(February 11, 2013 at 11:24 am)Question Mark Wrote: Someone once said that if one tells a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Paul (1st century missionary) would surely have heard this story, since it was part of the old Jewish mythology of the Torah, which would have been around for at least 500 years, and since Christianity was merely a cult of Judaism by the time of Jesus' supposed death, it only makes sense that Paul would incorporate the older myth into the new form of the religion.
If we knew Jesus definitely existed, which we don't, and if we knew precisely what happened in his life, which we don't, then it might have been arguable whether or not he did the things the bible says he did, and for the reasons that the bible gives. However, since we don't have any contemporary records of these things we can only go by what the bible tells us, which Paul is currently credited with having a large influence on.
To put it simply, Paul could have intentionally manipulated the truth of the man, Jesus, into conforming with the Jewish myth of the Messiah, or it could be that he was going off of the accounts of other people telling him about Jesus, or it might be that he really did meet the ghost of Jesus and was told all this, no one knows for the sure so far as I'm aware.
It's just safe to keep in mind that we cannot fathom the machinations of a man 2000 years dead, especially when documents apparently written by him are foundationally questionable.
Why would their be a contemporary record if the Church in or around the 3rd century consumed every document written describing Christ (to compile the bible) and "perserve" the rest? After the reformation and the need to seperate 'high learning' from the control of the church, Much if not all of the history surrounding Christ stayed with the church.
In short, There are 66 book that make the bible, There are thousands more describing this same time period in one way or another, in the vaulted libaries of the vatican. there is your 'contemporary record.'
