The Origin Of Jesus

May 23, 2008

Why would Paul talk about that kind of stuff? He didn't know him in person.

It would be natural to use some of Jesus's teachings and parables when they would illustrate the points that Paul is making. It would also be natural to tell some stories and anecdotes about Jesus, when these would illustrate Paul's points.

Yet, despite Jesus being the entire focus of what Paul was talking about, he fails to ever use anything that Jesus actually said. And the stories we are told of Jesus are last supper, death and resurrection. And that's it!

Anyways, I forgot to mention earlier a significant verse from Paul's letter to the Corinthian church, c. A.D. 55. It's considered one of the earliest Christian creeds:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. - 1 Cor. 15:3-5

Like I said, death and resurrection only.

You are one tough cookie. I think this is a fascinating piece of evidence, because it is a creed testifying to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection that originated less than two decades after his ministry. Two decades at the very latest; some scholars believe that Paul received this creed from Peter and James in the flesh when he visited them, which was only three years after his conversion:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord's brother. - Galatians 1:18-19

Notice Paul's use of the word brother when referring to James - "spiritual entities" generally don't have human relatives. Here's another couple proclamations from Paul for you to dismiss entirely:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. - Colossians 2:9

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. - 1 Timothy 2:5

May 23, 2008

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord's brother. - Galatians 1:18-19

Notice Paul's use of the word brother when referring to James - "spiritual entities" generally don't have human relatives.

The Lord's brother. Lord can also mean God. Monks are often referred to as brothers. It could be an honorary religious title. James does seem to be the leader of the Church in Judaea.

Here's another couple proclamations from Paul for you to dismiss entirely:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. - Colossians 2:9

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. - 1 Timothy 2:5

Well I don't want to get a reputation for dismissing things. But I can't ignore the fact that biblical scholars (that is non-christian biblical scholars) more or less universally agree that the 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by Paul but are much later. There is also disagreement among scholars about whether Colossians is a genuine Pauline letter.

The letters universally agreed to be genuine letters of Paul are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians. There is some doubt about the rest. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are pretty much universally considered to be fake (at least by non-christian scholars).

May 23, 2008

But as a bit of a footnote, I have started to read Mark's gospel and Matthew's gospel again. This time I decided to be completely impartial and not really care what conclusions I reached. I've also tried to do the best I can to do some background research while I examine these gospels.

The conclusion I am coming to is as follows: Some of the passages do seem to refer to actual events and an actual person. He seems to have been a spiritual revolutionary of sorts, possibly a messiah figure, who was good at coming up with pithy sayings, fond of debating with the pharisees and may have been crucified for playing part in a revolt or uprising.

Those sorts of figures were very common at the time - although his unique way with words would have marked him out as special.

But the gospels are very unreliable. Much of it reads like a fictional narrative. There are pagan borrowings in there too. And Paul's theology seems to keep making an intrusion - certain parts of the synoptic gospels definitely seem to have influence from Paul. And some of the more cryptic or esoteric teachings seem to have a zen-like quality to them and I'm inclined to feel that they may come from some book of wise sayings or something, possibly connected to a group similar to that in Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls).

Certainly most of the miraculous elements are either allegorical fiction, typical miraculous holy-man narrative, or are derived from mystery religion mythos or allusions to pagan stories.

So there's very little 'Real Jesus' in there, but some revolutionary Jewish teacher is hiding within the pages of the synoptic gospels. He's covered up with a whole load of rhetoric and ideas that don't belong to him though - and the gospel writers add their own perspectives too. I don't even know whether that real figure was even called Jesus. For all we know, he might not have been.

And I still think that the Jesus preached by Paul is a synthesis of the messiah idea and mystery religions - and not a real person at all. What happens with the gospels is that Paul's Christ gets combined with a real messiah figure (and a whole heap of other stuff) - and the Jesus of Christianity is formed from all of that.

Hardly a reliable basis for a faith at any rate.

May 24, 2008

The Lord's brother. Lord can also mean God. Monks are often referred to as brothers. It could be an honorary religious title. James does seem to be the leader of the Church in Judaea.

James is also listed as one of the literal brothers of Jesus in Matthew and Mark - this would be a pretty bizarre coincidence, since I'm pretty sure no one else in the New Testament is referred to as the "Lord's brother."

Well I don't want to get a reputation for dismissing things. But I can't ignore the fact that biblical scholars (that is non-christian biblical scholars) more or less universally agree that the 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by Paul but are much later. There is also disagreement among scholars about whether Colossians is a genuine Pauline letter.

The letters universally agreed to be genuine letters of Paul are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians. There is some doubt about the rest. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are pretty much universally considered to be fake (at least by non-christian scholars).

I don't think you have any kinds of statistics to back up what you're claiming about most non-Christian scholars. In either case, here's another verse from Luke citing Paul:

For [God] has set a day when he will judge the word with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. - Acts 17:31

You can argue that this isn't directly from Paul so it isn't reliable, but that's not an issue. At the very least, the verse echoes the sentiments of Paul's traveling companion and of the early Christian church. Nobody in the early church was getting excited over the resurrection of a "spiritual entity."

But the gospels are very unreliable. Much of it reads like a fictional narrative. There are pagan borrowings in there too. And Paul's theology seems to keep making an intrusion - certain parts of the synoptic gospels definitely seem to have influence from Paul. And some of the more cryptic or esoteric teachings seem to have a zen-like quality to them and I'm inclined to feel that they may come from some book of wise sayings or something, possibly connected to a group similar to that in Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls).

I haven't referred to the gospels this whole time, but I really don't know how accurate it is when you say they were written well after Paul. I've read that there is almost universal consensus they were all composed in the first century, but I haven't done the research myself so I won't rely on them too much. But like I mentioned earlier, I don't throw out everything I've heard about Rasputin just because some elements of his story have myth to them. I think you're on the right track by trying to discern between the mythical elements and the real historical elements of the gospels.

And I still think that the Jesus preached by Paul is a synthesis of the messiah idea and mystery religions - and not a real person at all. What happens with the gospels is that Paul's Christ gets combined with a real messiah figure (and a whole heap of other stuff) - and the Jesus of Christianity is formed from all of that.

I still don't think you understand how closely Paul is linked with the original Christ. Paul met with Peter and James just five years after Christ's alleged resurrection to verify their story. He proclaims in 1 Corinthians 15 that the disciples were also preaching the resurrection. I don't see any way for these "mythical elements" to have developed so soon after the actual Christ and in such close proximity to the disciples.

May 24, 2008

I still don't think you understand how closely Paul is linked with the original Christ. Paul met with Peter and James just five years after Christ's alleged resurrection to verify their story. He proclaims in 1 Corinthians 15 that the disciples were also preaching the resurrection. I don't see any way for these "mythical elements" to have developed so soon after the actual Christ and in such close proximity to the disciples.

Interesting angle.

So how would someone account for the different versions of the resurrection? They don't line up when it comes to who went and who didn't, so it's obvious that the Gospels are at the best second hand stories, and if so, the original teller got confusing details about the "most important event" in history.

Now add to that Paul supposedly was persecuting the disciples for some time after the death of Jesus, and yet went away for several years (according to his own testimony 3 years or more - to Persia, Tarsus, I think it was) to study the scriptures before he came back and started his ministry, and not until after all that did he se the apostles. It seems like a tight squeeze to fit all that into 5 years.

Btw, where does it say he met with Peter and James only five years after the "resurrection"?

May 24, 2008

Interesting angle.

So how would someone account for the different versions of the resurrection? They don't line up when it comes to who went and who didn't, so it's obvious that the Gospels are at the best second hand stories, and if so, the original teller got confusing details about the "most important event" in history.

I have no problem with discrepancies in the resurrection accounts. They all seem to maintain that Mary discovered the tomb and went back and told the disciples before Christ appeared to them all. Like I told evolutionBeyond, it's as if four different journalists are trying to piece together the accounts. They may differ on the details, but the general story is there, which is exactly what you would expect.

Now add to that Paul supposedly was persecuting the disciples for some time after the death of Jesus, and yet went away for several years (according to his own testimony 3 years or more - to Persia, Tarsus, I think it was) to study the scriptures before he came back and started his ministry, and not until after all that did he se the apostles. It seems like a tight squeeze to fit all that into 5 years.

Btw, where does it say he met with Peter and James only five years after the "resurrection"?

