Before going further, I admit that at one time I believed and did not question that Saul (aka "Paul") of Tarsus was a true apostle and that his epistles were "God-inspired" scripture. I have since come to question that after reading, studying, and thinking on the subject of Paul and his writings.

To those who think it is blasphemous or unthinkable to question Paul, I ask that you examine the writings of Paul and seriously think about the argument against him. You may be shocked to find that the truth about Paul is far different that what you may have been led to believe. There is overwhelming evidence to conclusively prove that Paul is a liar and a deceiver. Just because Paul's writings have been included in the "Bible" does not mean that they should be. The Apocrypha and other writings have been excluded. It is believed that Paul's writings were originally included as part of the "Bible" by Emperor Constantine (who made Roman Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire).

Paul's own writings show him to be a false prophet. He routinely lies and even misquotes and misrepresents Old Testament scripture. Paul taught against what the Messiah ("Jesus") taught. He taught against keeping the Old Testament law, and taught people to obey the rules and laws of men, including all laws of civil authorities (see Romans 13:1-7). Remember that Paul was a Pharisee who ruthlessly hunted down, arrested, and murdered the followers of the Messiah. He even boasted about it in his writings. Yet, he never expressed repentence for those great sins in his epistles. In reality, Saul/Paul transformed from a persecutor and murderer of the Messiah's disciples into an infiltrator and deceiver who sought to attack the true message of the Gospel from within by maquerading as an "apostle."

Also, remember that Saul/Paul was not trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and lived with the Messiah. He claimed to have received his knowledge from "revelations." He was not recognized by the true apostles as a genuine apostle. Paul claimed that title for himself.

Here are just a few examples of Paul's lies and false teaching:

#1. Paul lied about his "Conversion" on the road to Damascus before King Agrippa in Acts Chapter 26:

The story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is recorded three separate times in the book of Acts. Here's is Luke's account of the event from Acts chapter 9:

"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus." (Acts 9:3-8)

Note here that the voice only tells him to arise and go into the city and THERE it shall be told him what to do. The other account of Paul's "conversion" in Acts is basically the same as the one from Acts Chapter 9. Now, here is Paul's version of the event in front of King Agrippa in Acts Chapter 26:

"Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts 26:12-18)

Here, Paul claims that the voice told him these things he was to do THERE ON THE ROAD. This is a clear departure from the other accounts of the event. The two stories cannot be reconciled. At least one is not true. Luke's account in Acts 9 is most likely accurate. Paul embellished the story before King Agrippa.


#2: Paul claims all the law is fulfilled in one commandment:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galations 5:14)

The truth from the Messiah:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)


#3: Paul boastfully claims he was the "father" of his followers:

"I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." (1 Corinthians 4:14-16)

The truth from "Jesus":

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)


Admittedly, these are only a few examples of Paul's lies. One must do their own research and study in order to gain a full understanding of the fact that Paul was a false apostle and deceiver. I will attempt to provide more examples later.


Good websites/resources on this subject:

1. http://web.archive.org/web/20010801184519/http://www.revelations-unsealed.com/acts/acts1.htm (good articles against Paul; multiple chapters)

2. http://www.iahushua.com/ST-RP/paul.htm

2. http://www.yahuah.org/Paul.html (see links at bottom of page for articles on both sides of the debate)

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 11:55 AM. Reason : 8]

11/4/2005 11:35:17 AM

only paul?

shit, man, most of these guys didn't even exist, salisburyboy, and the stories are always conflicting in different books

if you're goign to doubt paul for these reasons, you might wanna look more closely at jesus.


--------

. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus (peace be upon him) had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.

5. To whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Issa (peace be upon him) appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?

7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus (peace be upon him) there, not in or near Jerusalem!

9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 12:06 PM. Reason : m]

11/4/2005 12:03:48 PM

Not to turn the thread totally away from the subject of Paul and his writings and teachings, but here is a response to the arguments from the article pasted above.

