Well those two people actually existed. They are historical figures and are mentioned in both secular and religious texts. You can't say that there was no Paul or Jesus.

 

Yeah that was the first time I heard that before.

SF -- Since its been pointed out that historians, that were both secular and non secular, agree Paul and Jesus were indeed real people does it change your thinking any ? Your opinion they were fake doesnt hold water .

Well those two people actually existed. They are historical figures and are mentioned in both secular and religious texts. You can't say that there was no Paul or Jesus.

 

Paul is nowhere in the secular histories of his age that I know of. Though supposedly in Jeruselem at the right time, he can give no witness to a historical Jesus. The Pauline journeys, including the supposed transportation of the apostle to Rome, are characterized by incongruities, contradiction, and the absurd.

 

 

How can you maintain with any degree of certainty the historical reality of the supposedly trail-blazing apostle? The popular image that we have of him is selectively crafted from two sources: the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, which bear his name. Curiously, these two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Each story relies on the other for coherence yet simultaneously requires an arbitrary selection of "fact" from a wealth of just patent nonsense. I am not convinced that that our hero from Tarsus was anything more than a pious fabrication. And when there are holes in Paul's story, then we have to question Jesus and the rest of the boys as well.

SF -- Since its been pointed out that historians, that were both secular and non secular, agree Paul and Jesus were indeed real people does it change your thinking any ? Your opinion they were fake doesnt hold water .

 

 

Not at all, big guy. I don't view things as you do through the rose-colored spectacles of Christian faith. I require a little more critical thought.

Sounds to me like " believe what I want to believe , leave me alone " Holes in Paul's story so I'll close my mind to the rest of it .

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

 

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

 

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

 

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

 

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

 

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

 

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

 

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

 

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

 

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

 

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

I think it is more than just possible that Paul is a fabrication. For one, Paul's letters are not what they appear to be. More importantly, they are not WHEN they appear to be. NOT ONE of the early Christian churches in any of the major cities of the Roman world owed anything to a pioneering apostle by the name of Paul. Almost everything that you think you know about Paul comes not from his own writings but from Acts of the Apostles, the great work of Catholic harmonization. As the Catholics successfully assimilated their Marcionite and Gnostic opponents, your legendary hero from Tarsus was reworked in Acts. Could it be that what we have in Paul is not a super-apostle, but a superlative fraud instead? Think beyond what you were told in Sunday school as a young lad or lass.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

 

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

 

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

 

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

 

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

 

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

 

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

 

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

 

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

 

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

 

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

 

That may be true. But in many cases what people have died for and believed to be true turned out to be insanity. Just because people believe it (or want to believe it) and will die for it, doesn't make it true.

Well you refuted 5 % of that ...

And I was chasing brownies as a kid . Never attended a church til I was 16 , never had the nerve to accept the truth til 26 .

Paul is nowhere in the secular histories of his age that I know of. Though supposedly in Jeruselem at the right time, he can give no witness to a historical Jesus. The Pauline journeys, including the supposed transportation of the apostle to Rome, are characterized by incongruities, contradiction, and the absurd.

 

 

How can you maintain with any degree of certainty the historical reality of the supposedly trail-blazing apostle? The popular image that we have of him is selectively crafted from two sources: the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, which bear his name. Curiously, these two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Each story relies on the other for coherence yet simultaneously requires an arbitrary selection of "fact" from a wealth of just patent nonsense. I am not convinced that that our hero from Tarsus was anything more than a pious fabrication. And when there are holes in Paul's story, then we have to question Jesus and the rest of the boys as well.

 

-7 of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul are deemed by nearly all biblical scholars to be authentic Pauline. They are authenticated primarily and most importantly by the way they match up with the most reliable second-hand source we have and that is the Acts of the Apostles. Incongruities and contradictions? Maybe some – after all, these were all written 2000 years ago. But authorities that have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible would not agree with you.

 

-Paul is nowhere in the secular histories? Secular histories? That doesn’t even make sense and just appears to be words strung together. Anything of historical value in the Bible is “secular” history.

 

-Paul’s witness and any witness to Jesus is based on faith. Paul was a Pharisaical Jew. He was well educated and learned under the premier teacher of his time – Gamaliel. He scorned the new movement of Christianity and persecuted its followers. His revelation on the Road to Damascus was substantiated to the satisfaction of those in his day, including Peter and John at the Council in Jerusalem. He converted millions in a day an age when there was no internet, no telephone, no postal service, no means of communication other than by travel on foot and by boat. His witness was one of faith, just as the witness of his converts. He never claimed in any of his writings to have been a personal firsthand witness to Jesus’ ministry.

 

-Paul’s writings are regarded as the most reliable writings in the Bible. They are regarded as such because they are 1) firsthand writings (at least the authenticated writings are) instead of secondhand sources that other writings are (e.g. Acts), and 2) they are written more proximate in time to the actual events. Paul wrote as he was experiencing and living all of this, between 50 and 60 AD. The Gospels were written later – the earliest of which was 8o AD – and about events that happened 50 – 80 years before they were written.

Lets hear your thoughts SF .