I'm reading a book that dates Paul's conversion c. 31-33 A.D. Since Christ was crucified c. 30 A.D. and Paul says he went to see the apostles after 3 years, that would put his meeting with them about 4-6 years from the crucifixion.

However, I just did some online searching and I'm pulling up the date of c. 35-36 A.D. for Paul's conversion. This would mean his meeting with the apostles could have taken place almost 10 years after Christ. However, this is not so important. What's important is that Paul actually met and fellowshipped with Christ's disciples, on several different occasions, and he claims that they preached the resurrection too (1 Cor. 15).

May 24, 2008

I have no problem with discrepancies in the resurrection accounts. They all seem to maintain that Mary discovered the tomb and went back and told the disciples before Christ appeared to them all. Like I told evolutionBeyond, it's as if four different journalists are trying to piece together the accounts. They may differ on the details, but the general story is there, which is exactly what you would expect.

Sure, and you use the right word "journalist", not "eyewitness". Which is a wide difference.

Now add to that Paul supposedly was persecuting the disciples for some time after the death of Jesus, and yet went away for several years (according to his own testimony 3 years or more - to Persia, Tarsus, I think it was) to study the scriptures before he came back and started his ministry, and not until after all that did he se the apostles. It seems like a tight squeeze to fit all that into 5 years.

Btw, where does it say he met with Peter and James only five years after the "resurrection"?

I'm reading a book that dates Paul's conversion c. 31-33 A.D. Since Christ was crucified c. 30 A.D. and Paul says he went to see the apostles after 3 years, that would put his meeting with them about 4-6 years from the crucifixion.

However, I just did some online searching and I'm pulling up the date of c. 35-36 A.D. for Paul's conversion. This would mean his meeting with the apostles could have taken place almost 10 years after Christ. However, this is not so important. What's important is that Paul actually met and fellowshipped with Christ's disciples, on several different occasions, and he claims that they preached the resurrection too (1 Cor. 15).

When Paul say that he didn't not receive anything of the Gospel from any man, but from Christ himself in Gal 1, what does he mean? To me, it sure sounds like the "story" about Jesus, when it comes from Paul, was revealed through visions and dreams and studies in the scriptures, not education from Peter. He met Peter, after he received the Gospel, and he only stayed with Peter for 15 days, and then only met James, and then he went on mission.

If we are to take his account that the apostles told him that they had met Jesus in person, we also have to trust him that he saw Jesus and got the Gospel in visions, which means, if we are to trust him, we have to take it all. I don't trust him, because I don't know this guy. I never met Paul in person, and there's plenty of scams in the world to prove that people are gullible.

Claude Vorilhon can testify that he met aliens, he met the for sure, and there's several hundred thousands people that believe that he did. Now, doesn't that prove people make stuff up, or they're delusional and believe their own stories, and then other follow them?

You say it's important that Paul "actually" met the disciples, but we have to remember, if he did "meet" them, then he did "meet" Jesus and had the visions and dreams too, because why would he lie about one thing, but tell the truth about the other? It's possible that he either imagined that he met them, or that he lied about both things and the real apostles were followers of a real teacher, and they never claimed he was resurrected for real. I mean, the possibilities are enormous if you just stop accepting one part of his "testimony".

Remember, Paul has to write to prove himself and tell the people in the Churches that he for sure is the real deal. They don't believe him, and he has to convince them, "no, no, no, I did see Jesus, and I did meet the apostles, and my message is from God..." etc. I think it's suspicious when his own church doesn't believe or know this. He's trying hard to impress them, and it gives me the feeling they didn't trust him. So why should we?

I think the problem in all this comes back to that Paul didn't get the Gospel from the Apostles, but got it during his secret retreat for 3 years. He studied "scriptures", he said, but what scriptures? It sure wasn't the "Gospels" at that time. Rael (Claude Vorilhon) did something similar, and I think Joseph Smith did the same thing. Somehow all the "holy" people that have a new revelation from God, they go into hiding for a while, and come back with a new religion. We know Paul spread the Gospel to the Roman empire, it also possible that he's the one who created the theology and ideas behind it. He supported it with claims no one could prove. But he was smart enough to uses material of real existing people and teachers (and maybe even some wisdom from some of his old teachers) and put together and first seed of the Christian belief.

The other side to this, is that it's also possible that there were a very clever and progressive magician, like Chris Angle, who can walk on water and be buried for three days and be alive again, etc, oh, he can fly too and turn water into wine. They had skilled magicians at that time, and maybe one had figure out the latest magic trick to "die" and to disappear from the tomb. Unfortunately some people took it for real. Maybe because he pretended to be a messenger from God and said some smart stuff he had learned from his studies of Greek philosophy (there's plenty of Jesus' teaching that goes back to the stoics et.al.).

There are many ways of dissecting this.

May 24, 2008

When Paul say that he didn't not receive anything of the Gospel from any man, but from Christ himself in Gal 1, what does he mean? To me, it sure sounds like the "story" about Jesus, when it comes from Paul, was revealed through visions and dreams and studies in the scriptures, not education from Peter. He met Peter, after he received the Gospel, and he only stayed with Peter for 15 days, and then only met James, and then he went on mission.

It's not like Paul didn't already know the story of Christ - he was a Jewish zealot who persecuted Christians, he knew what they were claiming. He just didn't believe in it until he had a vision of Christ. And then he went to see Peter and James to verify the truth and to declare his conversion to them.

Remember, Paul has to write to prove himself and tell the people in the Churches that he for sure is the real deal. They don't believe him, and he has to convince them, "no, no, no, I did see Jesus, and I did meet the apostles, and my message is from God..." etc. I think it's suspicious when his own church doesn't believe or know this. He's trying hard to impress them, and it gives me the feeling they didn't trust him. So why should we?

Is it really so surprising that people could be skeptical about a resurrection they weren't able to see themselves? I would need a little convincing too.

Claude Vorilhon can testify that he met aliens, he met the for sure, and there's several hundred thousands people that believe that he did. RNow, doesn't that prove people make stuff up, or they're delusional and believe their own stories, and then other follow them?

If it was just Paul testifying, then yes, it might appear that way. But the disciples and the early church were claiming the same thing before Paul did, which makes it a little harder to shrug it off as delusion. One person can have a hallucination, but a group of people having the same exact hallucination is a little harder to dismiss.

You say it's important that Paul "actually" met the disciples, but we have to remember, if he did "meet" them, then he did "meet" Jesus and had the visions and dreams too, because why would he lie about one thing, but tell the truth about the other? It's possible that he either imagined that he met them, or that he lied about both things and the real apostles were followers of a real teacher, and they never claimed he was resurrected for real. I mean, the possibilities are enormous if you just stop accepting one part of his "testimony".

Paul's not the only one who testifies that he met the apostles. The writer of Acts, who was a traveling companion of Paul, mentions meeting the disciples with Paul on several occasions. The writer of Acts also paraphrases sermons given by Peter in which he claims the resurrection of Christ. So he would have to be delusional as well. And the disciples themselves would have to be delusional, because they were persecuted and eventually martyred for their faith as well. If they didn't believe in the resurrection, there would have been no reason for them to endure their suffering the way they did.

And as far as Paul lying about his conversion experience and his meeting the disciples...that's just ridiculous. He completely abandoned his comfortable life as a Jewish zealot and became impoverished, persecuted, tortured and martyred. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose - for him to be a scam artist makes zero sense at all.

I think the problem in all this comes back to that Paul didn't get the Gospel from the Apostles, but got it during his secret retreat for 3 years. He studied "scriptures", he said, but what scriptures? It sure wasn't the "Gospels" at that time. Rael (Claude Vorilhon) did something similar, and I think Joseph Smith did the same thing. Somehow all the "holy" people that have a new revelation from God, they go into hiding for a while, and come back with a new religion. We know Paul spread the Gospel to the Roman empire, it also possible that he's the one who created the theology and ideas behind it. He supported it with claims no one could prove. But he was smart enough to uses material of real existing people and teachers (and maybe even some wisdom from some of his old teachers) and put together and first seed of the Christian belief.

You seem to keep forgetting that there were Christians around before Paul who were preaching the same thing. This is documented by Paul himself, who claims the disciples preached the resurrection and also recites a creed given to him by the early Christians. The writer of Acts also tells that the disciples preached the resurrection. The apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were disciples of Peter and John, attest also to their belief in the resurrection and subsequent martyrs.

