Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Paul's Lack Of Knowledge Of An Earthly Jesus


Adam5

Recommended Posts

Hi All, I was reading from Romans yesterday and was thinking about St. Paul and his total failure to write about an earthly godman.

 

These points have been made many many times, but thought might be interesting to some to mention again. 

 

Jesus wrote nothing.  No one wrote anything about Jesus in his lifetime or the years immediately after.

 

Complete silence from AD0 to AD52.

 

Paul's letters are the first Christian correspondence, 13 in all, some/many of which are disputed.

 

The earliest letter and the first book in the new testament is dated AD52 the Thessalonains 1.  With the other letters attributed to Paul being written over the next two decades. (Way before any written gospels)

 

It would be more honest and make a lot more sense if in the NT, Paul's letters came first, then the other epistles, then the gospels/acts at the end.

 

Reading from Romans, I am still shocked by the lack of knowledge of J's birth, teachings, exorcisms, miracles, prayers, healings, sermon on the mount, and other events in the supposed life.

 

But it starts to make some sense when you realise that the gospels were written 50-120AD, decades after Paul's letters and 30-90 years after the events.  I would put it at the later date.

 

The "life" of Jesus did not exist at the time of Paul.  It was simply made up years later from old testament propechies.

 

I was having a read of the letter to the Romans with new "no Jesus" glasses on, and you do get the sense that Paul has no idea who Jesus is.  Christ Jesus is simply a spiritual being.

 

He references many characters from the old testament, Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob.  Most of the citations come from Genesis and Isaiah.

 

I think Paul explains his sources in Romans 16:25-26 -

 

"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God"

 

He gets his gospel (not someone else's) directly from the prophetic writings i.e the old testament.  No wonder he makes few if any hints to an earthly Jesus.  These gospels simply did not exist at the time.  The "life" did not exist and Paul did not know or have an idea who he was.

 

The closest I can find is mention of the last supper where he got his information directly from revelation (i.e. made up or borrowed from Mithraism).  The easter story of the final period in Jesus life, his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the agony in the garden of gethsemene, arrest, trial and execution; was unknown to Paul.

 

I think these facts are devastating to the Christian case, but seen in this context the Bible makes more sense.  Your thoughts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul invented a religion.  The things that are missing from Paul's religion did not exist back then.  In other words they had not yet been dreamed up.  Given that some books in the Bible (Timothy, Titus) are blatant forgeries I would say Paul wrote at least six.  And remember that Hebrews never claims to be authored by Paul.  Scholars attribute it to Paul because they didn't want to admit it was written by an anonymous nobody.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul invented a religion.  The things that are missing from Paul's religion did not exist back then.  In other words they had not yet been dreamed up.  Given that some books in the Bible (Timothy, Titus) are blatant forgeries I would say Paul wrote at least six.  And remember that Hebrews never claims to be authored by Paul.  Scholars attribute it to Paul because they didn't want to admit it was written by an anonymous nobody.

Hi Mymistake, yes it appears that way.  I think Paul was a genius, but also a religious zealot.

 

Biblical scholars vary considerably according to their beliefs.  Secular scholars are more skeptical of athourship, and dating the new testament books later now, realising that the earlier estimates were optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add that Paul never referred to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his epistles.

That touch was added later by other writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add that Paul never referred to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his epistles.

That touch was added later by other writers.

Hi Centauri, there are so many things Paul is completely ignorant of, which blows apart the Christian story.

 

I found on a blog this list of things not mentioned by Paul:

 

"- Gethsemane (and Jesus' hesitation there)

 

- a trial before Pilate

 

- Peter's repeated denials

 

- Jesus' flogging (12)

 

- Jesus' crucifixion outside the walls of Jerusalem (13)

 

- a place called "Calvary" (mentioned only in Luke 23:33)

 

- the two malefactors condemned with Jesus

 

- Jesus' words from the cross

 

- the spear thrust in Jesus' side

 

- the darkness over the earth

 

- the earthquake

 

- the rising of the saints mentioned only in Matthew 27:52-53 (14)

 

- Joseph of Arimathaea

 

- Golgotha

 

- female witnesses

 

- an empty tomb (Paul never even mentions an empty tomb!)

 

- Doubting Thomas"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember it having a big role in my deconversion when I realized that christianity was started by Paul. I've seen it referred to as Paulinity, which may be more appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would add that Paul never referred to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" in any of his epistles.

