Josephus' Simon into Simon Magus, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that there was at least some figure on whom Paul was based. (For that matter Eisenman also thinks that Saul is the same Saul we read about in Josephus, so I guess in that case he would then be as historical as Simon Magus).

aa5874

I think you didn't read my post carefully , I said "Saul/Paul" is the figure without an historical core, he is only mentioned by apologetics.

And I do not consider everyone in "Paul's" letters to be fictional. I accept King Aretas as a figure of history.

Kelly

Aa5874 posted,
Hmmmmm. Then just who was it that gave birth to the Roman brand of Christianity? Someone must have gone there preaching the Roman view of Christianity and there is far less evidence that Peter actually ended up in Rome.

Now, I am the first to admit that the Bible appears to be a very spin-doctored compilation of texts but in your apparent gusto to prove it all a complete lie, your statements appear to have taken an approach no less dogmatic and unbending than that of a fundamentalist Christian.

As a comparison, I am personally convinced that the "official" version of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Towers is as spin-doctored, inconsistent and unbelievable as many parts of the Bible are. But, would I be correct in stating that because the "official" version of those events appears to be a complete fabrication that this constitutes "proof" that the 9/11 events have no "historical core?"

Wikipedia reports,

"The first recorded significant persecution of Christians at the hands of the authorities of the Roman Empire was that of the year 64, when, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus, the Emperor Nero blamed them for that year's great Fire of Rome. According to Church tradition, it was under Nero's persecution that Peter and Paul were each martyred in Rome. For 250 years Christians suffered from sporadic and localized persecutions for their refusal to worship the Roman emperor, considered treasonous and punishable by execution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan...d_Christianity

Additionally Wiki also reports,

"Some people have suggested that this passage could be a later addition by Christian scribes. No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution, although this is an argument from silence. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero. Sulpicius Severus repeats the passage nearly verbatim without crediting Tacitus in Chronica, but it is unknown whether Severus borrowed from Tacitus, whether a Christian scribe inserted Severus into Tacitus or whether a third source was involved. The passage also mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect, a mistake also made in a passage by Josephus. This mistake, while possibly showing a common editor of Tacitus and Josephus could also be Tacitus using Josephus as a source or both of them using a common source.

On the other hand, others argue that the passage is far too critical of Christians to be added by Christian scribes. The passage even implies that the Christians may have been guilty of setting fire to Rome. Further, there may be evidence of persecution against Christians in Rome during Nero's reign. The historian Suetonius also mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire. Robert Van Voorst writes that 'the vast majority of scholars' conclude that the passage is authentic." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

Therefore we apparently have a starting point with evidence given by qualified Roman historians that within roughly three decades after the crucifixion, there was already a community of Christians living in Rome. How did Rome learn of Christianity by this early date unless Paul actually existed and preached his brand of Christianity there?

Paul spent two years in Rome under house arrest according to Acts 28:30–3. During this time he reportedly preached his understanding of the Jesus. Of his detention in Rome, Philippians provides some additional support. It was clearly written from prison with references to the "praetorian guard" and "Caesar's household," which may suggest that it was written from Rome.

Now, I do not particularly like Paul, nor am I even convinced that his so called "conversion" had anything to do with Jesus Christ, but be that as it may, I am at least grudgingly willing to admit that the man must have at least existed.

Aa5874, you stated earlier:
As an analogy based upon your argument, then one might hypothesize that because the apparent "official" explanation of 9/11 simply does not hold water, we must therefore conclude that none of the 9/11 events ever took place...

It has been my observation that there is a very big difference between acknowledging that a real event was spin-doctored and drawing the conclusion that because the "official" reports concerning an event were obviously manipulated it means that the "core event" was nothing but a total fabrication and a lie.

aa5874

Firstly, as early as the 1st century, "Christian" did NOT always mean follower of Jesus of Nazareth, see the writings of Suetonius, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus and Athenagoras.

Secondly, both "Peter" and "Paul" have NO real history inside or outside the Church in the 1st century.

In Acts of the Apostles, "Peter", "the rock of the Church" vanishes and "Saul/Paul appears from virtually nowhere to become that "rock".

Justin Martyr did not give an account of "Paul", Acts of the Apostles or the Epistles to the seven Churches in all of his extant writings. So even internally, it would seem, that the history of "Peter and Paul" was fabricated after Justin.



I think you are confused. You are the one who may be a Christian since you appear to fundamentally BELIEVE that there is truth in the NT with respect to Christianity.



I regard the NT as propaganda produced to distort the history of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity in general.

I am fundamentally a NON-BELIEVER.