The one thing that I agree with is that Paul's salvific theology is not something he got from the disciples. But as for the historical resurrection event, that is something that he verified with Peter and James.

The other side to this, is that it's also possible that there were a very clever and progressive magician, like Chris Angle, who can walk on water and be buried for three days and be alive again, etc, oh, he can fly too and turn water into wine. They had skilled magicians at that time, and maybe one had figure out the latest magic trick to "die" and to disappear from the tomb. Unfortunately some people took it for real. Maybe because he pretended to be a messenger from God and said some smart stuff he had learned from his studies of Greek philosophy (there's plenty of Jesus' teaching that goes back to the stoics et.al.).

You've got to be kidding me. The man was nailed to a cross by the Romans. What, was he in devious cahoots with the imperial soldiers and Pontius Pilate too? I've heard some crazy theories before, but the idea that Christ's crucifixion was a nifty magic trick is probably one of the silliest.

There are many ways of dissecting this.

Quality over quantity. Offering a half-dozen lame alternate theories is just as bad as offering one.

May 24, 2008

It's not like Paul didn't already know the story of Christ - he was a Jewish zealot who persecuted Christians, he knew what they were claiming. He just didn't believe in it until he had a vision of Christ. And then he went to see Peter and James to verify the truth and to declare his conversion to them.

No, he claims that he got the Gospel from no man, but from Christ himself. He didn't say he got it first from man, than confirmed by God, but he claims the opposite. So in his version, he didn't know about the Gospel before he got it from God.

If it was just Paul testifying, then yes, it might appear that way. But the disciples and the early church were claiming the same thing before Paul did, which makes it a little harder to shrug it off as delusion. One person can have a hallucination, but a group of people having the same exact hallucination is a little harder to dismiss.

Hang on. The earliest fragments we have are from the Pauline epistles, not the early church. Paul started the writing as far as the artifacts tells us. What the early church really believed, is based mostly on what Paul say they believe and later letters supposedly from Peter and James, and the "eyewitnesses". Paul was first with written theology, so we can't be totally sure it's true they had the same belief Paul did.

Paul's not the only one who testifies that he met the apostles. The writer of Acts, who was a traveling companion of Paul, mentions meeting the disciples with Paul on several occasions. The writer of Acts also paraphrases sermons given by Peter in which he claims the resurrection of Christ. So he would have to be delusional as well. And the disciples themselves would have to be delusional, because they were persecuted and eventually martyred for their faith as well. If they didn't believe in the resurrection, there would have been no reason for them to endure their suffering the way they did.

True. And this is the author that wrote the Gospel of Luke, which contradicts the time of the birth about Jesus. I'm sorry if I'm not jumping around in joy and believing that these guys are trustworthy when it comes to facts and accuracy.

Also true, that they must have believed in the "resurrection". Like both Muslim and even some atheist martyrs also believed in their cause. But what kind of "resurrection"? The men that walked on the road and was approached by Jesus, didn't recognize him. Not until he was "preaching and teaching" like Jesus. In other words, a doppleganger that took the role of Jesus to make them believe Jesus didn't die, and managed to fool them into thinking this other guy was the same as the first guy. Of course when they bought into that scam, they would believe for real.

Sometimes you get stuck in a situation where you can back down from what you have done in life and what you believe in, just because it's all you have. Sometimes we doubt that we've made the right choices, and yet we can be steadfast on continuing on the same path based on that choice, because of stubbornness. Being a martyr doesn't prove things right, only that they couldn't back down from their choice.

And as far as Paul lying about his conversion experience and his meeting the disciples...that's just ridiculous. He completely abandoned his comfortable life as a Jewish zealot and became impoverished, persecuted, tortured and martyred. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose - for him to be a scam artist makes zero sense at all.

So then, you are a Christian, because he wouldn't lie about meeting Jesus in visions and dreams, would he? To you, there's no doubt that Jesus was the son of God. You have no choice here. Either Paul tells only truths, or he is lying about stuff.

There are other people that have done the exact same thing, for other causes and other beliefs, that Paul did it too, doesn't prove that he's the only one that did it because of a "true revelation".

You seem to keep forgetting that there were Christians around before Paul who were preaching the same thing. This is documented by Paul himself, who claims the disciples preached the resurrection and also recites a creed given to him by the early Christians. The writer of Acts also tells that the disciples preached the resurrection. The apostolic fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were disciples of Peter and John, attest also to their belief in the resurrection and subsequent martyrs.

Paul's words. And also the author of Luke got the story about Paul's conversion inaccurate regarding the "light", "sound" things. They don't match up with Paul's own words. So from where did "Luke" get the Paul stories? If they had been from Paul, wouldn't they have matched up? I think there are other discrepancies too between Acts and the stories Paul tells about his trips, but I don't have it fresh in my head.

But I agree, there could have been believers to the resurrection of Jesus, because they got tricked. And I have my personal theory of how that little trick of the resurrection could have been pulled off, but that's for another discussion. The important part is that people who who saw magicians in that time believed they truly did have supernatural powers. It lasted up to just a few hundred years ago, when people still were executed for witchcraft (which usually involved medical remedies using herbs - those supernatural herbs are evil I tell you). People were gullible then, as they are today, and other people use it for their own purpose. The ones that are fooled many times, in their pride, refuse to back down from their beliefs, and are even willing to die for the things they think are right.

The one thing that I agree with is that Paul's salvific theology is not something he got from the disciples. But as for the historical resurrection event, that is something that he verified with Peter and James.

Sure. It's possible. However I find it curious that the Gospel is based on Paul's interpretations of the events and his studies and revelations, not the disciples own records from start. If Jesus had been the person they say he was, and the events really took place, it doesn't seem completely believable that someone else had to write about it and explain it, away from the people who did know it, and after he was done, he comes back and "confirms" it.

You've got to be kidding me. The man was nailed to a cross by the Romans. What, was he in devious cahoots with the imperial soldiers and Pontius Pilate too? I've heard some crazy theories before, but the idea that Christ's crucifixion was a nifty magic trick is probably one of the silliest.

Not at all. I think you're rather silly and gullible to buy into it all, without questioning the validity of the accounts.

Quality over quantity. Offering a half-dozen lame alternate theories is just as bad as offering one.

Then your opinion is that the Bible is true, and so is the Quran, and the Book of Mormon, and Rael did meet aliens? Since quality to your standard is to believe the people who wrote the fictional books, rather than look at the possibilities that the tricks one religious leader pulled off, can have been done the same way by others. Joseph Smith didn't talk to an angel. Mohammed didn't talk to an angel, or traveled to heaven and met God. Rael didn't meet aliens, and Paul didn't have true visions of God's son telling him the Gospels. Get real. Buy into one, and buy into all, or buy into none.

May 24, 2008

Another thing, Jesus wasn't the first to be resurrected, supposedly he resurrected several people in his mission, but also in the Old Testament you have those stories. Now, the options would then be: 1) not true stories, 2) God did it, 3) misunderstanding of the circumstances and rumours, 4) trickery, people were fooled. I don't buy into option 2), so of course those stories are explained by 1, 3 or 4. Now, what's the reason why I shouldn't consider the Jesus resurrection in the same category, when people "believed" the other "resurrection" stories as much?

Also, isn't it strange that these kinds of stories still are being made today as we speak. There are stories from different parts of the world of people who died and got alive again, and the strange part is that these stories happens in history in place with high tolerance of believing in magic and supernatural things, uneducated, non-scientific and non-rational times and places. It's not like we see people being resurrected magically on everyday basis in a chamber of some scientific research center, but only in the areas where people believe sticks and stone can capture spirits and ghosts! Those are the people we are supposed to trust for the accuracy of these stories. No way. I don't. Because I don't for all those stories we hear from 3rd world countries today. I don't believe in Rael, and I don't believe in stories from ancient times claiming magical things happening.

I've seen people being hypnotized to believe a person was invisible. I've seen people, who are skeptics, being convinced about supernatural things. So I do know, our mind is an easy target for deception and trickery. I did a little magic trick for a co-worker some years ago, and she freaked out, and actually believed I was hovering in the air. Then I explained to her what I did, and it all became clear to her. But she truly believed and was freaked out before I explained. How is that possible? I didn't use supernatural means, but natural, physical things and how the mind is manipulated into assume from what it see?

