"Paul" is as mythic a figure as "jesus."

http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/258/53/

Quote:Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

(March 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Paul" is as mythic a figure as "jesus."

http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/258/53/

Quote:Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Pious fiction? How about wholesale plagiarism? Ever read Greek tragedy? The entire theme that we read in Acts regarding Paul was quite well known.

(March 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='FallentoReason' pid='258229' dateline='1332226494']
Question. Can you show me how we can conclude that e.g. Matthew did infact write his own gospel? Here's food for thought as well. Scholars say Matthew was written after Mark

.

Drich Wrote:Would you be too upset if you found out the book of Mathew wasn't written by anyone named Mathew at all??
In the Hebrew account of the book Authorship is accredited to one Mathias. (Funny how champions of the faith got western/anglo names and the rest like Judas got to keep their given names)

Ok. Is this meant to be the guy that was a disciple of Jesus? He could at least be original in his writings. I've explained below.

Drich Wrote:My point is that if you are so involved in the division of scripture as to take on the responsibility for it's content then you have missed the Whole point in which the bible was written, And all of the Gospel contained in those pages.

The God of the bible is responsible for it's content. not us. For if we set out to worship Him following the only book He has provided and make a mistake then it is Up to Him to have made a change (Like with the finding of the dead sea scrolls) or to simply forgive our earnest efforts built on passages that only He can consider to be in error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew Wrote:Matthew, like Luke, incorporates nearly the whole of Mark, keeping the outline intact and adding genealogy-birth-infancy stories to the beginning and post-resurrection appearances to the end.[44] Many scholars have argued that Matthew is simply an expanded version of Mark, but it is also a creative reinterpretation of the source,[45] stressing Jesus' teachings as much as his acts,[46] and making subtle changes in order to stress Jesus' divine nature – Mark's "young man" who appears at Jesus' tomb, for example, becomes a radiant angel in Matthew.[47] The miracle stories in Mark do not demonstrate the divinity of Jesus, as this is an idea not found in that gospel, but rather confirm his status as an emissary of God (which was Mark's understanding of the Messiah).[48]

What I used to think was that there's this God out there that was perfect. I knew He was because His way of communicating with us was done perfectly. He sent Himself to earth and did things that changed the course of history. These things could be read about in the New Testament and since it's historically flawless it means the idea of God flows perfectly from the supernatural to reality. I didn't have a problem with this.

The problem that arose eventually was this: there's two sides to this. The first is the idea of this God and his son Jesus. Then you have all the humans involved with this God that had the responsibility of handing down the information. What I observe is that the two ends do not meet. There's a gap between the content of the gospels and reality.

For example, take the wikipedia extract that I've quoted. Firstly, this shows the author wasn't a witness because he just based his writings on what was already available. Secondly, the author of Matthew decided to beef up Mark with supernatural content. The fact that Matthew came second gives no credibility to the supernatural. These are the sorts of wrinkles that start to form a gap between the Bible and true human history.

(March 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Paul" is as mythic a figure as "jesus."

http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/258/53/

Quote:Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Fascinating,thanks Min.

I have just ordered 'Paul' by A N Wilson after reading some pretty good reviews. (plus I like Wilson)' $14.98, The Book Depository UK (free p&h)

(March 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: What I used to think was that there's this God out there that was perfect. I knew He was because His way of communicating with us was done perfectly. He sent Himself to earth and did things that changed the course of history. These things could be read about in the New Testament and since it's historically flawless it means the idea of God flows perfectly from the supernatural to reality. I didn't have a problem with this.

The problem that arose eventually was this: there's two sides to this. The first is the idea of this God and his son Jesus. Then you have all the humans involved with this God that had the responsibility of handing down the information. What I observe is that the two ends do not meet. There's a gap between the content of the gospels and reality.

For example, take the wikipedia extract that I've quoted. Firstly, this shows the author wasn't a witness because he just based his writings on what was already available. Secondly, the author of Matthew decided to beef up Mark with supernatural content. The fact that Matthew came second gives no credibility to the supernatural. These are the sorts of wrinkles that start to form a gap between the Bible and true human history.