That touch was added later by other writers.

Hi Centauri, there are so many things Paul is completely ignorant of, which blows apart the Christian story.

 

I found on a blog this list of things not mentioned by Paul:

 

"- Gethsemane (and Jesus' hesitation there)

 

- a trial before Pilate

 

- Peter's repeated denials

 

- Jesus' flogging (12)

 

- Jesus' crucifixion outside the walls of Jerusalem (13)

 

- a place called "Calvary" (mentioned only in Luke 23:33)

 

- the two malefactors condemned with Jesus

 

- Jesus' words from the cross

 

- the spear thrust in Jesus' side

 

- the darkness over the earth

 

- the earthquake

 

- the rising of the saints mentioned only in Matthew 27:52-53 (14)

 

- Joseph of Arimathaea

 

- Golgotha

 

- female witnesses

 

- an empty tomb (Paul never even mentions an empty tomb!)

 

- Doubting Thomas"

 

Paul was also pretty good at misquoting the Old Testament.

Like other cult writers to come later, he used it as he saw fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, I only deconverted recently and am just starting to learn about these NT inconsistencies (the OT has so many it's kept me occupied thus far).  So I am curious and have some questions that may seem rather basic but they are genuine:

 

  • why did Paul invent the religion?
  • why were the gospels and Acts necessary to the new religion? and, related to this,
  • what was the religion like before the gospels were written?

Thanks in advance, everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think it's quite likely that Saul/Paul is also an invented Biblical character, as are the 12 merry men. Nothing unusual or unprecedented about that, as all of the main characters in the OT are fictional as well. So it really doesn't matter what "Paul" says or doesn't say about "the historical Jesus" or when this fictional character said it. The entire New Testament is a foundation myth. it's like Lovecraft and his followers, writing realistically about stuff that only happened in their imaginations. For fiction to be compelling it first must seem real on some level. 

 

Null hypothesis the sumbitch. I will consider the NT entirely fictional until someone produces a compelling reason to believe otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, I only deconverted recently and am just starting to learn about these NT inconsistencies (the OT has so many it's kept me occupied thus far). So I am curious and have some questions that may seem rather basic but they are genuine:

 

 

  • why did Paul invent the religion?
  • why were the gospels and Acts necessary to the new religion? and, related to this,
  • what was the religion like before the gospels were written?
Thanks in advance, everyone.
I think your questions are excellent. I wish we had the answers to all of them. They go right to the heart of the matter and that is why your questions are so good! I will take a stab at them, but the truth is that we really don't know all of the answers.

 

Why did Paul invent the religion?

 

The reason many people say Paul invented the religion is because his writings are the earliest known Christian writings. Therefore, many people conclude he invented the religion. He may have invented it, but I don't think so. Rather, despite his protestations that what he wrote was direct revelation from Jesus, it is more likely that what he wrote was based on what others had said. It is even possible that there were writings that predated even his which are now lost to us.

 

Why were the Gospels and Acts necessary to the new religion?

 

As for the Gospels, they played the role of purporting to be something of a biography of Jesus, though they are more than that. They also purport to lay the theological foundation for Christianity, particularly related to the arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

 

As for Acts, it is important because it purports to give the history of the early church.

 

What was the religion like before the gospels were written?

 

The first clue to this are Paul's writings. It was not a monolithic religion. There were obviously disagreements among the early Christians. For example, there were disagreements over such issues as whether gentile Christians had to be circumcised. There were also disagreements over the role of the Law of Moses, some saying it applied and others like Paul saying it did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The "life" of Jesus did not exist at the time of Paul.  It was simply made up years later from old testament propechies." Adam5


 


Adam,I have read a couple of books about the creation of the Gospels from the OT. There were many examples of the attempt to create Jesus from the OT that were obvious fabrications. For example the virgin birth. But some attempts to demnstrate the fabrication were a stretch, I think. .Do you agree?   bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was a strong willed man who felt he had a direct revelation from God. This is what makes a good cult leader, and it shows in his attitude towards the other apostles. They kind of give him the nod and send him off to the Gentiles (and out of their hair). But he says some fairly cutting things about them not adding anything to his message (even the so-called pillar of the church Peter). He then gets pissy about them bringing in the law when HE sees Jesus as the end of the law. So his writings, if at all authentic, were to congregations that he started all around that region, so he could shape the church as he felt God was telling him (and as his own Pharisee leanings led him). He puts his own spin on everything, and since he feels that his words come from God, he lets the church take it that way.