Take the story about Jesus and his death. I'm very suspicious about the story, because they didn't break his legs, and he "died" much faster than they normally would. Joseph of Arimatea took his body, and no record, or second hand confirmation that he did for sure put Jesus in the tomb. He wasn't even treated with the oils and spices as usual, and that's why Mary et al went there on Sunday. There is just as much, the natural explanation here, reason to believe that Joseph did not put Jesus in that particular tomb. That is a more quality argument that "God did it". They were mistaken. Then additional ideas and stories came along about the "angel" being there and soldiers falling asleep and so on.

Call it silly if you want, but I still think believing in the stories of some uneducated fisherman is sillier, because then you should do the same for all other fisherman stories. (Especially about the size of the "big catch", that tends to grow an inch each year.)

May 24, 2008

No, he claims that he got the Gospel from no man, but from Christ himself. He didn't say he got it first from man, than confirmed by God, but he claims the opposite. So in his version, he didn't know about the Gospel before he got it from God.

Read the whole chapter. He is trying to re-affirm the faith of the Galatians. He claims that the gospel is not "made by man" and he did not learn it by "teaching." He obviously believes that his experience with Christ will be the most authoritative with the Galatians, and he is trying to reassert this. This does not mean he "didn't know about the Gospel" beforehand. Obviously, if he was persecuting Christians, he had some idea of what they were about. And in the very next chapter of Galatians, he goes on to say that he verified this gospel with Peter and James, and that they also preached the resurrection. So it would be pretty swell coincidence if he only first heard about a resurrection from his vision if Peter and James already were preaching this too.

Hang on. The earliest fragments we have are from the Pauline epistles, not the early church. Paul started the writing as far as the artifacts tells us. What the early church really believed, is based mostly on what Paul say they believe and later letters supposedly from Peter and James, and the "eyewitnesses". Paul was first with written theology, so we can't be totally sure it's true they had the same belief Paul did.
...

True. And this is the author that wrote the Gospel of Luke, which contradicts the time of the birth about Jesus. I'm sorry if I'm not jumping around in joy and believing that these guys are trustworthy when it comes to facts and accuracy.

I could care less if Luke didn't get Jesus' birthday right, he wasn't there. But the man was a contemporary of the disciples and traveling companion to Paul. He is also alleged to have been a doctor, at the very least an educated man. I trust the majority of what he wrote, especially Acts, because he was with Paul on several of his missions.

And we know what the disciples and the early church believed because we have paraphrased sermons by Peter from Luke, the testimony of Paul who knew the disciples, and most importantly the creed Paul received from earlier believers (possibly Peter and James) that affirms the already-present belief in the resurrection (1 Cor 15).

We also have the words of church fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were followers of Peter and John. They attest to the disciples' beliefs in the resurrection and their being killed for their belief.

Also true, that they must have believed in the "resurrection". Like both Muslim and even some atheist martyrs also believed in their cause. But what kind of "resurrection"? The men that walked on the road and was approached by Jesus, didn't recognize him. Not until he was "preaching and teaching" like Jesus. In other words, a doppleganger that took the role of Jesus to make them believe Jesus didn't die, and managed to fool them into thinking this other guy was the same as the first guy. Of course when they bought into that scam, they would believe for real.

Who knows who these "men" are? Who cares? And I'm pretty sure the disciples would know Jesus when they saw him, after spending three years with him. It would have to take a pretty good looky-likey to make them disbelieve that the guy they saw crucified was all of a sudden back from the dead.

So then, you are a Christian, because he wouldn't lie about meeting Jesus in visions and dreams, would he? To you, there's no doubt that Jesus was the son of God. You have no choice here. Either Paul tells only truths, or he is lying about stuff.

There are other people that have done the exact same thing, for other causes and other beliefs, that Paul did it too, doesn't prove that he's the only one that did it because of a "true revelation".

Who said I was a Christian? I don't know what I believe in actually, but that doesn't change the fact that there is good historical basis for believing in the resurrection.

And I don't consider Paul's willingness to die to be good evidence for Christianity. The disciples' willingness to die is what is convincing. And I love how people automatically group the disciple martyrs with Muslim extremists and the like. There is one big difference: if Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then the disciples would have known it. They were in the unique position to actually historically verify the validity of their faith. A Muslim has no such privilege.

But I agree, there could have been believers to the resurrection of Jesus, because they got tricked. And I have my personal theory of how that little trick of the resurrection could have been pulled off, but that's for another discussion. The important part is that people who who saw magicians in that time believed they truly did have supernatural powers. It lasted up to just a few hundred years ago, when people still were executed for witchcraft (which usually involved medical remedies using herbs - those supernatural herbs are evil I tell you). People were gullible then, as they are today, and other people use it for their own purpose. The ones that are fooled many times, in their pride, refuse to back down from their beliefs, and are even willing to die for the things they think are right.

I would love to hear about your magic trick.

Sure. It's possible. However I find it curious that the Gospel is based on Paul's interpretations of the events and his studies and revelations, not the disciples own records from start. If Jesus had been the person they say he was, and the events really took place, it doesn't seem completely believable that someone else had to write about it and explain it, away from the people who did know it, and after he was done, he comes back and "confirms" it.

Maybe because the disciples were Jewish fisherman, they weren't so good with the writing thing. Paul and Luke spoke both Greek and Hebrew and were educated men. And it's not like the disciples weren't trying to spread the word. Like I said before, Luke documents sermons given by Peter and points out Peter's position as leader of the church in Judea. James is also cited a leader as well.

Then your opinion is that the Bible is true, and so is the Quran, and the Book of Mormon, and Rael did meet aliens? Since quality to your standard is to believe the people who wrote the fictional books, rather than look at the possibilities that the tricks one religious leader pulled off, can have been done the same way by others. Joseph Smith didn't talk to an angel. Mohammed didn't talk to an angel, or traveled to heaven and met God. Rael didn't meet aliens, and Paul didn't have true visions of God's son telling him the Gospels. Get real. Buy into one, and buy into all, or buy into none.

I don't believe in the Bible. I am only concerned with whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not, and you don't have to believe the Bible is the word of God to know that. And like I said, I don't think Paul's visions are a good defense of Christianity. I have no doubt that he sincerely had a vision, but like you pointed out, so did Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

May 24, 2008

Read the whole chapter. He is trying to re-affirm the faith of the Galatians. He claims that the gospel is not "made by man" and he did not learn it by "teaching." He obviously believes that his experience with Christ will be the most authoritative with the Galatians, and he is trying to reassert this. This does not mean he "didn't know about the Gospel" beforehand. Obviously, if he was persecuting Christians, he had some idea of what they were about. And in the very next chapter of Galatians, he goes on to say that he verified this gospel with Peter and James, and that they also preached the resurrection. So it would be pretty swell coincidence if he only first heard about a resurrection from his vision if Peter and James already were preaching this too.

True. But this means, that the things that he did verify, his visions, were correct. The chances of getting visions that corresponds to the teachings of some other people, independent of each other, is slim to none. So, the other alternative is as you say, he did know about the teachings before he even went to study the scriptures. Basically, he did get them from other "men", not originally from God.

I could care less if Luke didn't get Jesus' birthday right, he wasn't there. But the man was a contemporary of the disciples and traveling companion to Paul. He is also alleged to have been a doctor, at the very least an educated man. I trust the majority of what he wrote, especially Acts, because he was with Paul on several of his missions.

Does Luke's version of Paul's vision on the road of Damascus corresponds to Paul's version? After all, Luke must have talked to Paul about it, heard his sermons, endless times and eventually get it right?

And we know what the disciples and the early church believed because we have paraphrased sermons by Peter from Luke, the testimony of Paul who knew the disciples, and most importantly the creed Paul received from earlier believers (possibly Peter and James) that affirms the already-present belief in the resurrection (1 Cor 15).

We also have the words of church fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were followers of Peter and John. They attest to the disciples' beliefs in the resurrection and their being killed for their belief.

True.

Who knows who these "men" are? Who cares? And I'm pretty sure the disciples would know Jesus when they saw him, after spending three years with him. It would have to take a pretty good looky-likey to make them disbelieve that the guy they saw crucified was all of a sudden back from the dead.

