So i was readong an accoint debunking the resaurection and I have a couple questions
What did Paul actually experience if it wasn't the risen Jesus that would compel him to convert ?
And
I've seen it said that he should have been left in the cross as was custom, but someone refuted that saying the news wouldn't have wanted to do that on the Sabbath
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Laceyq: Paul? Seriously? The guy that lived 30 years after the supposed death of this Jesus character. The same guy that never knew Jesus had a virgin birth or a ministry on the Earth? The same guy who knows none of the miracles that Jesus may have done. The one that knows of absolutely no prophecies ever fulfilled by Jesus. You mean the Paul that Christian scholars plagiarized and wrote entire books using his name. That Paul?
RE: What did Paul actually experience if it wasn't the risen Jesus that would compel him to convert ? People convert for all sorts of reasons. Nothing special has to happen. In fact, most frequently, ignorance is enough for a conversion experience. Not knowing the difference between a claim and evidence is a big reason for most people to convert. Did you think something special happened to Paul?
My favorite debunking is the Bible itself. The oldest manuscripts assert Jesus was hung on a pole and a tree. The cross came much later. The Greek word "stauros" does not translate "cross." The cross was a pagan symbol that the Christians adopted. The original symbol was a fish.
We have no evidence that anyone called Jesus the Christ ever existed. Nothing contemporary to his life exists that can verify anything related to him. Like the story of Moses it appears to be nothing but a Euhemorized myth. Paul's Jesus was an Old Testament Angel.
Oh...i thought most scholars at least thought a historical Jesus existed? Ice heard the idea that he was just a myth before but I never thought about it cuz everything I've seen says it's not a well accepted theory even by skeptics
@Laceyq
There is a big difference between believing that some religious adventurer in Iron Age Palestine met a sticky end at the hands of the Romans; and believing in a walking on water Jesus.
@Laceyq
There is no consensus on the historicity of Jesus. This is because there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
AT BEST, a lot of historians agree that Jesus 'probably existed' or 'is likely to have existed'. The argument from silence does not prove Jesus did not exist .Definitive proof about ancient individuals is rare. Biblical scholars must form an opinion based on what they do have.
MY position is that a wandering rabbi called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf may have existed in first century Judea. He may have founded a small Jewish sect. . That he was crucified for sedition. A not uncommon fate for a Jew in that place and time.
That the poor little rabbi has little if anything to with the religion which came to be called Christianity .
If you haven't read it, I recommend "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman to give a perhaps broader understanding about the history of Christianity .
Given the popularity of the name, there were probably hundreds of little wanna be saviors / wandering rabbi called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf walking about the streets preaching. It has not been demonstrated that any of them possessed magical powers or resurrected. At best.... stories were probably made up and eventually compiled into a belief system.
@Laceyq: Most scholars are religious. Asserting Jesus existed keeps them employed. The tide is turning. More and more are questioning the existence of Jesus. The general consensus these days is something like, a man named Jesus probably existed and then stories were made up about him. A close second is that Jesus is a compilation of anceint stories that were thrown together and presented as "The Life of Jesus." This is what happened with Moses. There are no main stream scholars arguing for the existence of Moses any longer.
With that said, there are a whole lot of quacks out there arguing for the non-existence of Jesus. You have the astraltheology nuts leading the pack. The simple fact is this: When you hear someone make a claim, validate the claim by doing the research yourself. We, IN FACT, have no solid evidence for the existence of Jesus.
@ Lacey
I have no idea what "Paul" (we still do not know who exactly authored the epistles that are accepted as genuine from the same hand) experienced. We do know that "Paul" tells us he experienced visions of the dead jesus and that they contradicted all the people who allegedly knew the actual Jesus figure....like Thomas, Timothy, Barnabas, James etc whose alleged writings flat out contradict this Paul figure.
It seems that Paul was a *cough* "charismatic " preacher of his time. Subject to visions of a dead person that 'instructed him' to do what he was going to do anyway.....a bit like a certain Mr Edwardes?
There is no consensus in the gospels as to when, or even how, the Jesus figure was actually crucified. Do some research you will see what I mean. The Jews (you wrote news?) would have had no say in how long a body remained crucified. The Romans ( the occupying power) crucified you...that is it, they didn't give a fuck about the local goat herders' religious laws.
There are no, none, not ONE contemporary account of a Jesus's life death, crucifixion, resurrection. Not one mention at all until Paul (the dreamer of dead people) some 20 to 30 years after the alleged later dates of this jesus figure's death.
For a while (until comparatively recently) many scholars ( being christians) held that at least a HUMAN jesus figure PROBABLY existed, based on hagiography and historiography.
