Thank you, Min. As always a trove of historical data. I'd like to add some problems with the Christian story from a theological-scriptural angle.
Bart Ehrman has written extensively on the problems of interpolation, later additions and pseudo-epigraphy with sacred writings of that time. It wasn't uncommon if you wanted to push a certain theological agenda to "discover" the writings of a more famous past theologian (your own writings signed with his name). Roughly half the epistles attributed to Paul are considered to be of questionable authenticity by Bible scholars.
Scriptures could be altered too, to suit the needs of a particular church. The Ebionite Christians had a variation of "Matthew" while the Marcionite Christians had their own version of "Luke" (the divisions between the two brands are apparent in the differences between the Jesus character of both Gospels). Even the modern Bible contains well-known examples of later additions. The ending of Mark 16 (verses 9-17) was not part of the original. Surely the resurrection narrative would have been something the "eye-witness accounts" would have gotten right the first time but apparently not.
So you can see already if you're trying to use scriptural testimony as historical verification, you're already standing on shaky ground before we even get into close examination of any verses.
Now you've used the "would they die for a lie" apology often touted by defenders of the faith. Beyond the problems of obvious special pleading with this argument (I'm guessing you don't use it to validate the followers of David Koresh, Jim Jones or the Hale-Bopp "Heaven's Gate" cultists, and these are examples who live in the modern day, not during a time of ancient superstition), you're using folklore to prove mythology.
I could just as easily ask, if Superman was not who he said he was, why would Lois Lane allow herself to be taken off the top a skyscraper in his arms. She was a smart, perceptive woman and a reporter. Surely if she had any doubts about Superman's ability to fly, she would never have agreed to be carried off a skyscraper in his arms. Furthermore, a man of such moral character as Superman could not have been either crazy or lying about what he was. And did he not match his words with great deeds? We are left with the only possibility that he was who he said he was. Oh, sorry, that's the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument. I digress.
Getting back to Paul, he offers very little in his epistles about the life of Jesus, and what he does say is either of theological problems or doesn't fit with the Christian folklore about the history of their church. For example, 1Cor 15 is often touted by notable apologists like Habermas as documentation of the history of the "early church", and it is full of problems. I can go verse-by-verse but the biggest issue is in verse 8 where he flatly denies that this "Christ" had lived during his lifetime.
Indeed, one of the most curious things about Paul's story in my mind was how could such a man have been the chief prosecutor of the Jews and yet not a witness to Jesus at any point during the latter's controversial three-year career? Second, if Paul was such a star prosecutor, why does his betrayal and conversion to the persecuted Christians go unmentioned by Jewish authorities? For that matter, why do the Jews have nothing to write about Christianity during the first century, since by Christian accounts they were such a big problem for them?
Bart Ehrman has written extensively on the problems of interpolation, later additions and pseudo-epigraphy with sacred writings of that time. It wasn't uncommon if you wanted to push a certain theological agenda to "discover" the writings of a more famous past theologian (your own writings signed with his name). Roughly half the epistles attributed to Paul are considered to be of questionable authenticity by Bible scholars.
Scriptures could be altered too, to suit the needs of a particular church. The Ebionite Christians had a variation of "Matthew" while the Marcionite Christians had their own version of "Luke" (the divisions between the two brands are apparent in the differences between the Jesus character of both Gospels). Even the modern Bible contains well-known examples of later additions. The ending of Mark 16 (verses 9-17) was not part of the original. Surely the resurrection narrative would have been something the "eye-witness accounts" would have gotten right the first time but apparently not.
So you can see already if you're trying to use scriptural testimony as historical verification, you're already standing on shaky ground before we even get into close examination of any verses.
Now you've used the "would they die for a lie" apology often touted by defenders of the faith. Beyond the problems of obvious special pleading with this argument (I'm guessing you don't use it to validate the followers of David Koresh, Jim Jones or the Hale-Bopp "Heaven's Gate" cultists, and these are examples who live in the modern day, not during a time of ancient superstition), you're using folklore to prove mythology.
I could just as easily ask, if Superman was not who he said he was, why would Lois Lane allow herself to be taken off the top a skyscraper in his arms. She was a smart, perceptive woman and a reporter. Surely if she had any doubts about Superman's ability to fly, she would never have agreed to be carried off a skyscraper in his arms. Furthermore, a man of such moral character as Superman could not have been either crazy or lying about what he was. And did he not match his words with great deeds? We are left with the only possibility that he was who he said he was. Oh, sorry, that's the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument. I digress.
Getting back to Paul, he offers very little in his epistles about the life of Jesus, and what he does say is either of theological problems or doesn't fit with the Christian folklore about the history of their church. For example, 1Cor 15 is often touted by notable apologists like Habermas as documentation of the history of the "early church", and it is full of problems. I can go verse-by-verse but the biggest issue is in verse 8 where he flatly denies that this "Christ" had lived during his lifetime.
Quote:1Cor 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he was seen to me
Indeed, one of the most curious things about Paul's story in my mind was how could such a man have been the chief prosecutor of the Jews and yet not a witness to Jesus at any point during the latter's controversial three-year career? Second, if Paul was such a star prosecutor, why does his betrayal and conversion to the persecuted Christians go unmentioned by Jewish authorities? For that matter, why do the Jews have nothing to write about Christianity during the first century, since by Christian accounts they were such a big problem for them?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