 

Yes, the gospels feel quite different than Paul's spin. Jesus' words cover mostly his own mission rather than addressing how churches ought to behave.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so, is there disagreement about Paul: is he himself a fictional character vs he invented the religion?  If so, I am not sure which view I agree with.

 

If he is a fictional character, then I'd like to understand why the religion-inventors invented a fictional character like Paul (and I guess there could have been others, whose writings are now lost).  I don't know how one goes about inventing a religion and what sort of decisions one would make about the components of it.

 

If he invented the religion, then it seems plausible for a cult leader to claim to have had a personal revelation of the promised messiah, and for others to later write fictional accounts of such a messiah to support the young religion.

 

None of this matters a great deal to me, I am just curious to learn about the beginnings of xianity because it helps me undo the brainwashing really thoroughly.  I am totally sold on the idea that the OT is 100% fiction, the characters never existed.  I am still deciding whether Paul and Jesus existed and if so, what their lives and times were actually like.  I think that Jesus could have existed and just been delusional, or he could have been completely fictional, like the OT characters.  If Paul existed, he could have been delusional and/or calculating in his megalomania.

 

There have always been gullible people, so it seems entirely plausible to me that people/characters like Paul and Jesus could have invented/claimed anything and they would have had followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so, is there disagreement about Paul: is he himself a fictional character vs he invented the religion?  If so, I am not sure which view I agree with.

 

If he is a fictional character, then I'd like to understand why the religion-inventors invented a fictional character like Paul (and I guess there could have been others, whose writings are now lost).  I don't know how one goes about inventing a religion and what sort of decisions one would make about the components of it.

 

There have always been gullible people, so it seems entirely plausible to me that people/characters like Paul and Jesus could have invented/claimed anything and they would have had followers.

 

The "historicity" of people in the NT is based on a misunderstanding of what type of literature it is. It is not history. It is theology. Theology has an interest in history, but only in a minor supporting role as the stage on which theological symbols/characters act. To a theologian, history can change at any time to suit their purpose, such as the author of Daniel simply inventing a figure named "Darius the Mede." The author knew that his readers may have heard the name Darius associated with royalty, though inconveniently, Darius was Persian not Median. But he needed a character to preside over the Median Empire to fit his story so he just invented "Darius the Mede." It's pseudo-history writing. It sounds historical occasionally, but is not. 

 

My guess is that the authors of the NT were very deliberately attempting to mimic both the style and the order of the Septuagint. Five books of the Law became four books of the anti-Law (aka "gospels") plus Acts. This was followed by the Books/Epistles of the Apostles, just as the Law was followed by the books of the Prophets. None of it mapped to real people or events directly, though some of it undoubtedly alluded to the propaganda war between the different sects. 

 

The letters, which are not letters, were written in the mind of the Prophetic books and Deuteronomy, though updated somewhat with some Philo, Seneca, and Dio Chrysostom  influence. It's puzzling why they don't go into more detail about the supposedly historical Jesus if they were written after the gospel, but lots of things Christians wrote into the third century barely mention the "life and teachings" of Jesus. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "historicity" of people in the NT is based on a misunderstanding of what type of literature it is. It is not history. It is theology...

...The letters, which are not letters, were written in the mind of the Prophetic books and Deuteronomy, though updated somewhat with some Philo, Seneca, and Dio Chrysostom  influence. It's puzzling why they don't go into more detail about the supposedly historical Jesus if they were written after the gospel, but lots of things Christians wrote into the third century barely mention the "life and teachings" of Jesus. 

 

I agree with your approach. I have some more questions... was the OT written before the NT?  If so, why was the NT written (was the OT insufficient, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so, is there disagreement about Paul: is he himself a fictional character vs he invented the religion?  If so, I am not sure which view I agree with.

 

If he is a fictional character, then I'd like to understand why the religion-inventors invented a fictional character like Paul (and I guess there could have been others, whose writings are now lost).  I don't know how one goes about inventing a religion and what sort of decisions one would make about the components of it.

 

If he invented the religion, then it seems plausible for a cult leader to claim to have had a personal revelation of the promised messiah, and for others to later write fictional accounts of such a messiah to support the young religion.