An Examination of the Alleged Contradictions in the Resurrection Narratives
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W1A.htm (part 1)
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W1B.htm (part 2)
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W2A.htm (part 3)
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W3A.htm (part 4)
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC0305W4.htm (part 5)

11/4/2005 12:44:49 PM

5 posts before the wolfpackers jump in

11/4/2005 1:37:19 PM

Yahshua ("Jesus") and his true disciples warned of false prophets and false teachers.


"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many...For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:4-5, 24)


“For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (Jude 1:4)


“Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
–Matthew 16:6

Remember, Paul was a Pharisee.


In Paul’s second letter to Timothy (written late in Paul’s life shortly before his death in Rome) comes a most interesting admission:

“You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me” (2 Tim. 1:15)

"Asia" (as referred to here refers to a region that includes parts of modern-day Turkey). This is proven by looking at the book of Revelation, which includes messages to the "seven churches in Asia" (see Revelation 1:4). A message to the church at Ephesus is included in Revelation Chapter 2. Ephesus, located in modern-day Turkey, was a city where Paul had attempted to win converts (see Paul’s letter to the Ephesians). Thus, Paul was admitting that the Ephesians had turned away from him as well. Now, examine what “Jesus” the Messiah says to the Church at Ephesus in Revelation Chapter 2:

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation 2:2)

Could this be referring to Paul (and his companions Timothy, and possibly Barnabas)? I think so. The Ephesians, as admitted by Paul, rejected him. And we know that Paul claimed to be an apostle. This is a huge clue as to the true nature of Paul as being a false apostle and deceiver. Additionally, the book of Revelation is believed to have been written around 65 A.D. (around the time of Paul's second letter to Timothy).


Further commentary:

Quote :

"Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Yahshua told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Again, notice that Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Yahshua. Obviously they hadn't rejected Yahshua if there were thriving churches there that Yahshua wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! Let me reiterate this picture again and try to grasp the profound significance of it. Here we have in the book of Revelation the words of Yahshua commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle. While Paul, the only person anywhere (other than the twelve original apostles) at that time to have gone on record claiming to be an apostle, we know has made this very claim to this same Ephesian church. At the same time, Paul laments himself of the fact that he has been rejected by them! How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Yahshua had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? It really couldn't' be more simple. Here, one more time, is the equation in its simplest form. Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yahshua" The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not." Yahshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!" This by itself, should be more than enough reason to raise serious question about Paul. Then, when we add to this the rest of the evidence against him and his doctrine, (more to come) we have more than enough reason to do as the Ephesian church and convict Paul of the crime of false impersonation of an apostle! http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm"

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 2:04 PM. Reason : 2]

11/4/2005 1:49:04 PM

#1. Paul lied about his "Conversion" on the road to Damascus before King Agrippa in Acts Chapter 26:

This one's kinda weak, don't you think? Whether he was told these things on the road or in town doesn't seem to make a whole lot of difference. What he was told to do, is that part still the same between Luke's and Paul's account? If so I'd say he just told a somewhat different version of the story, not lied.

#2: Paul claims all the law is fulfilled in one commandment:

Better. I can see how this would be a concern since he omits the section about loving God, but personally I'd like to see Paul's quote in context. This is one of the main concerns people have against your arguments and debating. You tend to just quote specific sentences and leave things out of context. For all I know, Paul's next sentence could be "oh by the way, love God with all you have, etc etc".

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, so don't go all CAPS on me. Just some context would make your arguments stronger.

#3: Paul boastfully claims he was the "father" of his followers

Not much I can say to this one. It's the strongest of your examples, and since I know nothing of the Bible and am not really religious, I can't make a case against it. Maybe someone more familiar with scripture could.

I will say that Paul is a man, and man fucks up from time to time. Also I'd say the Bible has been through several writings, translations, and interpretations over the years, so it's possible that some things, like #1 and sorta possibly #2, as well as the inconsistencies in the Resurrection stories could be explained by errors in translation or writing.