Respectfully, so what?

Bottom line if you choose to worship the God of the bible then it is not your responsibility for the content of said bible. It is His responsibility especially given the fact the bible says nothing can be added or taken from this book. At that point Content is no longer your concern neither is how it was compiled. IF you worship and praise the God Of The Bible.

Only a weak impotent God has no control over what is in his Holy book and has no way of effecting change. If God wants something changed then we find a cache like the dead sea scrolls or in the End the Same forgiveness He extends to cover the willful sin and evils of man, He will have to also extend the same forgiveness for man's best effort to Worship Him by the Only Holy book He has given us.

(March 21, 2012 at 2:57 am)Drich Wrote:

(March 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: What I used to think was that there's this God out there that was perfect. I knew He was because His way of communicating with us was done perfectly. He sent Himself to earth and did things that changed the course of history. These things could be read about in the New Testament and since it's historically flawless it means the idea of God flows perfectly from the supernatural to reality. I didn't have a problem with this.

The problem that arose eventually was this: there's two sides to this. The first is the idea of this God and his son Jesus. Then you have all the humans involved with this God that had the responsibility of handing down the information. What I observe is that the two ends do not meet. There's a gap between the content of the gospels and reality.

For example, take the wikipedia extract that I've quoted. Firstly, this shows the author wasn't a witness because he just based his writings on what was already available. Secondly, the author of Matthew decided to beef up Mark with supernatural content. The fact that Matthew came second gives no credibility to the supernatural. These are the sorts of wrinkles that start to form a gap between the Bible and true human history.

Respectfully, so what?

Bottom line if you choose to worship the God of the bible then it is not your responsibility for the content of said bible. It is His responsibility especially given the fact the bible says nothing can be added or taken from this book. At that point Content is no longer your concern neither is how it was compiled. IF you worship and praise the God Of The Bible.

Only a weak impotent God has no control over what is in his Holy book and has no way of effecting change. If God wants something changed then we find a cache like the dead sea scrolls or in the End the Same forgiveness He extends to cover the willful sin and evils of man, He will have to also extend the same forgiveness for man's best effort to Worship Him by the Only Holy book He has given us.

I know where you're coming from but you can't just be so wishful as to think that everything recorded happened as a consequence of what Jesus was doing. The very fact that no one that wrote the gospels even saw Jesus means not only do I need faith in god, but I have to have faith that Jesus was a real person. That's already a huge blow to the credibility of the Christian god.

(March 20, 2012 at 8:15 am)Hunter9035 Wrote: Sorry it's going to take a LOT more than that to even shake my faith

Nobody cares.

(March 19, 2012 at 11:20 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Apart from the New Testament, where was Jesus?

Apart from Plato, where is Socrates?

Historical information about Socrates can only be found in the dramatic work of Aristophanes and the Platonic dialogues. By your standard, Plato would be a biased source and should be discarded. Aristophanes has Socrates walking three feet in the air, which also by your standard would disqualify the playwright as a reliable source. In both cases the picture we get of Socrates is that of fictional character. Since you are asserting that Jesus was fictional are you also, based on the same or less evidence for Socrates, ready to state that historically Socrates never existed?

(March 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Apart from Plato, where is Socrates?

Historical information about Socrates can only be found in the dramatic work of Aristophanes and the Platonic dialogues. By your standard, Plato would be a biased source and should be discarded. Aristophanes has Socrates walking three feet in the air, which also by your standard would disqualify the playwright as a reliable source. In both cases the picture we get of Socrates is that of fictional character. Since you are asserting that Jesus was fictional are you also, based on the same or less evidence for Socrates, ready to state that historically Socrates never existed?

There is also Xenophone. That's two more than Jesus.

Besides, Socrates being a mythical figure does not detract from his purported teachings. Jesus being one does so greatly.

Quote:Ever read Greek tragedy? The entire theme that we read in Acts regarding Paul was quite well known.

True - and the character depicted seems different from the one in the so-called "authentic" epistles of Paul. One of which (2 Corinthians) has a historical marker which puts it around the second quarter of the first century BC.

Xtians shit their pants at the ramifications of that one.