 

 

I've been steadily reading through the epistles of the early church fathers (writings from 80AD onward) which has left me quite convinced that Paul was a real person. All of them so far have mentioned Paul and a couple were disciples of him. I don't see why they would mention him in passing like that if they didn't know him personally. But I am with you, WHY did he make it up? Is Jesus completely fictional or based on a real person. What I wouldn't give for a time machine to take me back to see what was really going on back then. But I'm finding these epistles to be quite fascinating and they are a good read if you are interested in early church history. I plan to make a post on my findings once I get them all read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Paul knew very little about Jesus, but he does mention a few key points:

 

- Jesus dying and being "raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:4) I wonder what scripture he is talking about?

- Jesus being crucified (Romans and 1 Corinthians talk about Jesus being "crucified").

- Jesus being "betrayed" and whole 'eat my body and drink my blood' thing. The interesting thing is that in that passage, Paul says "For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself", and then talks about Jesus giving his body and blood (1 Cor 11:23-25). Why was the last supper given to Paul by special revelation? If it actually happened, wouldn't it just be regular knowledge? Wouldn't Paul have been told that information by Peter or anyone else that was in the upper room? Very odd.

 

I don't think Jesus and Paul are fictional. I'm more inclined to believe Jesus was a real person that was crucified, and then other people later tried to shoehorn him into OT prophecies and turned him into the Son of God. One reason that Jesus seems to be a real person is because the whole crucifixion thing just doesn't fit with the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. If you're inventing a Messiah, then you want to make him fit the OT prophecies like a glove. But anyone that's looked into the OT prophecies of the Messiah know it's a mess. It's a case of square pegs and round holes as they tried to make Jesus fit the predictions.

 

Paul seems legit to me. We've got one obsessed albeit educated man who gets some crazy revelation of Jesus Christ (likely coupled with oral stories that he had already heard). Because of his education and charisma, his writings end up trumping everyone else's ideas because he continuously put pen to paper.

 

Paul even has the balls to challenge the stories about him in the book of Acts (or the stories that were later included in Acts), which basically worships him. In the book of Acts, Paul gets converted, hangs out in Damascus for a while and then goes to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, Barnabas brings him to the apostles as proof of his conversion (Acts 9:22-28).  However, in Galatians 1:11-20, Paul challenges this. He specifically states that after his conversion, he didn't want to see anyone. He says he didn't go to Jerusalem to see the apostles, but went to Arabia instead, and later Damascus. He writes that three years later he finally went to Jerusalem, but only saw Peter and James, none of the other apostles. He finishes up by saying that he swears before God that he's not lying. This is really strange because the book of Acts has this legendary story about Paul's conversion, yet Paul's own story is a bit lackluster. If someone is making up the character of Paul, this is not a good move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a scholar nor the son of a scholar, but after studying and researching Paul it is my opinion that Paul was not intending to start a new religion. I think he was simply attempting to reform Judaism and make it more accessible to gentiles.

 

I am convinced the gospels, and all the main characters, were fictional including Jesus. I agree with blood the bible is theology not history. It is possible Paul was a fictional character too. I am still on the fence when it comes to Paul being a real person or a fictional character. I haven't found enough evidence to convince me one way or the other yet.

 

Dr. Robert M. Price is an excellent source for scholarly evidence that places Jesus in the fictional category. Dr. Price is an excellent source for information that deals with everything being discussed in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The "historicity" of people in the NT is based on a misunderstanding of what type of literature it is. It is not history. It is theology...

...The letters, which are not letters, were written in the mind of the Prophetic books and Deuteronomy, though updated somewhat with some Philo, Seneca, and Dio Chrysostom  influence. It's puzzling why they don't go into more detail about the supposedly historical Jesus if they were written after the gospel, but lots of things Christians wrote into the third century barely mention the "life and teachings" of Jesus. 

 

I agree with your approach. I have some more questions... was the OT written before the NT?  If so, why was the NT written (was the OT insufficient, and why?

 

 

The NT was written because Gentiles had formed a new religion based on the Jewish religion. They had to invent a new "patriarch," i.e. Jesus, since they could not use Abraham, nor could they use Moses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason that Jesus seems to be a real person is because the whole crucifixion thing just doesn't fit with the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. If you're inventing a Messiah, then you want to make him fit the OT prophecies like a glove. But anyone that's looked into the OT prophecies of the Messiah know it's a mess. It's a case of square pegs and round holes as they tried to make Jesus fit the predictions.