The 9/11 events cannot be compared to anecdotes in the NT. "9/11" refers to an actual date, the 11th of September, not even a single day and month is given with respect to any event of Jesus, Paul or Peter.

All the books in the NT never in one instance recorded the day and name of the month when Jesus was born, the day, month and year Jesus was crucified and the date his body disappeared.

The same with "Peter and Paul", there is no record of the day, the name of the month and year when these persons did anything within the NT.

The word "Christians" may not mean followers of Jesus of Nazareth. It has not been established as a fact that the Christians in Tacitus were followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly According to Church tradition, it was under Nero's persecution that Peter and Paul were each martyred in Rome. For 250 years Christians suffered from sporadic and localized persecutions for their refusal to worship the Roman emperor, considered treasonous and punishable by execution."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constan...d_Christianity

It would appear then that the Acts of the Apostles were written after the death of Peter and Paul but there is no record of the death of Peter or Paul in the Acts of the Apostles. And if they were martyred then I would imagine that the author would have been eager to let his readers know about their martyrdom.

You are either a believer, an apologist or a Christian. It is not prudent to use dubious writings to corroborate the very same writings.

I cannot accept anything in the Epistles as true. First, biblical sholars have deduced that more than one person called themselves "Paul", therefore if this accepted then I do not know who the real Paul was and what, when, where and why he wrote.

You are either a believer, an apologist or a Christian.

Aa5874, you stated earlier:
I have concluded that the 9/11 did occur. I saw news reports of the events and read about them in the newspapers. And further both the victims and perpetrators agree on the date of the events of 9/11.

However as early as the 2nd century, Jesus was described as the offspring of a Ghost who was raised from the dead and there were Christians who did not agree with such a description neither with the date of this event nor his parents.

Well, the core of the 9/11 events are that planes were hijacked and were flown into certain builidings in the USA.

The core of the NT is that the Son of a God, born through the Holy Ghost and a woman called Mary, was crucified, died, was raised and flew through the clouds on his way to heavn and that he is coming back.

I think it is reasonable to consider the core of the NT as a fabrication and a lie until I can get specific dates for those events and for Christians, at least, to agree on the events. Or even better, to get independent non-apologetic confirmation that there was a actual man from Nazareth called Jesus who had thousands of followers and was crucified.

Kelly

No, perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.

I was not the least bit confused about the fact that you are a non-believer, I was merely pointing out that you are being as dogmatic about your faith in atheism as any rabidly fundamentalist Christian (Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic etc.) is generally dogmatic about their own beliefs.

It seems clear that should anyone disagree with your concepts you are prepared to pounce. Because I am a "believer" does not necessarily mean that I see you or anybody else with different concepts as an enemy, but I do have to wonder why you persist in defending your stance on atheism with such rabid fervor.

I may be a believer, but I am not an evangelist nor am I a fundamentalist. I feel absolutely no need to "convert" you, were that even possible. You however, appear to be evangelizing atheistic concepts with more than a little dogmatism and though I do not wish to offend you, it strikes me as being rather like having the Jehovah's Witnesses beating down one's door.

This is a public forum and we are all here to share ideas. One needn't be so defensive about one's beliefs that we are constantly on the attack.

You have every right to believe the way that you do, no one questions that, least of all me. However, you seem to have the idea that your beliefs constitute "the one and only truth," and I see that as a position that denies the truth of others.

Is that clear enough?

I am curious; does the fact that you are exercising your right to be a non-believer mean that you feel you must treat all believers with what appears to be such open contempt?

And now I have a question for you, aa5874… Let us suppose that two thousand years from now life has radically changed upon the earth and we humans have lost all connections to modern technology. Furthermore, let us also suppose that the 9/11 event was recorded in history by those who never witnessed the event and took it upon themselves to dismiss the exact date from their records because they thought it was unimportant. Furthermore, because there are no airplanes in this hypothetical future, let us suppose the event is perceived as a mythological tale of flying gods and angels attacking a tower; similar perhaps to the recorded biblical tale of Nimrod and the Tower of Babylon.

Would the fact that there would doubtless be those who scoffed at the tale and treated it as a mere fantasy, make the 9/11 attack any less real?

spamandham

Although I do consider aa's position to be somewhat dogmatic, it's not dogmatic in the sense you are referring to.

Here are the facts that are easily established:

- Acts is a mid-to-late second century work of apologetic propoganda. It isn't the only one either. There were numerous 'acts' type works written in the same time period - mostly in conflict with eachother.

- The letters attributed to Paul were written by multiple authors all claiming to be 'Paul'. In other words, the writers were NOT honest and well meaning, but were instead also propogandists trying to push their agendas by hijacking the authority figure 'Paul'.