11/4/2005 2:07:41 PM

how does this fit into the vast jewish conspiracy

was paul their mole in the new testament?
he convinced the christians for 15 centuries that lending money was immoral, so the jews were able to build up the vast financial network that sustains the conspiracy even today???

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 2:36 PM. Reason : omg he's right]

11/4/2005 2:35:24 PM

^ Probably. His name was Saul, wasn't it?

11/4/2005 2:58:51 PM

i believe this helps salisbury's worldview by making the catholic church look bad.

11/4/2005 3:02:16 PM

Saul (aka "Paul") was a Pharisee. Phariseeism has today become Babylonian Talmudism/Kabbalahism. He admittedly hunted down, arrested, and had killed and imprisoned the followers of Yahshua ("Jesus"). Yahshua spoke very harshly of the Pharisees, describing them as "vipers" and exceedingly wicked, and warned his followers to beware of the teaching of the Pharisees.

Speaking of the Pharisees in Matthew Chapter 23, Yahshua says:

"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets"...."Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:31, 33)

Note here that the term "generation" (same root as the word "genealogy", etc.) refers to a "race" of people (as is supported by verse 31).

And here is a very interesting statement from Yahshua concerning (I believe) these same Pharisees/Talmudists:

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." (Revelation 2:9)

From these passages, we know that the Pharisees/Talmudists are a "generation"/"race" of "vipers" and are "the synagogue of Satan."

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 3:31 PM. Reason : 1]

11/4/2005 3:29:28 PM

Oh, I get it. This goes with the jew thread.

11/4/2005 3:33:55 PM

I don't know how Paul became an apostle, since he never met Jesus and Paul's writings were a throwback to the Old Testament.

11/8/2005 11:43:38 PM

Romans 13:1-2: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

This Pauline doctrine should be music to the ears of all earthly rulers, dictators, and would-be tyrants. You must obey and submit to all forms of government because it is "of God." And if you resist the government, you are damned to hell. According to Saul, I guess the founding fathers of the United States will burn in hell for rebelling against the King of England.

And how does this doctrine square with the idea of an Anti-Christ coming that may force all humans to take the "mark of the beast." Would Paul have you go along with this Anti-Christ and take the mark of the beast (and be damned to hell that way)? I guess so. What about Nazi Germany? Was it wrong for Christians in Germany to oppose and resist the Nazi policies? Hypothetically, what if the government passed laws bannning reading or possessing the Bible? Do you submit to that as well? What if you lived in a country where being a Christian was a crime?


[Edited on January 15, 2006 at 4:35 PM. Reason : `]

1/15/2006 4:26:44 PM

Quote :

"Remember that Paul was a Pharisee who ruthlessly hunted down, arrested, and murdered the followers of the Messiah. He even boasted about it in his writings. Yet, he never expressed repentence for those great sins in his epistles. In reality, Saul/Paul transformed from a persecutor and murderer of the Messiah's disciples into an infiltrator and deceiver who sought to attack the true message of the Gospel from within by maquerading as an "apostle.""

consider the following scripture (written by Paul),

Quote :

"1 Corinthians 15:5-12 (KJV) 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. "

These clearly show that Paul admits persecuting the church was bad. Moreover, these show that Paul's "boasting" was not really about Paul, but rather Christ the source of Saul's transformation into Paul.

You would be wise to consider who your allies are in this belief that Paul was a false apostle. I'm not saying it is bad to question it, that is certainly healthy, but I don't think your conclusions are the result of careful study of scripture.

1/15/2006 7:15:37 PM

I have heard many preachers refer to their "flock" or their children all the time with regards to their congregation. Are they a part of the vast jewish conspiracy too?

1/15/2006 7:36:55 PM

Even if this was true, what bearing would it have on peoples of various denominations' personal salvation?

1/16/2006 2:36:58 AM

wow... my and sali are almost in agreement... but for different reasons...

i'm not a fan of Paul because certain more hateful and restrictive commands of his conflict with the whole "Love thy neighbor" thing Jesus had going on...