The consensus amongst serious scholars is now changing, based on advanced textual analysis and increasing discoveries in archeology. A sizable group of scholars now consider that Mark based his 'gospel' on the writings of "Paul" who in turn based his writings on several "Messiah" legends, Philo's "Logos" and a considerable amount of imagination.
In short Mark wrote novels (50 years after the events) based on Paul's insane ravings, Matthew and Luke wrote fan fiction based on Mark and the rest as they say, is history.
Do remember that only the first three Epistles can be attributed to the same person, an anonymous figure we call 'Paul" . Many of the others have been condensed, and combined, with half of them sure forgeries...like Titus, 2 Timothy, Hebrews,and more...
I didn't know a lot of this. When I Google stuff and read, I guess u tend to assume thebcmaums atheists make aren't really substantiated. Like j said, I don't really know where I stand on this yet. I guess I feel, I dunno, like it's frustrating to see an article called "debunking the crucifixion" that seems legit but then a Christian writes his own about "debunking the myths of 'm crucifixion'". I tend to assume that a theist articles and research are half truths and wishful thinking, or at least I always have till recently
@Lacey: You need to know the distinction between a claim *CLAIM* and what constitutes *EVIDENCE* for a claim. The Bible is the big book of CLAIMS. Theists do not back up positions with evidence. They try to back up claims with more and more and more claims. When a theists states or asserts that something is the case, without providing evidence or proof, they are making a claim.
Claims require evidence. Evidence that everyone can agree on. The greater the claim, the more evidence is required. I can think of no claim greater than, "I can pray to the all powerful creator of the universe and he listens to me." "He is invisible, non-corporal, beyond time and space, but I have a special relationship with him." "He wrote a book full of error, contradiction, plagiarism, amoral acts of violence, and bad advice but if you try real hard you can rationalize your way into seeing no contradictions, no acts of horror, no plagiarized stories, and nothing but great advice to live your life by.
This is actually one of the big reasons I started to doubt in the first place even though there are always explanations given by the church. It seems that no matter what argument someone has against Christianity, they can counter it
There are claims made by the Church, not explanations. "What other possible reason could the apostles have for suffering death the way they did." Apostles of the Gaps. We don't even know if there were apostles. It really makes no difference what the CHURCH attempts to justify. They do it with unsubstantiated claims. No good evidence at all.
@ Laceyq
The problem for the Church is that that is just no longer true at all. If you start some research into the beginnings of christianity, you will find the "church" as you recognise it, has no foundation at all. It is insubstantial and built on smoke and mirrors 150 years after the alleged founding events.
GO> LOOK> IT UP>
St Paul is frequently cited along with other religious figureheads as a victim of a neurological condition known as 'temporal lobe epilepsy'. Neurologist V.S. Ramachandran (look him up on you tube - he will blow your mind) explains that among the many outcomes for this epilepsy is a heightened sense of seeing religious sig nificance in just about everything.
The suggestion is that Paul's Damascus road experience was just such an event. If it happened at all.
I have come to distrust the stories concerning Paul's religious life. In Acts and in his epistles he claims to have studied under Gamaliel who in Acts convinces the Sanhedrin not to execute Peter and the apostles. Why would a student of Gamaliel launch a personal pogrom against the early christians? Was he a student at all? Did he make up his murderous campaign to dramatise his conversion in a bid to convince the real apostles?
There is much to doubt about the history and basic honesty of the man and all the evidence comes from the new testament.
In his epistles Paul reveals anger intolerance and arrogance. There are three different versions of his conversion in Acts yet Paul reveals no detail of it. God managed to appear to the unknown 'good man' Ananais revealed in detail his plans for Paul but did not bother to inform Peter.
There have been many critics including theists who have expressed grave doubts about Paul and his influence over the years. I refer you to Jeremy Bentham's "Not Paul..but Jesus" written in the mid 1700s for a detailed critique of the 13th apostle.
Yes I knoe its all unsubstantiated bullshit but Paul's story is a standout.
Do check out Ramachandran.
Bentham's book is avaiable for free from Gutenburg Project site that offers free downloads in various formats for thousands of books.
Apart from my argument which beats all arguments for God:
The resurrection is extremely unlikely to have happened because there is no scientific consensus that resurrections are possible. There's been billions of dead people yet still not one case in modern times. By now there should be a case of a resurrection happening at least once. The fact that there hasn't been is exactly what you'd except if resurrections weren't possible.
I would be interested in anyone having good sources talking about a maybe mythical jesus. I too was always under the impression that no one really supported that jdea
https://richardcarrier.info/jesus.html Try him.
Richard Carrier. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M&t=1111s
Robert M, Price. Did Jesus exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPZ39rqaIZ0&t=2226s
Mythacist Milwaukee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzuI7Cl9_J0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nmyu5kfa80
Thanks for all these! I'm gonna give my brain a rest for a few days and try to clear my thoughts and then start new
I appreciate everyone's patience with me. You're an amazing group
@ Mikhael
Carrier is the most prominent and the most strident of the scholars that are "mythicists".