- Of the epistles that are generally considered to be authentically Pauline, even those contain heavy amounts of editing by multiple authors

- It's true that Justin Martyr never mentions Paul (although I think aa makes too much of this)

- There really was only one Gospel - Mark (or it's predecessor). The other three canonical Gospels are later rewrites of Mark and eachother

- Mark is so obviously fictional, that it's amazing people outside Christian circles even ponder the idea of a historical Jesus

So given all this, aa's position that there was no historical Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the others is NOT dogmatic, but rather, an ordinary conclusion based on the facts.

Where his position becomes dogmatic is in his refusal to even consider the idea that there might be a historical root to one or more of these characters, insisting instead that they must be works of abject fiction.

IMHO, there is sufficient 'non-apologetic' evidence to establish the existence of John the Baptist and Simon Magus, and I think we can see elements of these men in Peter, Paul, and Jesus. An open mind would consider the possibility that John is the historical core of Jesus, or that Simon Magus is the historical core of both Peter and Paul, without dogmatically repeating over and over that we only know of Peter, Paul, and Jesus through apologetic sources.

Kelly

Spamandham, I totally agree that the Bible is one of the most manipulated books on the planet; I've been aware of that fact for years and years.

Regardless of whether it can ever be proved or disproved that Paul existed as a person, one thing remains clear; and that is that the "Paulist Doctrine" exists as the fundamental principal adopted by the Church of Rome. So whether Paul existed as a single individual or a group of Macheveillian priests obviously intent on manipulating history is a moot point in my view. The end result of whatever happened is that the Church of Rome murdered somewhere between 50 and 100 million people at best estimates over the course of their stranglehold of power over the world. They also manipulated history in a book declared to be "Holy," spreading many lies as truth and believe it or not, a good many "believers" are very aware of that fact today.

Though there well may have been some very sincere and good people involved with that institution throughout those years, it is the institution itself that I find so personally offensive.

The Paulist Doctrine exists whether Paul was ever a real person or not, and in my view that doctrine is responsible for grievous acts against the whole of the human race regardless of one's personal stance for or against any particular religious point of view.

aa5874

I have NEVER proposed at any time that my position is "the one and only truth".

I cannot even say for sure that my position is TRUE, since it is just based on my interpretation of the evidence. If any evidence surfaces that contradicts my position, I may have to change.

Basically, I just want persons who make claims about Jesus to show the evidence for their claims.

Is that clear enough?


These are all hypotheticals.

But, before the first dinosaur skeletal fragments were discoverd, most people, I would imagine, would say dinosaurs never existed and this is based on the fact that no evidence for dinosaurs was found, however as soon as evidence surfaces, then it is reasonable to claim dinosaurs did exist.

I cannot find any evidence for Jesus, it is reasonable to claim he did not exist, as soon as evidence is found, I will change to reflect the evidence.

Amaleq13

Except that you also claim you don't have any beliefs about Jesus.

Kelly

Well, you seem to completely reject any and all statements coming from the people who witnessed that they actually met him in person, and since there were no video cameras back in those days, I simply do not know what sort of evidence you would find satisfactory. Jesus does not seem to be walking the planet today, so faith, belief and personal spiritual experience are the only supportive evidence that there is, and unfortunately none of those things come with the kind of empirical justifications you would accept.

I personally think the Book of John is the most consistant and reliable work. I have questions about the synoptic gospels too and have very little faith in anything supposedly composed by Paul.

You might, however, consider the Book of Revelations as at least some proof that something was certainly going on among the early Christians. One can hardly look at the apparent move towards a one world government based on New World Order concepts without wondering if the prophesies of John the Divine aren't actually coming true. His apocalyptic "last days" visions, by the way, do not appear to have originated with either the Jews of the OT or the Christians. The "last days" prophesies actually seem to originate in the much older texts from the Rig Veda and the Hindu concepts that earth repeatedly goes through a "Kali Yuga" where death and destruction come about. They attribute this phenomenon to the god Shiva, who was also known as Indra and Rudra who was the apparant father of Aryan elitist concepts. The stories those texts appear to be based upon are far more ancient that the Old Testament tales, or even the Babylonian or Sumerian texts, and have apparently influenced religious concepts for thousands and thousands of years. And periodic destructions do apparently indeed occur. For instance, the earth has been through at least 17 different ice ages (and their respective global warming events) according to the climatologists. And god only knows how many religious wars have taken place.

By the way, I did not mean to come down on you and hope that you realize that. We are dealing with the written word here, and that is not always a great medium for communication.

You sound like a very bright person, and I hope some day we will call each other friends.