1/16/2006 7:25:38 AM

all these christians arguing the accuracy of their faith


ahahaha

1/16/2006 7:55:38 AM

Here are the problems I have with your arguments: While you point out some possible error's on paul, which are all very weak arguments, You give very little evidence where Paul's Teaching's are contrary, or opposed to those of christ. while some questionably/possible skew none are contrary. We Clearly have the teachings of Christ, and those of Paul. Show me some apposing teachings. So here is the situation you have shown me:
"Paul's Thoughts": "I'm not called by God, but HA, I was show the christians by living my life according to the teachings of their leader, and proclaiming his name and teachings throughout the land, that's how I'll get them...." and considering you've completely ignored all the persucution Paul went through for his faith I find it very hard to believe he was attempting to corrupt christianity. If he was trying to destroy chirstianity, why would he not keep his original stance with the pharisees and keep the persacutions up??

I promise you, If there was serious questions about paul and his teachings, someone has studied it in much more depth than you. Remember, You can read some websites for a few days, while there are chirstians/theologains, and men much greater/smarter than me or you who have studied these books their entire lives. don't read one message board post, or web blog and feel you have discovered what 2000 years of theologians, or great thinkers haven't thought about or studied yet.

So In that, I ask you to keep studying your claims, and to really ask yourself if you feel the evidence really shows that Paul's teachings were false or against christ's teachings. Romans would be a good book to study, where Paul probably made most of his greatest claims. Hope this helps your thoughts some.

1/16/2006 10:34:29 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 4:10:16 PM

still waiting for salisburyboy's reply...

1/18/2006 5:41:07 PM

Same here

1/18/2006 10:18:04 PM

Quote :

"You would be wise to consider who your allies are in this belief that Paul was a false apostle. "

I've considered that, but I stand by my conclusion because I have based it a study of the Paul's writings and other New Testament scriptures.

Quote :

"If he was trying to destroy chirstianity, why would he not keep his original stance with the pharisees and keep the persacutions up??"

It is more difficult to destroy a religious movement from outside attack. A much more dangerous and effective way to weaken and destroy the Christian movement would be from an internal attack--from false teachers who would masquerade as Christian apostles and teachers but would slowly introduce false doctrines. And in order for Saul (or any internal enemy) to suceed, he had to be a very good counterfeit. That's why the vast majority of Saul's teaching is consistent with Jesus's teaching.

Quote :

"there are chirstians/theologains, and men much greater/smarter than me or you who have studied these books their entire lives"

I've considered that. But the mainstream churches are wrong on several other issues as well that they have had centuries to study. Examples: celebrating the "holidays" of Christmas and Easter, both of which are of pagan origin, many churches practice unbiblical infant baptism, most falsely believe that Sunday is the Sabbath, etc.

[Edited on January 19, 2006 at 8:20 AM. Reason : `]

1/19/2006 8:20:07 AM

but the real question is, did saul of tarsus eat cheese

1/19/2006 8:26:49 AM

you think those were scales on his eyes?

no sir

cheese factory explosion

1/19/2006 10:42:04 AM

Quote :

"I've considered that, but I stand by my conclusion because I have based it a study of the Paul's writings and other New Testament scriptures."

I don't see the divergence between those teachings directly atributed to Christ and those given by Paul. Your main points seem to be

1. Paul claimed to be special or proud or something akin to that
2. Paul said we should submit to government

On the first point I have already quoted some of the scriptures in which Paul admits he is nothing
without Christ. Whatever pride Paul exhibits if you read it in context you'll always find the source and object of his pride is Chirst. On the second point, where does Christ command us to not obey the government? I know Chirst said "to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's", I'm pretty sure that his way of instructing them to pay their taxes. Now, on the other hand, neither Paul nor Chirst ever gave instructions to believers to obey the government if it required us to do something wrong. For example, if the government said we had to pray to George Bush as our god, then we could justly decline because that is in contradiction to other scripture. In short, the main item missing from all of your arguments is context.