Ehrmann is the most prominent of the "Human not Divine" jesus figures. Ehrmann is very easy to read regarding the origins of christianity, and, as your problems seem to stem from Catholicism, I would recommend him as a source. It will open your eyes to the origins and false claims of the church you fear so much.
As you find out ore your curiosity will be piqued, so try reading Elaine Pagels. A good, easy writer with some penetrating observations.
If you want to know how christians actually try to construct a HUMAN historical jesus then try this free Yale university course: It does address the contradictions in the gospels, Acts etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0
Robin Hood, King Arthur.
In those two examples, maybe there was one individual who lived in that time and spraked the initial tale. But as other characters and their stories were added to the oral record, we arrived at a tale of a heroic figure that did great things.
The Brothers Griim were famous because they diligently collected folk tales from their part of the world. They recognized that those amazing tales should be put to paper before they were lost to time. Understand this, that verbal folk tales can take on a life of their own, grown from a minor individual or event into something grand and epic. The Round Table, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or rising from the dead. All wonderful and powerful tales, all fiction.
@ Mikhael
For what it is worth I think that the existence of a fully human Jesus figure is "not proven".
"Not Proven" is a verdict in Scots Law that rests squarely between "Not Guilty" and "Guilty" In other words the Crown has failed to produce sufficient evidence to make its case beyond reasonable doubt, but can, if more evidence comes to light reopen the case.
That the existence of a fully divine Jesus as described in the gospels is improbable to the point of being fantastical.
If you would like to discuss the reasons why I came to that conclusion feel free to PM me...
Another point about the whole crucifiction myth is that Jesus was supposed to be arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin during the most holiest time of the year.
It is almost impossible that the Passover celebrations would be allowed to be marred by the public execution of a fellow Jew even if he were the gravest of heretics.
This further illustrates how Mark and then the following gospel writers were following the liturgical practices of the synagogue and not any notion of history.
The Passover marked the selection of the Jews as the chosen people and as a nation. The crucifiction/resurrection marks the beginning of the Christian faith.
The practice of choosing between two condemned convicts ie Jesus and Barrabas has never been documented in Roman law. It was Hebrew practice using sacrificial animals; kill one release the other. It is nothing more than a literary device to heighten the sacrificial aspect of Jesus' claimed death. The killing and eating of the 'paschal' lamb is a central observance of the Passover.
I started reading Carrier last night, and his stuff is pretty approachable. I'm actually learning a lot with just the first few I've gone over. I never knew how much doubt there was into the authorship of the new testament for one thing!
@Laceyq
Howdy. I'm afraid I'm a little late in my welcoming, but it is nice having you here with us. I'm a good ol' Southern Boy myself. Grew up in a tiny little town surrounded by The Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible... *chuckle*... Warshed in the blud o' Jayeeeeez-zus at the tender age of 8 at my Granny's Baptist Church. Good times... Good times... *shaking head in amusement*...
Thing is, all the religious stuff never made any sense to me. Even as a little kid I noticed all the contradictions and inconsistencies. However, being a little kid in a tiny little bubble with no information/knowledge of other belief systems, it was obviously difficult for me to determine WHY it never made sense. Meanwhile, the whole threat of Satan and hell got firmly embedded in my puny little brain, with the extra-added bonus of being thoroughly conditioned to believe it was WRONG to question anything about God and the bible. To research/study things counter to the faith was a sign Satan was controlling you in an attempt to mislead you from the path to heaven and divert you to the highway to hell.
Long story short, it was only within the last couple of years or so that I was able to break away. And I haven't looked back since. Knowledge and information. Those are the keys. Yes, all those troubling contradictions and inconsistencies always plagued my brain and kept me in doubt and in a constant struggle between my rational mind and my religious indoctrination. But it was learning about the history of Christianity and other religions that finally unlocked the last set of shackles binding me to that insidious form of brainwashing. Keep researching. Keep learning. Knowledge is your friend... *grin*...
Again, great having you with us. This is a fantastic place to expand your mind. Oh, by the way, if Cog ever offers you a banana, just politely decline.... and then run away as quickly as possible.
People that don't question, believe in dragons. The information has always been out there. It has just been ignored, pushed down by the theists of our time, labeled as sinful.
ONE OF MY FAVORITE QUOTES: 341–270 BC
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The Atheists, those who were able to think clearly, have always been here!
My thought on this matter is simple. The age of the internet has allowed us to share FACTS and INFORMATION. We are no longer isolated people within an ocean of religion. We are no longer swimming alone. We are growing ever stronger and we are exposing the superstitious bullshit that was once called Religion.