Do you remember the story I was referring to? The two men walking on the road, talking about the crucifixion and the death of Jesus, and Jesus joins them and they don't recognize him? They tend to have that in the pageant during Christmas. So how did they NOT recognize him, if he DID look like himself, and they didn't recognize him until at the end? Sounds like a very fishy story to me.

Who said I was a Christian? I don't know what I believe in actually, but that doesn't change the fact that there is good historical basis for believing in the resurrection.

How can you *not* be a Christian, and yet believe the stories? If Paul tells the truth, and the other apostles do to, and we can trust the authorships and the stories... ergo, their stories are true and Jesus is the Son of God, and you have to be saved to go to Heaven. I can't see a middle ground where you believe Jesus to have been miraculously resurrected by divine power, and that doesn't mean anything to you.

If Paul is telling the truth, and Peter is telling the truth, what else can there be than the story to be true?

And I don't consider Paul's willingness to die to be good evidence for Christianity. The disciples' willingness to die is what is convincing. And I love how people automatically group the disciple martyrs with Muslim extremists and the like. There is one big difference: if Jesus didn't raise from the dead, then the disciples would have known it. They were in the unique position to actually historically verify the validity of their faith. A Muslim has no such privilege.

Wait a minute. Muslims die for their belief, not for their knowing. The disciples believed in something, and what they actually believed (I think) has been distorted. The Gnostic belief was that Jesus didn't get resurrected in his body, but only in spirit in the spiritual realms. They existed during Paul's time. Either they were insisting on being contrary and defiant against the root of the religion, the apostles, or the truth about this story is more complex than just "oh, it's proven, he was resurrected." If it was so obviously true that Peter and the gang were the primary contacts for the religion, then where the heck did the Gnostic religion come from? And how come even Gnostic believers also died as martyrs? They didn't know Jesus as a bodily resurrected person, neither did they care about the orthodox theology from Paul or Peter or James...

You have to realize, people don't let themselves get killed because of the things that are easy to prove, but because of the things they strongly believe in. The cause. There's an underlying assumption that these apostles died as martyrs for their religion, while we know nothing about their activities or their behaviors. Who are we to be sure they were not insurgents and causing disturbance in society and that was the reason why they were arrested? Is it confirmed that they all did die as martyrs, and that they died because of their belief? Since you seems to sit on a lot of scholar knowledge, I'm interesting in what sources confirm this.

I would love to hear about your magic trick.

Nope. Never reveal your tricks. (it's extremely silly trick, and only if you get it done right can it be somewhat convincing.)

Maybe because the disciples were Jewish fisherman, they weren't so good with the writing thing. Paul and Luke spoke both Greek and Hebrew and were educated men. And it's not like the disciples weren't trying to spread the word. Like I said before, Luke documents sermons given by Peter and points out Peter's position as leader of the church in Judea. James is also cited a leader as well.

Wouldn't you be beyond your wits and jumping out of your pants if you saw a miracle worker teach you and die and come back to life? I mean, if it happened to me, I wouldn't sleep for at least 10 years to make sure I got it all sorted out and documented, even if I couldn't write. But here we have the 12 disciples, handpicked by Jesus, not able, not capable, indifferent to the miracle of resurrection (and not to talk about the hundreds of zombies that walked the streets when Jesus died. It would have at least been awarded the event of the year!)

Well, I don't know. I think there are too many holes in the story and too many ... hmmmmm, I wonder...

I don't believe in the Bible. I am only concerned with whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not, and you don't have to believe the Bible is the word of God to know that.

Eh? That's a very strange combination. I guess you must be a Jesus-raised-from-the-dead-believer-but-not-Christian person...

And like I said, I don't think Paul's visions are a good defense of Christianity. I have no doubt that he sincerely had a vision, but like you pointed out, so did Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

Well, that's the problem isn't it. If Paul lied about the visions, then what else did he lie about? If he was telling the truth, then his visions matched with the Apostles stories, and the probability for that to be random is very low, so it should be considered more than a coincident. So either he was occasionally lying, or he told the truth and the Bible is true. I still can't see a middle ground.

---

In the light of how you view the Gospels and the stories around it etc, take a look at this article about the Raelians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelians

The leader claims, even wrote several books, that he met aliens. Should we believe him, and all the other people who support his claims, or should we consider him a whackjob? Unfortunately there's a lot of people who believe him. Would you bet that some of them would be willing to die as martyrs? I think some of them do. 2000 years from now, there will be two guys chatting over telepathnet and one guy say the evidence that Rael did meet aliens are well supported, and the other will claim that even if you have all those claims, people will fall for stupid mind games and sometimes they fall for delusional crazies that do think they saw something or did something, and we (normal people) should know they didn't (but unfortunately we don't - people keep on falling for these things).

May 24, 2008

Who said I was a Christian? I don't know what I believe in actually, but that doesn't change the fact that there is good historical basis for believing in the resurrection

.

I don't believe in the Bible. I am only concerned with whether Jesus really rose from the dead or not, and you don't have to believe the Bible is the word of God to know that.

I have read quite a bit of this thread and these two statements are quite strange to me. I can tell you that if I believed the resurrection took place with as much certainty as you seem to, rpMcMurphy, I would still be in the church. If you are convinced that the resurrection is an historical fact, why wouldn't you believe the other claims in the Bible? It just doesn't make sense to me.

May 24, 2008

Thank you Deva for observing that too. I can't make it work either. If a miracle did happen, then why isn't the rest true? Strange to me. I'm looking forward to Murphy's explanation.

Btw, addition to the Raelians: what is fascinating about that cult is that I haven't heard about any off-shots, no branching. In other words, most religious newcomers tend to branch off into dissenting groups, but I haven't heard about that in this one yet. Jesus said that the proof that he was from God was that they would be united, but already in Paul's lifetime there were a multitude of heretic cults that disagreed about everything from Jesus bodily resurrection and to Jesus being from God or not. In other words, it exploded into a chaos of theories, and none of them were "correct", except the one that won through the Orthodox Church 300 years later. Who knows, maybe we'll see that here too with Rael and gang, but obviously he has to die and come back to life (a la Chris Angel) and we'll have a nice setup for the next world dominating religion.

I just read about that they claim they're being persecuted in French. Some Asian country denied their entry too, and held the leader for interrogation for 9 hours. Why don't he just admit that he's lying and made all this up? If it's all a lie, then why does he go through with all this, and his followers too!? It must be true, if we reasoned by "only if it's true would they go through all this pain."

May 25, 2008

True. But this means, that the things that he did verify, his visions, were correct. The chances of getting visions that corresponds to the teachings of some other people, independent of each other, is slim to none. So, the other alternative is as you say, he did know about the teachings before he even went to study the scriptures. Basically, he did get them from other "men", not originally from God.

Paul was probably pretty familiar with the resurrection story - then he had a vision, real or hallucinatory, that made him believe it was true. He's right in saying he didn't "receive" the gospel from any man, because no human person had played a part in his conversion. No one taught it to him personally, even though he was aware of the alleged event.

Does Luke's version of Paul's vision on the road of Damascus corresponds to Paul's version? After all, Luke must have talked to Paul about it, heard his sermons, endless times and eventually get it right?

I don't know if they contradict each other. Luke's version is obviously more fantastic, but perhaps Paul doesn't go into great detail about his conversion in his letters to the churches because they already had heard the story. Remember that Paul is writing letters primarily dealing with theology and moral practice, not preserving history.

Do you remember the story I was referring to? The two men walking on the road, talking about the crucifixion and the death of Jesus, and Jesus joins them and they don't recognize him? They tend to have that in the pageant during Christmas. So how did they NOT recognize him, if he DID look like himself, and they didn't recognize him until at the end? Sounds like a very fishy story to me.

How do you know these two men were familiar with what Jesus looked like? Anyways, it's not a very intricate piece of the puzzle. Maybe there were two men, maybe there weren't. Maybe they walked with him but didn't even realize it was Jesus because they had already written him off as a dead guy. I dunno.

You have to realize, people don't let themselves get killed because of the things that are easy to prove, but because of the things they strongly believe in. The cause. There's an underlying assumption that these apostles died as martyrs for their religion, while we know nothing about their activities or their behaviors. Who are we to be sure they were not insurgents and causing disturbance in society and that was the reason why they were arrested? Is it confirmed that they all did die as martyrs, and that they died because of their belief? Since you seems to sit on a lot of scholar knowledge, I'm interesting in what sources confirm this.