Besides that, I don't understand the motive Paul would have for twisting Christ's teachings ( again
I have yet to clearly see you make the demarcation between the two, in my oppinion the letters written by Paul and the books quoting Jesus have exactly the same doctrine when read carefully ).

I mean, why would Paul go to such great lengths to spread the gospel across the known world at the time? If he just wanted to subvert the truth, you'd think it would be better to create a false doctrine against missionary work. Instead he sacrificed most of his adult life to go to everywhere he could to tell people the Gospel.

I just don't understand why he would possibly have gone to such great lengths to spread a "false"
gospel (again how exactly is it false? )

[Edited on January 21, 2006 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2006 5:35:52 PM

1/22/2006 4:41:14 AM

One day salisburybot is going to come across some conspiracy site that points out the fact that Jesus was a jew, and he's going to implode.

1/22/2006 9:50:48 AM

you know the funny thing? if paul is a false apostle, there isn't much left of the supposed existence of jesus, since paul is pretty much the missing link between jesus' supposed life and matthew, which was written like 70 years after jesus died

1/22/2006 2:08:06 PM

^ irrelevant. Paul never met the man Jesus.

on another note, if it wasnt for Paul, Xianity would have died quickly after the romans destroyed Jerusalem, as just one of many messianic cults... they'd be a couple paragraphs in Judaiac studies, right after the Essenes. or maybe theyda been forgotten entirely.

Xians don't really follow the teachings of christ. they follow the teachings of Paul. the religion might as well be called Paulism.





[Edited on January 22, 2006 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2006 2:29:47 PM

that's exactly my point. he never met jesus, and neither did anyone else who wrote about him. that's what i'm saying. dude didn't exist.

and you're absolutely right that christianity would have been nothing without paul.

1/22/2006 2:52:10 PM

DG, ah i see what you meant now.

but i think its pretty well established that the man, Jesus, most probably existed and was executed by the Romans. Josephus and Tacitus (both highly placed Roman historians, contemporary to Paul's time) separately report in their official chronicles that a troublemaker named Jesus and called the christ (messiah) was executed by Pontius Pilate, the provincial governor of Judea.

Josephus also tells how the High Priest of Jerusalem, in about 61 ad, was removed from his postion by Ceasar because he illegally ordered the death of James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Christians, an event which caused the Romans some problems.

at any rate, the fact that a guy named Jesus from Nazareth (most probably) existed doesn't change the substance of the arguments about whether this guy Jesus was who his followers later claimed he was, or if he really did the things they claimed he did.



[Edited on January 22, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2006 4:11:56 PM

just saw something that maybe related on cnn, havent read this thread yet though.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/22/christ.book.ap/index.html

1/22/2006 5:11:19 PM

Quote :

"Cascioli says he is merely going through the necessary legal steps in Italy so he can ultimately take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to pursue the case against the church for "religious racism.""

So this dude is taking the church to court because it says that Christ really existed. It's a brave new
world this atheist would have us live in.

1/22/2006 6:24:56 PM

Quote :

"but i think its pretty well established that the man, Jesus, most probably existed and was executed by the Romans. "

well, it's pretty well established that a man named jesus (yeshua), which means joshua, probably did exist at that time in that place. lots of them did... it was a pretty common name. And yeah, some of them were probably executed as well. That's about it. as far as THE jesus existing, not to mention whether he was the son of god, is HARDLY well established. quite the opposite

1/22/2006 6:32:57 PM

Quote :

"Prosecutors, who in Italy are obliged to investigate such complaints, initially tried to have the case dismissed, saying no crime could be verified. But Cascioli challenged them, and Judge Gaetano Mautone set a hearing for next Friday in Viterbo, north of Rome, to discuss preliminary motions in Cascioli's bid to have the court appoint technical experts to review the historical data and determine if Jesus really did exist. "

I wonder if they will carry this thing through to the end, or just throw it out at some point?

