Jump to content

How Can We Be So Certain that Paul , Jesus & the Gang Were Real?

Science Friction
 Share

Recommended Posts

Science Friction

Science Friction

Posted
Posted

I don't think we can. If you have eye-witness proof from a really old relative who says they met them let me know. I honestly don't think anyone ever laid an eye on them . The historicity of the super-apostle , vexed by troubles on all sides, is less than compelling. Sure , the Pauline letters and other apostolic letters exist, but the epistles are far from genuine if you know history. As I am sure you good Christians know, the epistles originated in the midst of the bitter doctrinal battles of the the second century and this was at a time when pseudepigraphy and forged apostolic writings were used as weapons in the war of "Christianities."

 

In fact, as I hope you are aware of, pseudepigraphy is the heart of your New Testament. The Pauline corpus is no exception. In fact, it is a compendium of fraud. Scholars have attempted to chronicle the life of Paul yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters themselves provide very few clues as for time and place.

 

Paul is purported to be the first and most influential figure of the Church , a tireless founder of churches and super-evangelist. Yet, whoever wrote in the name of "Paul" combined elements from Judaism, Gnosticism, and the Mystery religions to come up with a winning formula. It makes no sense to me( I'm sure it does to you) why a pioneering apostle and devout churchman named Paul is not linked by evidence to the early Christian churches in the major cities of the Roman world.

 

I know this is not what your Sunday school teachers fed you when you were forming your religious beliefs as a child. I know all I was told was fantastic stories from the Bible that sent my little boy mind racing. I even wished I could have lived back then. I wished I could have met a man called Jesus on the road to Damascus , just as "Paul" did. How lucky I would been to have seen this Godman walk on water, turn water to wine, make the blind see, and be one of the five thousand to be fed from the seven loaves and few fish. And to have been there that morning when they rolled the stone away...WOW! But I was a little boy then. Believing what I was told, with child-like faith. Now I'm an adult....a rational thinking adult that requires more than just child-like faith acceptance of magical and supernatural phenomenon.

 

In conclusion, I think history and evidence points clearly in the direction that Christianity was NOT propagated by the bold evangelism of a handful of fearless apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, and energized by their personal experiences of a resurrected godman. In fact, contrary to this, no evidence links Paul to the major Christian churches and ,quite frankly, the story in Acts is a pious invention. While Acts records his presence at major places like Athens and Ephesus and even small towns like Derbe and Mitylene, the epistles confirm very little of his grand tour. While I would find it intrinsically plausible that a wandering sage or Aristotlean philosopher might embark on some sort of missionary journey at that time, the Pauline journeys, marked by incongruities, contradiction, and the outright absurd are not at all compelling. I don't think they would be for you either if you didn't WANT so badly to believe, just as I did when child-like faith is all that was required.

 

 

BTW, this was post number 666 for me ! Let the jokes begin. :)

Getslow

Getslow

Posted
Posted
As I am sure you good Christians know, the epistles originated in the midst of the bitter doctrinal battles of the the second century and this was at a time when pseudepigraphy and forged apostolic writings were used as weapons in the war of "Christianities."

 

In fact, as I hope you are aware of, pseudepigraphy is the heart of your New Testament. The Pauline corpus is no exception. In fact, it is a compendium of fraud. Scholars have attempted to chronicle the life of Paul yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters themselves provide very few clues as for time and place.

 

I'm ostensibly supposed to be working right now and so I don't have time to address every one of your points at the moment, but this section stuck with me.

 

It's a bit tricky to take a theory espoused by some biblical scholars about some of the Pauline epistles and pass it off as common knowledge that everyone should know. That's not particularly fair, is it?

 

There have always been doubts about Pauline authorship. Those doubts date as far back at least as Origen, the Christian theologian, in the third century; and yet scholarship suggesting the authenticity of Pauline authorship has persisted.

 

* * * * *

 

It's an interesting thing to me that I was just reading a thread about the possible existence of extra terrestrial civilizations in which there was near-unanimity regarding the certainty of belief in alien civilizations based on absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever; then, just down the page, we get this one in which Jesus of Nazareth -- a man written of in the first and second century writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and the Talmud, and featured in a vast book of teachings that has been printed and copied countless times over nearly 20 centuries -- is a non-existent fantasy invented by Jewish fishermen. Funny world we live in.

Irish Cat

Irish Cat

Posted
Posted

How Can We Be So Certain that Genghis Khan, Nebuchadnezzar, Charlemagne & the Gang Were Real?

I don't think we can. If you have eye-witness proof from a really old relative who says they met them let me know.....

Science Friction

Science Friction

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I don't have to see or feel everything to believe it exist as long as science dictates as much. I don't see gravity but science proves it keeps us bound to our pale blue dot called Earth. We can't see dark matter, but physics tells us it makes up most of the Universe. Science and math has of yet not provided an iota of evidence that a man named Saul, or Paul, or Jesus ever existed. Did they? Hell, I don't know any more than you do. If they did, they certainly were not messengers of some divine godman. And while they may have dabbled in magic , superstition, and a special blend of 11 very powerful herbs and spices, I'm quite certain no supernatural events took place. Science was in control back then as well.

 

As I said before, it is quite plausible that there was some wandering sage or peripatetic philosopher on a missionary journey, however the Pauline journeys are characterized by contradiction, incongruities, and sensible only to the criminally insane. Viewed through the rose-colored glasses of Christian faith, Paul's first journey , for example, is as fanciful as the voyage of Sinbad. Improbable and unlikely events are juxtaposed with the miraculous and the ridiculous. One very convenient fact about your faith is this: faith can offer up special pleas for every possible incongruity and contradiction. Hence, you cling to it tightly. Logical thinking, on the other hand, offers up no such pleas!

Edited by Science Friction
OlDog75

OlDog75

Posted
Posted (edited)
So what?

 

If I want to believe, that's on me. Why do you try so hard to tear those beliefs apart? What do you gain out of that?

 

Why do we even respond to to it? Pray for his/her enlightenment and we shall move on.

 

Of course if he/she is making us question our faith, he/she has accomplished what he/she set out to do. Just like Beelzebub.

Edited by OlDog75
InItToWinIt

InItToWinIt

Posted
Posted

Faith. That's how.

 

 

Look, it is very clear that you hate Christianity and all who believe in it. But please, continue the attacks. We Christians are used to it these days.

InItToWinIt

InItToWinIt

Posted
Posted

Furthermore, @ScienceFriction, how can we be sure that anything exists? We may not even be here. We could just be the story being written by a life in another universe. Maybe gravity is the invisible hand of some aliens that pushes us down when we jump. Maybe the entire world as we know it is just a drop of water on a leaf.

 

The universe is the most vast and greatest existence we have/will ever come to know. Your religion (Science) has shown that the universe is finite, and has existed for 13.8 billion years (or whatever the agreed upon number is). Knowing this, many people find it likely that there is a first mover, someone who created the universe and made conditions so that life could exist. Christianity to many people is the most plausible explanation of this deity or others (such as myself) believe it is 100% the truth. So I have decided to become a Christian, and I strive everyday to act like Christ did. Us Christians are taught to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick, ransom the captive, and bury the dead among other righteous deeds.

 

What's your problem with Christians?

Capernicus41

Capernicus41

Posted
Posted
-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 80 AD – and about events that happened 50 – 80 years before they were written.

 

I'll put this again since you didn't reply from the other thread. Then again, if it's just stuff that's being spit out from internet blogs and not your own "rational" thoughts it is difficult to have a conversation.

 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept