Radorth

Paul's evil doings
You know, I'm a little tired of hearing of all the bad things the apostles did, but Paul seems to be the favored target. (I think I know why but will wait to see what skeptics may have to say). We hear he stole people's money and property, how he abused women, and how Jesus would be "appalled" at Paul's doctrines.

We've heard the (rather slim) scriptural evidence for the first two, but I've never seen any convincing evidence he revised a Gospel, contradicted one, or mislead anyone. That's quite a charge since Peter himself tells us otherwise. It's also unproven slander IMO.

I'm particularly interested in how and where he contradicts the Gospel's, since we could argue ad infinitum about more subjective assertions.

Radorth

Toto

I hadn't heard about Paul stealing money or abusing women. What scandal sheet are you reading?

Paul (or someone editing his letters) has made some misogynist remarks, but he seems to have worked with women in the churches (with no recorded problems, but then we don't have their memoires.) Paul is accused of being a closeted gay man, which would be consistent with all of that.

And I am not sure how he could have revised a gospel, because I have never heard anyone claim that the gospels were in writing before Paul's presumed death.

Why don't you narrow your question down. Look at this prior topic:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000494" target="_blank">How are Paul's writings reconciled with Acts? </a>

and this compendium of differences between Paul and the writers of the Gospels (including Acts)

<a href="http://www.metalog.org/paul_p1.html" target="_blank">http://www.metalog.org/paul_p1.html</a>

Radorth

Re Toto

. Er, I hate to say. Let's call it an infamous atheist internet site.

Quite right. I was referring to comments (on other less genteel sites apparently) that he influenced the content of the Gospels, which would explain any similarities between his "appalling doctrine" and Jesus' words and doctrine.

I think asking for convincing evidence of contradictions between his doctrine and Christ's does narrow it down. Nevertheless, I am happy to read your references and see what's been batted about on this site.

I take it you think Paul is not a favorite target here. Perhaps I've grown cynical reading other atheist sites. I guess we'll see.

Radorth

Toto

Why are you playing so coy? You can name these other sites. Is one of them atheistsforjesus.com?

The idea that Jesus was a good person who doctrine was messed up by Paul has been around for at least a few centuries. There's nothing new there.

It's not that anyone here has much good to say about Paul. People on this board are more interested in the question of whether Jesus actually existed.

Amen-Moses

He's just trolling.

The site he is on about is the Cygnus study forums where he has obviously been panned so mayny times that he feels the need to spread his wings so to speak.

Amen-Moses

Radorth

I'd like to hear facts rather than conclusions, but people are welcome to respond or not, as they wish. I do find it hard to believe rational people doubt the existence of Jesus.

AM is incorrect about my motives as usual. For one thing, I'm a little bored with the Cygnus site. The lines are all drawn and there are not that many posters, many Christians have left and virtually no new ones stick around. But the main reason is that Cygnus has written me saying he will now erase or EDIT my posts at will, and if I try to change anything as it was, he will ban me. I'll be happy to post his e-mail verbatim for anyone who doubts it.

Radorth

Toto

Sounds like you're way behind the curve. Catch up on what you've missed.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity</a>

a review of <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=663" target="_blank">the Jesus Puzzle</a>.

When you read all that, come back.

Layman

You are not the only one. Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, is quite adamant that Jesus-mythers are "insane."

"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian
community."

Rudolf Bultman, Jesus and the Word, at 13.

Toto

And I see you have an identical OP there <a href="http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?s=16a52293006de354795307707dac10e9& threadid=3855" target="_blank">here</a>. You didn't like those answers?

Toto

Layman -

Accusing people of insanity is not a very convincing argument. Quoting a dead German theologian who claimed that his opponents were insane is even less convincing.

The man said he wanted facts, not conclusions.