1/22/2006 6:35:34 PM

Quote :

"as far as THE jesus existing, not to mention whether he was the son of god, is HARDLY well established. quite the opposite"

youre in with a very slim minority of biblical scholars. even the most liberal non-religious one concede he probably did exist, and probably preached in galilee for a few years before being executed for his troubles.

for one thing, nazareth was a small place. and some Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua from nazareth, during the reign of Ceasar Augustus and the Prefecture of Pontius Pilate, whether he was some sort of magical deity or not, made a tremendous impact on western society via the teachings of his followers. even his followers had followers. *something* happened, to the extent that Roman historians with political connections to the Emperor of Rome, reported on his execution, and the execution of his brother, James.

You dont have to beleive in the birth narratives, or the miracles, or even any of the cited speeches/parables or any of the later theological imperatives or apocalypses --- you can just say some guy named jesus ran around preaching in Galilee, said some crazy shit that pissed TPTB off, and got hisself kilt.

I mean you can say the same thing about David Koresh, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, or any number of religious whackos. yeh they existed, yeah some people think they are a god. But just because they exist, doesnt mean they are what their followers claim them to be.

otherwise you have to construct a more elaborate conspiracy on how someone non-existant became the basis of a religion of billions and major influence on global politics/society/economics/warfare/etc.

Try Occam's Razor.

1/22/2006 10:35:07 PM

^^^ I like how evidence for christ's exsistance is put forward, and you respond against it, yet provide no evidence or reasoning behind your thought, other than maybe you just don't want to believe he exsisted. You have as much reasoning to deny the exsistance of christ as I have for denying that columbus ever exsisted.
It seems to me that you havedn't done any real research on the subject. So, if there wasn't a specific man Named Jesus of Nazereth, Please explain your points explaining The historical evidence behind it, such as Jospheus, roman historical records, and the gospels. Then provide an explination for the explosion christiainity during the time of the early such, 50 - 200 A.D.. Finally give the reasoning behind whoever "wrote" all the gospels and the reason that the religion was established??
You can't pull out the center figure head in which an entire religion rests upon and give no reasoning for everything else.

It's one thing to say Jesus was misunderstood/ misinterptered, but to say he didn't exsist, is obsurd.
Just like salisburyboy, I encourage you to do some research, and really show me some evidence that Jesus never exsisted. When I say Jesus, I mean the man who was born in bethlehem, grew up in Nazereth, and held a ministry which had very radical teachings and many followers for it's time and was crusified by order of pontius pilate.

Questioning Christ's Diety, understandable, Saying he never exsisted and being positive about it, is obsurd.

[Edited on January 22, 2006 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2006 10:40:48 PM

Quote :

"When I say Jesus, I mean the man who was born in bethlehem, grew up in Nazereth"

the same evidence and reasoning that suggest jesus most likely existed, also suggests that he was most likely NOT born in bethlehem. that is only repoted in two places the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives, which are not really very credible for a number of reasons.

1/22/2006 10:59:17 PM

thanks for the comment, but the idea was just to specify who I was talking about, since he was claimnig there were many men named Jesus in the area etc., I think the point was made.

1/23/2006 12:03:18 AM

you'll note that nobody else is trying to provide "hard evidence" either. Here's what I'm saying - the proof that Jesus didn't exist is that there's no firsthand evidence of his existence. None. My proving that would mean showing you every single document that COULD possibly provide that firsthand evidence, and allowing you to see that he isn't mentioned in it. Clearly, that's impossible, and it's also silly.

when trying to prove something exists, the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove it exists. Trying to prove something does not exist is, clearly, logically impossible.

Quote :

"youre in with a very slim minority of biblical scholars. even the most liberal non-religious one concede he probably did exist, and probably preached in galilee for a few years before being executed for his troubles."

Again, that's what people keep telling me, but then they can't provide one bit of evidence that this is true.