 

There is little in the way of "prophecies" of a future Messiah in the OT. David, Saul, Hazazel, and Cyrus the Persian Emperor are anointed ones in the OT. These are not prophecies. They are tales of past figures that had been anointed. 

 

So there was little or nothing that the NT writers could hang their Messiah on to make "OT prophecies fit like a glove." They instead had to come up with a whole new concept of the Messiah, by basically treating the entire OT as a book of future prophecy -- an interpretation unknown to Jews. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do the rest of the epistles tell us about the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus?

 

Ephesians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
Colossians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
2 Thessalonians - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
1 Timothy - one reference (6:13 "Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pilate made the good confession")
2 Timothy - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
Titus - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
Hebrews - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
James - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
1 Peter - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
2 Peter - 1:18 reference to transfiguration ("we heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the mountain")
1 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
2 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
3 John - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. 
Jude - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.

 

Out of 14 second century epistles, there are only two brief mentions of episodes from the life of Jesus, and none of them mention his ministry or teachings. 

 

What about non-canonical epistles?

 

1 Clement - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. But two quotes from Jesus from Gospels. 
2 Clement - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus. But several quotes from Jesus from Gospels.

Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (130 to 200) - no reference to the earthly teaching or events in the life of Jesus.

It is only with the Ignatian epistles that we consistently get references to the earthly life and teachings of Jesus.

 

So we cannot base anything on epistles' lack of knowledge of an earthly Jesus. That was standard for all epistles, not just the seven supposedly early and authentic Pauline ones. The writers clearly were making a distinction between the Jesus of the gospel and the "spiritual" Jesus whose earthly biography was unimportant to their message. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a couple of glorious books on this subject. Jesus is a myth. No earthly Jesus ever lived, died, or rose again. The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty and Nailed by David Fitzgerald are both glorious books.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging/dp/096892591X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397841174&sr=8-1&keywords=earl+doherty+jesus+puzzle

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=0P9ET9G8ZHMM6VK727N5

 

I reviewed Nailed a while back on my glorious site here:

 

http://religionisbullshit.me/nailed/

 

Glory!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The "historicity" of people in the NT is based on a misunderstanding of what type of literature it is. It is not history. It is theology...

...The letters, which are not letters, were written in the mind of the Prophetic books and Deuteronomy, though updated somewhat with some Philo, Seneca, and Dio Chrysostom  influence. It's puzzling why they don't go into more detail about the supposedly historical Jesus if they were written after the gospel, but lots of things Christians wrote into the third century barely mention the "life and teachings" of Jesus. 

 

I agree with your approach. I have some more questions... was the OT written before the NT?  If so, why was the NT written (was the OT insufficient, and why?

 

 

The NT was written because Gentiles had formed a new religion based on the Jewish religion. They had to invent a new "patriarch," i.e. Jesus, since they could not use Abraham, nor could they use Moses. 

 

 

That explains a lot.  Why did these Gentiles want a new religion?  Were there geopolitical needs to be met?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So there was little or nothing that the NT writers could hang their Messiah on to make "OT prophecies fit like a glove." They instead had to come up with a whole new concept of the Messiah, by basically treating the entire OT as a book of future prophecy -- an interpretation unknown to Jews. 

 

 

Yes that's right, the gospel authors were pulling OT scriptures out (suffering servant, etc) and turning them into 'prophecies' to make the story fit.

 

The fact that the gospel authors couldn't come up a clear prophecy of a crucified Messiah (the jews aren't expecting a Messiah that gets himself killed) indicates that there may be some truth to a crucified person named Jesus. Otherwise they would've been able to do a better job trying to make their interpretation of 'prophecy' fit.

 

Also, in Paul's passage where he defends his account of his conversion (Gal 1:11-20 from my last post), Paul mentions that he only saw Peter and James and not the other apostles in Jerusalem. He makes the passing comment that the James he's talking about was the brother of Jesus. Pretty gutsy move if Jesus never existed. He's writing these letters to churches where the congregations can verify his facts. He talks about Peter and James as though they are his contemporaries, and he even harshly criticizes Peter later on in the same letter. Paul makes no efforts to paint a harmonious relationship between himself, Peter, and James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.