I don't know if all the disciples died as martyrs. I know these things: Paul was a contemporary of the disciples and claimed that they preached the resurrection (1 Cor 15:11). Paul also cites a creed that was passed down to him that affirms the early church's belief in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-7). Luke also paraphrases sermons given by Peter confirming his beliefs (e.g. Acts 2) and tells about Peter and the apostles being persecuted (Acts 5:40) . The apostolic church fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were said to be disciples of Peter and John by Irenaeus and Tertullian, claim that the disciples believed in the resurrection and were persecuted and/or killed for their faith.

Wouldn't you be beyond your wits and jumping out of your pants if you saw a miracle worker teach you and die and come back to life? I mean, if it happened to me, I wouldn't sleep for at least 10 years to make sure I got it all sorted out and documented, even if I couldn't write. But here we have the 12 disciples, handpicked by Jesus, not able, not capable, indifferent to the miracle of resurrection (and not to talk about the hundreds of zombies that walked the streets when Jesus died. It would have at least been awarded the event of the year!)

Well, I don't know. I think there are too many holes in the story and too many ... hmmmmm, I wonder...

The first thing I would think to do is tell people about it in person. Then, yes, I would think that I should document it somehow, but this is the 21st century. Writing was a skill back then that was usually reserved for priests and historians, not a common thing like it is today. I doubt if any of the disciples knew how to write, or if they would even consider documenting things for the purpose of posterity. Maybe they did write things down and they weren't preserved well enough, I don't know.

How can you *not* be a Christian, and yet believe the stories? If Paul tells the truth, and the other apostles do to, and we can trust the authorships and the stories... ergo, their stories are true and Jesus is the Son of God, and you have to be saved to go to Heaven. I can't see a middle ground where you believe Jesus to have been miraculously resurrected by divine power, and that doesn't mean anything to you.

If Paul is telling the truth, and Peter is telling the truth, what else can there be than the story to be true?

Ah, you cut to the core of me Baxter...I'm here on these boards because I have been struggling with my beliefs a long time and wanted to see what else was out there. I can't accept the doctrines of Hell, the Old Testament, etc. anymore. But I just don't know what to make of the resurrection. It seems implausible to me that Christianity could have survived, or even gotten off the ground, if Christ never rose from the dead. And I actually like the resurrection story. I like the idea of God humbling himself to become a man and dying for our sake. I like the idea that we can't be good on our own, that we need God's help. To me it seems that way in life, that we can't do things on our own and we have to depend on others. But, like you guys said, the resurrection probably implies all that silly stuff about the Bible being holy and burning sulfur and eternal damnation. I guess it's like I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Maybe I can work out a system where I can have my cake and eat it too, who knows.

I have a feeling you guys probably aren't going to stand for that though

May 25, 2008

I don't know if they contradict each other. Luke's version is obviously more fantastic, but perhaps Paul doesn't go into great detail about his conversion in his letters to the churches because they already had heard the story. Remember that Paul is writing letters primarily dealing with theology and moral practice, not preserving history.

Without looking it up, it's something like that Paul said the people who followed him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice, while Luke said the opposite. But I can't recollect it exactly without looking it up.

How do you know these two men were familiar with what Jesus looked like? Anyways, it's not a very intricate piece of the puzzle. Maybe there were two men, maybe there weren't. Maybe they walked with him but didn't even realize it was Jesus because they had already written him off as a dead guy. I dunno.

They're part of the eyewitness stories, aren't they? So lets say they didn't know how Jesus looked like, which means they were not really part of the "posse". Jesus showed himself to them, and they later reported to the apostles they've met Jesus live. If they didn't know how Jesus looked like, how the heck did they later understand it was Jesus? The story is usually explained with that Jesus was in a some kind of "transformed" state, so he didn't look like his ol' self.

I don't know if all the disciples died as martyrs. I know these things: Paul was a contemporary of the disciples and claimed that they preached the resurrection (1 Cor 15:11). Paul also cites a creed that was passed down to him that affirms the early church's belief in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-7). Luke also paraphrases sermons given by Peter confirming his beliefs (e.g. Acts 2) and tells about Peter and the apostles being persecuted (Acts 5:40) . The apostolic church fathers Clement and Polycarp, who were said to be disciples of Peter and John by Irenaeus and Tertullian, claim that the disciples believed in the resurrection and were persecuted and/or killed for their faith.

I'm not sure if Paul died as a martyr, but I could be wrong. But anyway, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, maybe some did, maybe some did not. I don't trust 2000 old geezers to get the stories right.

The first thing I would think to do is tell people about it in person. Then, yes, I would think that I should document it somehow, but this is the 21st century. Writing was a skill back then that was usually reserved for priests and historians, not a common thing like it is today. I doubt if any of the disciples knew how to write, or if they would even consider documenting things for the purpose of posterity. Maybe they did write things down and they weren't preserved well enough, I don't know.

Which makes a good argument why God didn't pick someone like Paul from start to be part of his "team". Btw, wasn't there a tax collector in the group? They didn't have any training in writing? Didn't the education for a tax collector in those days involve writing down the transactions, names and other relating information about the people they taxed? How were they accountable without writing skills? So at least one must have had the ability... ooops... was it Judas maybe? Maybe he "fell" because he saw through the scam?

Ah, you cut to the core of me Baxter...I'm here on these boards because I have been struggling with my beliefs a long time and wanted to see what else was out there. I can't accept the doctrines of Hell, the Old Testament, etc. anymore. But I just don't know what to make of the resurrection. It seems implausible to me that Christianity could have survived, or even gotten off the ground, if Christ never rose from the dead. And I actually like the resurrection story. I like the idea of God humbling himself to become a man and dying for our sake. I like the idea that we can't be good on our own, that we need God's help. To me it seems that way in life, that we can't do things on our own and we have to depend on others. But, like you guys said, the resurrection probably implies all that silly stuff about the Bible being holy and burning sulfur and eternal damnation. I guess it's like I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Maybe I can work out a system where I can have my cake and eat it too, who knows.

I think we do have arrived to the core of it. Now at least I understand where you're coming from. It helps to understand some of the background to why people take a certain position.

I have a feeling you guys probably aren't going to stand for that though

Actually I think some of us do, but that doesn't mean we won't take it to the meat grinder...

I'm a person who values honesty above all. It's what I consider one of the top virtues. And honesty to oneself it the number one priority, since without that, you can't be honest to others. You have shown me what you believe and what you struggle with, and I respect that.

May 25, 2008

I like the idea that we can't be good on our own, that we need God's help.

I'm intrigued by this statement. Why do you like this idea, rpMcMurphy?

May 25, 2008

I'm here on these boards because I have been struggling with my beliefs a long time and wanted to see what else was out there. I can't accept the doctrines of Hell, the Old Testament, etc. anymore. But I just don't know what to make of the resurrection. It seems implausible to me that Christianity could have survived, or even gotten off the ground, if Christ never rose from the dead. And I actually like the resurrection story. I like the idea of God humbling himself to become a man and dying for our sake.

I can actually understand and appreciate that you don't want to throw out the parts of the Bible that are attractive to you. Its kind of hard for me to understand why this is so attractive-- but we are all different.

I think there are a lot of people in the more liberal chrisitan denominations that view the resurrection in a non-literal way but accept it as a metaphor. They also don't believe in hell. At least for sure some of them don't preach it. The Unitarians and probably many mainline churches view the resurrection and hell in this way, if I am not mistaken. Somehow though, I doubt that would feel satisfactory to you.

I like the idea that we can't be good on our own, that we need God's help. To me it seems that way in life, that we can't do things on our own and we have to depend on others.

We need the help of many others to survive in this society today. I need help from the auto mechanic, the grocer, the truck driver, my employer, on and on... Yes, we do depend on others. However, to say that we need God's help to be "good" is to me in no way true, nor is it even an attractive idea. It seems to me that it throws responsibility off of yourself and onto another being.

I do appreciate your honestly addressing these points.

May 25, 2008

Which makes a good argument why God didn't pick someone like Paul from start to be part of his "team". Btw, wasn't there a tax collector in the group? They didn't have any training in writing? Didn't the education for a tax collector in those days involve writing down the transactions, names and other relating information about the people they taxed? How were they accountable without writing skills? So at least one must have had the ability... ooops... was it Judas maybe? Maybe he "fell" because he saw through the scam?