Quote :

"You dont have to beleive in the birth narratives, or the miracles, or even any of the cited speeches/parables or any of the later theological imperatives or apocalypses --- you can just say some guy named jesus ran around preaching in Galilee, said some crazy shit that pissed TPTB off, and got hisself kilt. "

why would I say that, if i don't think it's true? I mean, there's a chance that it is, but It's never been so much as proven. Try and find something written anything closer than 50 years after Jesus supposedly died that even mentions him, and try to find something around then that even acknowledges the idea of his actually being a real person. seriously, I'll eat my hat.

I'm not wearing a hat, but I'll buy one and eat it.

Quote :

"So, if there wasn't a specific man Named Jesus of Nazereth, Please explain your points explaining The historical evidence behind it, such as Jospheus, roman historical records, and the gospels. Then provide an explination for the explosion christiainity during the time of the early such, 50 - 200 A.D.. Finally give the reasoning behind whoever "wrote" all the gospels and the reason that the religion was established?? You can't pull out the center figure head in which an entire religion rests upon and give no reasoning for everything else. "

lemme find some links and such for you, and I'll have it all laid out in a while. I can give you one easy answer for one of the questions - there ARE no roman historical records about jesus or his execution. There may be records of a man named yeshua who was executed, but if there is, nowhere is there a mention of his calling himself king of the jews or any of the other circumstances surrounding his crimes relating to anything like that.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Quote :

" The so called Testimonium Flavianum. This is the only direct discussion of Jesus to be found in the writings of Josephus. Unfortunately, the text as we have it in extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities appears to have been dramatically re-written from a Christian point of view. (The writings of Josephus were brought down to us from antiquity not by the Jewish community, but by the Christians). The second column contains an Arabic quotation of the Josephus passage that has a much less Christian flavor. Some scholars have argued that the Arabic version has a more likely claim to originality. Although that is a strong possibility, it should be noted that even the Arabic version is a good deal kinder to Jesus than Josephus usually is to messianic claimants. In addition it is harder to see why the Christian scribe would feel so compelled to change it. It is possible that the original may have been much more insulting, in keeping with Josephus' normal pattern, and that the Greek and Arabic versions are simply two different recensions of a Christian rewrite. R. Eisler has made an effort to reconstruct an 'original' that might have, given Christian revision, served as a base for the version that survives in Greek. It is, of course, entirely hypothetical, and no textual evidence exists to support it, but it does fit in better with Josephus' usual pattern and language, as well as the general context of the passage. On the other hand, it may be possible to 'save' the Arabic version. Particularly if we remove the last sentence (accordingly ...wonders) as a pious expansion, we are left with a non-committal report on the martyrdom at Roman hands of a pious Jew. This would not be at all inconsistent with Josephus' style, particularly if he discounted as later followers' embellishments the claims made by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. This last suggestion is to some extent crippled by the less controversial reference in Antiquities 20 if it is genuine (see below)."

here's the text:

Quote :

"R. Eisler's Reconstruction Same text, in a less complementary modern scholarly reconstruction. R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus, (tr. A. H. Krappe), 1931, p. 61. Quoted from the Loeb Classical Library , vol. 9, p. 48. Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists' after him is not extinct."

here's another translation of the same quote

Quote :

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64)."

And this is from AD 93! Jesus supposedly died in AD 33. This is the first written account we have of Jesus the man.

What about the gospels?

Quote :

""If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." --Hebrews 8:4."

according to virtually all biblical scholars, the gospels were written from about 70 AD (40 years after jesus supposedly died) to about 105 AD (70 years after he supposedly died), because mark mentions the destruction of the temple, which happened in 70 AD. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)

More to follow


[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 9:24 AM. Reason : l]

1/23/2006 8:56:42 AM

Christianity's biggest boon was probably when Constantine began working to make Christianity more popular and eventually the official religion of rome. This really started when Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan (313 AD) removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many were martyred in previous persecutions of Christians, and returned confiscated Church property.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_(emperor))

Quote :

"As a result, Church controversies, which had been lively within the Christian communities since the mid-2nd century, now flared in public schisms, often with violence. Constantine saw quelling religious disorder as the divinely-appointed emperor's duty and eventually called the First Council of Nicaea (May 20 - July 25, 325) to settle some of the doctrinal problems plaguing the early church, notably Arianism."