I don't know why the tax collector, I think it was Matthew, wrote no gospel. It seems like from other documents we have that he didn't play a significant part in the early church though. Maybe he was only good at writing numbers, who knows. Like I said, writing was not the primary form of communication back then. The earliest writings we have from Paul are letters to the churches; even he wasn't thinking about recording the events of Christ for posterity. Apologists and things just weren't around at this point in the church, it wasn't necessary.

Without looking it up, it's something like that Paul said the people who followed him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice, while Luke said the opposite. But I can't recollect it exactly without looking it up.

I tried looking it up, I can't find a verse with Paul going into detail about his conversion.

They're part of the eyewitness stories, aren't they? So lets say they didn't know how Jesus looked like, which means they were not really part of the "posse". Jesus showed himself to them, and they later reported to the apostles they've met Jesus live. If they didn't know how Jesus looked like, how the heck did they later understand it was Jesus? The story is usually explained with that Jesus was in a some kind of "transformed" state, so he didn't look like his ol' self.

I finally looked up this passage, it says they were "kept" from looking at Christ. Apparently some kind of divine intervention. But, like I said, I don't think this is crucial evidence to the resurrection. I don't even feel I need to appeal to the gospels at all, just to what Paul, Luke, and the early church fathers said.

I'm not sure if Paul died as a martyr, but I could be wrong. But anyway, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, maybe some did, maybe some did not. I don't trust 2000 old geezers to get the stories right.

It doesn't matter if these people are 2,000 or 10,000 years old. At the time they wrote these things down, they were contemporaries of the people who walked and talked with Christ. They can attest that the disciples that the disciples truly believed they saw Christ risen from the dead, and once you accept that, I can't think of anything that explains away what they saw.

I like the idea that we can't be good on our own, that we need God's help.

I'm intrigued by this statement. Why do you like this idea, rpMcMurphy?

It just seems obvious to me that people aren't meant to exist on their own. They need to rely on their family, their friends, etc. And I think it's a very genuine, human thing when a person can admit this and seek out his friends. But sometimes even this isn't enough. I think people by and large have an internal, basic need to feel "spiritually assisted" or something of the sort. I believe from personal experience that genuine, honest Christians who believe that God is by their side are the most content, morally healthy people in existence. I'm not talking about the hypocrites or the fanatics or Christians who judge others. I mean the Christians who strive to be like Christ, which is the general objective I think.

I think Immanuel Kant touched on this issue too in his ethics, he went even as far as to proclaim that humans cannot be morally good on their own and that they need something called grace. I'm sure he could explain it better than me .

May 25, 2008

We need the help of many others to survive in this society today. I need help from the auto mechanic, the grocer, the truck driver, my employer, on and on... Yes, we do depend on others. However, to say that we need God's help to be "good" is to me in no way true, nor is it even an attractive idea. It seems to me that it throws responsibility off of yourself and onto another being.

I think that yes, many religious people do abuse this belief and end up lazy and stagnant in their lives. But still, I think ultimately that people can't rely on themselves for their moral character. It just doesn't play out that way in life. People get their morality from family, friends, leaders, etc. And I think the greatest external reference for morality is a Supreme Being or something of the sort. I know from personal experience, when I believed in a God of great moral character, it was an inspiration and incentive for me to strive to be like that. It wasn't fear of damnation or punishment, I haven't been afraid of Hell since I was a child. It was more like I knew that it really meant something to be a person of character.

It's like with my parents...they try to be good-working, decent, loving people everyday. And that's often reason enough for me to try and be the same - it's an incentive for me, because I want to carry on and honor their way of life. But without God, even that's becoming less and less important to me. Without God, I start to view their moral character as pointless and of no value. And I think that's a universal truth, that people without God can find no ultimate meaning or purpose in life. They need to believe in God to believe in things like right and wrong and goodness and love and beauty.

May 25, 2008

I believe from personal experience that genuine, honest Christians who believe that God is by their side are the most content, morally healthy people in existence. I'm not talking about the hypocrites or the fanatics or Christians who judge others. I mean the Christians who strive to be like Christ, which is the general objective I think.

I can't rule out the possibility that some people do behave better if they see God as a sort of inspiration to do good. If that is truly the case, fine for them-- so long as they don't insist that I believe in their God.

One problem for me is that I have never seen Christians as the "most content, morally healthy people in existence." Seems to me like they act just like most of the rest of the corrupt American society (if not worse) and being by far the majority religion here, we see the results.

If I actually observed people who claim Christianity really behaving in a consistently elevated moral fashion (heck, most of them aren't even honest) I might be inclined to change my views but in over 15 years in various churches I just haven't seen it.

May 25, 2008

I don't know why the tax collector, I think it was Matthew, wrote no gospel. It seems like from other documents we have that he didn't play a significant part in the early church though. Maybe he was only good at writing numbers, who knows. Like I said, writing was not the primary form of communication back then. The earliest writings we have from Paul are letters to the churches; even he wasn't thinking about recording the events of Christ for posterity. Apologists and things just weren't around at this point in the church, it wasn't necessary.

And probably the answer to that is that truly and honestly believed that Jesus would come back within their own lifetime. The words from Jesus in the Gospels truly hint at that, and there are scholars who studied the different Gospels and can see how the words change from the imminent to the future.

But I'm certain that a tax collector had to be able to write more than numbers. After all they were trusted and hired officials by the Roman state. I doubt strongly they were lacking education in the classic subjects, since they had to learn math, and they had to be able to read the names of lists of people who they were ordered to collect from, etc.

True that communication in writing wasn't that big, however, if you would think from God's perspective to create a successful religion, you would make sure you tell them to write it down. Jesus never ordered them that, neither did he do a good job in picking the apostles, since after they've seen amazing miracle after miracle, God had to find someone else (Paul) to lead the cause. Either Jesus did a bad job, or God wasn't involved in drafting the people, or the purpose was to create chaos and disorder, which followed. It shows the incompetence of an all supreme God!

I tried looking it up, I can't find a verse with Paul going into detail about his conversion.

I looked it up, both passages are in Acts, sorry about the mixup. And there are of course apologetic explanations to "why" the discrepancy, so I will drop that issue, because it will only lead to endless discussion.

I finally looked up this passage, it says they were "kept" from looking at Christ. Apparently some kind of divine intervention. But, like I said, I don't think this is crucial evidence to the resurrection. I don't even feel I need to appeal to the gospels at all, just to what Paul, Luke, and the early church fathers said.

Well, there are reports even today of people (from different religions) that have events where their "gods" act on them in similar ways. And my experience (from my Church time) is that people add on explanations to natural events. Something happens, there's some coincidences, they make up "God did this or that" to glorify God in all what happened as natural events. I think the quality (to use your term) explanation, or let us say the simple solution, is that they didn't recognize him, because it wasn't him. But I'm gonna leave the discussion about that for now. I know we won't get any further than you and I disagree if the stories have natural explanation or supernatural intervention.

It doesn't matter if these people are 2,000 or 10,000 years old. At the time they wrote these things down, they were contemporaries of the people who walked and talked with Christ. They can attest that the disciples that the disciples truly believed they saw Christ risen from the dead, and once you accept that, I can't think of anything that explains away what they saw.

As I said before, there are ways of tricking people to believe things, so sure, they believed, but that they believed isn't the same as they saw what they think they saw.

Magicians can magically make airplanes, elephants and statue of liberty disappear, in front of their eyes. Magicians do "rise" from the dead today. There are neurotoxins that make you look dead and then wake up later (tetrodotoxin). I stopped believing in peoples "stories" while I was Christian, because I noticed how in situations where I was present, later people added stuff that I know happened, and others believed them and shouted "glory to Jeeeesuzzzz". And this was hurtful because I felt they were lying, and people somehow got "blessed" from these lies. Seeing this first hand, I know people do this, and people believe it.

I think Immanuel Kant touched on this issue too in his ethics, he went even as far as to proclaim that humans cannot be morally good on their own and that they need something called grace. I'm sure he could explain it better than me .

Kant's idea (if I understand it) was that we were supposed to do our best effort, than for the minor part between perfect morality and our attempt, short of being perfect, would be covered with graced by God. Not that God would help us become good. We have to learn to be good, not become good through a free "get out of jail" card, and then our shortcoming would be human, and God would hopefully patch up the rest.

There are several theories of morality, Kant only represents one of them, and unfortunately every theory got good and bad sides and valid critique.