Constantine, needing to quell these problems, merely turned pagan symbols into christian ones and began the transition (though it wasn't just done by him) of christian stories into a copycat of pagan godman stories. That way, the pagans would do what they always did, and just worship the metaphor of a godman who died and rose again, because they didn't care about the details that made the christians feel good - namely a man who died trying to overthrow a corrupt jewish state

after a while, the jesus story became:

born on december
born of a virgin
born in a cave/barn
shown with a halo over his head
great teacher
performed miracles
died on a cross or tree
rose after 3rd day
ascended bodily into heaven
... and the list goes on

this was pulled from many stories, including those of attis, mithras, dionysis, osiris, hercules, etc.

How did christianity spread so quickly after this? that's easy - conquest

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 9:56:49 AM

The only problem with that argument is that the New Testament is Historically Dated to be written before the time of Constantine. Are you then suggesting that there were men continually editing the the different books of the NT as these pagan beliefs were slowly pushed into the religion.

1/23/2006 1:53:52 PM

there's no problem with that time difference. What I'm saying is that as far as the divinity/born of a virgin/died and rose again stuff, that was slowly pieced together and written in different books, which weren't officially cannonized until the council of nicea, which constantine organized.

there are many books that weren't included in the bible for different reasons ranging from talking about jesus' wife and children to the fact that he didn't die to the idea that he wasn't divine or, in some cases, was purely mythical. The new testament was officially put together and officialized at the council.

constantine didn't come up with the idea of making jesus another pagan god man, he just took the books that fit that idea and helped them get pieced together into a (sort of) coherent new testament

also, if you're saying that was your "only problem" with my points, does that mean you acknowledge that it's not the least bit absurd to say jesus didn't exist? I could be wrong, but It sure as hell isn't absurd.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 2:04:46 PM

Your correct about the Time of the Cannonization, but the books weren't just pieced together to fit some political mold, as you put it. Most books were already in use and well acredited from earlier times, and the apoltles. The judgement on what to include into the Cannon was judged by apolostle authorship/approval. All books were written by apolostles or those who knew the apolostles. Though there are slight breaks to that rule, such as with Hebrews where the author is assumed to be Paul, but there is no positive proof. I'm just arguing what evidence I'm seeing in History.

I can't disprove Conspircy here, anymore than any other human who lives according to the laws of time and space can. You can keep pointing out oppurtunities and possibilities for conspiracy, and I can't argue that, since I wasn't there. I'm just arguing as what I see as much more probable.

1/23/2006 4:29:17 PM

DG simply believes everything that speaks against Christianity and writes anything off as nonsense that supports it. He's no different than the fundamentalist Christians he likes to mock, simply the other side of the coin. These threads are a waste of bandwidth.

1/23/2006 5:33:17 PM

you're right. i'm so biased that i go to the point of using proof to support my theories!

1/23/2006 11:52:32 PM

house arrest for you^

1/24/2006 12:10:01 AM

Quote :

"R. Scott Appleby, a professor of church history at the University of Notre Dame, concurs. There's "no real doubt" that Jesus existed, he said. "But what Jesus of Nazareth did and what he means is a different question," Appleby said. "But on the question of the existence, there is more evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there would be for many other historical people who actually existed. Not only did Jesus actually exist, but he actually had some kind of prominence to be mentioned in two or three chronicles.""

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/22/christ.book.ap/index.html

1/24/2006 9:23:06 AM

well, damn. I guess that if a professor of church history makes a comment in a news article with absolutely no backing evidence, I should just give up

1/24/2006 9:54:53 AM