May 25, 2008

I think that yes, many religious people do abuse this belief and end up lazy and stagnant in their lives. But still, I think ultimately that people can't rely on themselves for their moral character. It just doesn't play out that way in life. People get their morality from family, friends, leaders, etc. And I think the greatest external reference for morality is a Supreme Being or something of the sort. I know from personal experience, when I believed in a God of great moral character, it was an inspiration and incentive for me to strive to be like that. It wasn't fear of damnation or punishment, I haven't been afraid of Hell since I was a child. It was more like I knew that it really meant something to be a person of character.

The ideal doesn't have to exist as a particular (physical) reality to be a real ideal. Your ideal of a perfectly moral God is still a valid idea as such. You can strive for reaching that ideal of yours, because you want to become a perfected human. It's the ideal your going for, not God per se. So removing God, doesn't remove perfection.

I'd say your view of God is similar to Plato's sun, or the ultimate good.

It's like with my parents...they try to be good-working, decent, loving people everyday. And that's often reason enough for me to try and be the same - it's an incentive for me, because I want to carry on and honor their way of life. But without God, even that's becoming less and less important to me. Without God, I start to view their moral character as pointless and of no value. And I think that's a universal truth, that people without God can find no ultimate meaning or purpose in life. They need to believe in God to believe in things like right and wrong and goodness and love and beauty.

That's sad to hear. The thing is, that since I lost my faith, I have grown in understanding of morality from a human perspective, and my knowledge is deeper instead and now I can strive for a moral life because I am human and not depend on a God dictating it or being the template for it.

It all do start with yourself. The Bible say: "love thy neighbor as yourself".Right? Well, it means, you have to love yourself first. Like I said before, you can't be honest to other people, unless you're honest to yourself first. And the same goes for love and morality too. You have to fix and fulfill You first, to be able to give the same to others.

The reason why you would be good, loving and moral to other people is that you will gain indirectly from it. You can find a reason to why you don't want to hurt, but to care for and help, your family, from several reasons. One is that you feel "love" or a response of "love" from them and you want to feel more of that, the other reason is that you know you need them for you to feel good and survive, and another reason is that you want them to stick around until you get old and have their company, and so on...

Few things we do, we sacrifice more than we get, but occasionally we do. But if we would read the Bible passage accurately, then doesn't it suggest that we shouldn't? The command is to love as much as ourselves, not more than ourselves. And the reason is that if you do love someone more than yourself, you drain your energy, and you become an empty shell over time. You have to refill your own needs.

A lot of the Gospel "philosophy" was borrowed from the Stoics (and other philosophers), and the writings of Philo from Alexandria. Jesus "wisdom" wasn't the first time it was uttered in the world. He wasn't first with the golden rule or love thy neighbor. Maybe the scriptures Paul studied were these and not only the Torah?

May 25, 2008

The ideal doesn't have to exist as a particular (physical) reality to be a real ideal. Your ideal of a perfectly moral God is still a valid idea as such. You can strive for reaching that ideal of yours, because you want to become a perfected human. It's the ideal your going for, not God per se. So removing God, doesn't remove perfection.

I'd say your view of God is similar to Plato's sun, or the ultimate good.

I mostly agree with that, but I'm not completely sure you can have a moral standard without a person behind it. I don't know if you have a universal moral code independently existing apart from some kind of moral God.

The reason why you would be good, loving and moral to other people is that you will gain indirectly from it. You can find a reason to why you don't want to hurt, but to care for and help, your family, from several reasons. One is that you feel "love" or a response of "love" from them and you want to feel more of that, the other reason is that you know you need them for you to feel good and survive, and another reason is that you want them to stick around until you get old and have their company, and so on...

This is also something I can't agree on for sure. When I am truly caring, loving for someone else - I am doing it for that reason alone. I don't believe there is any ulterior motive when I am really being compassionate - caring for someone is an end in itself, and not a means. You can say that I subconsciously do it for selfish reasons, but I don't think that's something that can be demonstrated. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who are only nice and polite because that's what they want from others, but I see those kinds of people as inauthentic.

Few things we do, we sacrifice more than we get, but occasionally we do. But if we would read the Bible passage accurately, then doesn't it suggest that we shouldn't? The command is to love as much as ourselves, not more than ourselves. And the reason is that if you do love someone more than yourself, you drain your energy, and you become an empty shell over time. You have to refill your own needs.

I think the "draining yourself" kind of thing might come about from trying to be something like a people pleaser, not necessarily loving people more than yourself. A good example would be a husband who cares and tends for his cancerous wife without fail - I think that man truly loves another more than himself. You can say that he's ultimately doing it just to make himself feel loved or something like that. But I don't think it's necessary or even valid to try and find some underlying cause - I think that man tends to his wife only because he loves her.

But I agree that you can't love someone unless you love yourself also. I just don't believe the idea that people are selfless for ultimately selfish reasons.

A lot of the Gospel "philosophy" was borrowed from the Stoics (and other philosophers), and the writings of Philo from Alexandria. Jesus "wisdom" wasn't the first time it was uttered in the world. He wasn't first with the golden rule or love thy neighbor. Maybe the scriptures Paul studied were these and not only the Torah?

Agreed, but these are timeless moral principles - Jesus affirms them, doesn't invent them.

May 25, 2008

I mostly agree with that, but I'm not completely sure you can have a moral standard without a person behind it. I don't know if you have a universal moral code independently existing apart from some kind of moral God.

So how can God have a moral standard? Doesn't he need a "person" behind his moral standards if that's the case? Or is it that moral standards can be "made", since God can make the moral standards without a higher-God behind his standards?

This is also something I can't agree on for sure. When I am truly caring, loving for someone else - I am doing it for that reason alone. I don't believe there is any ulterior motive when I am really being compassionate - caring for someone is an end in itself, and not a means. You can say that I subconsciously do it for selfish reasons, but I don't think that's something that can be demonstrated. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who are only nice and polite because that's what they want from others, but I see those kinds of people as inauthentic.

You do it because it makes you feel good. Unless you can say that you hate doing it and it makes you feel awful, but you're doing it anyway. You have evolved to a person who feel these things, because ultimately you do gain from it.

I think the "draining yourself" kind of thing might come about from trying to be something like a people pleaser, not necessarily loving people more than yourself. A good example would be a husband who cares and tends for his cancerous wife without fail - I think that man truly loves another more than himself. You can say that he's ultimately doing it just to make himself feel loved or something like that. But I don't think it's necessary or even valid to try and find some underlying cause - I think that man tends to his wife only because he loves her.

Does this "love" he feels make him feel bad about what he's doing? Don't think so. Most people act from emotions in these situations. Some people do feel pleasure in being the victims and martyrs. It's a form of pride to prove themselves to others. In rare cases you might find something beyond that, but it's still a behavior connected to brain activity, and also very few people go to that extent. Unfortunately this also means there are people in society that do not have these faculties of the mind, and they can't feel empathy or love, and tend to be very selfish and self-fulfilling individuals.

But I agree that you can't love someone unless you love yourself also. I just don't believe the idea that people are selfless for ultimately selfish reasons.

Well, we disagree. I know that it's hard to accept. I believe these actions and reactions in behavior has evolved because it was beneficial. Now, we don't know why we feel these things, or do certain things, and we think they're somehow mystical and unexplained in nature, while they're not. Animals can show altruistic motives too. Dogs that sacrifice themselves to save their owner from harm, is one example. Do they do it from trained behavior? Not from what I've seen with my dogs. I didn't train them to guard me, but they do, and they love to come to me and cuddle up and give me the puppy love look, and flex their ears to become as cute and innocent as possible, just to be with me. If animals can show behaviors that are extremely similar to love, altruism, self-sacrifice, even anger, hate (or despise) etc, then I do believe these things are natural rather than magical.

Agreed, but these are timeless moral principles - Jesus affirms them, doesn't invent them.

Right. And so did many other philosophers before and after. But my point is that Rome and the Jews too, were very influenced by the philosophy before them, and it shows in the Gospels. They're a Jewish spin on Hellenistic ethics and metaphysics, which I think it makes it very suspicious of "borrowed" ideas, rather than "God's final message".

The Origin Of Jesus

Recommended Posts

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Evolution_beyond

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Evolution_beyond

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Euthyphro's Thorn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rpMcMurphy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment