"what Is Truth?"

[Golden Meadows]

I would interested in reading other people opinions on what motivated the writers of the NT -especially the gospels - something that goes beyond the simple "liars" type answers. Virtually everybody here disbelieves some or all the contents of the NT, indeed the whole bible, but any ideas why people, who would seem to believe in God, would knowingly fabricate his words yet not fear his wrath?

 

In the gospel of John (ch7) Jesus himself seems to be somewhat economical with the truth when says he says he is not going up to Jerusalem but then goes anyway and I wonder if our take on truth has changed over the past couple of thousands years. "What is truth ?" as somebody once asked.

[Ouroboros]

My take on it is that the Jesus/Savior story started as a more esoteric idea or "truth". Something like the Gnostic faith. Jesus means Savior, Christ mean annointed, Emmanuel means God with us and so on. I think it all was ideas to how to reach salvation and connection to the higher existence, or the metaphysical.

 

What I think happened next was that this cult spread through the Jewish community, and Paul (Saul) was persectuing this cult. But he had a stroke/seisure and got the wild idea that Jesus was not an idea only, but a real person, and he "saw" this person during his "vision". He created his own cult of Personal and Real Human Jesus, that got more and more embellished into the Gospels. They might have heard stories about some heroic people during the first part of the 1st century, and they believed those stories were part of what this "Real Jesus" had done.

 

Through it all, I don't think anyone intentionally were lying or making up (at least not all of it) but the idea developed through misunderstandings and additions of other ideas and philosophies.

 

Maybe the thing with a "real flesh and bone Jesus" was attractive to the people at that time, when most of the other religions didn't give enough fulfillment. Maybe there were many Ex-Pagans and Ex-Jews in the groups. Like us, they wanted out, but they got swooped by a new fad... the human god.

[Golden Meadows]

Through it all, I don't think anyone intentionally were lying or making up (at least not all of it) but the idea developed through misunderstandings and additions of other ideas and philosophies.

I agree. A few years ago I came across an example of how desire and facts get muddled up in the transmission. Somebody told me that a local pastor was in desparate need of money for repairs to the church and that amidst all the prayers he decided to buy a lottery ticket which came up the winner - around $15,000,000- a miracle seemed to have been worked. When I checked it turned out to be something far more mundane: the pastor had applied to the lottery organisation for a grant from its large fund allocated for chartiable purposes. He got enough for the repairs but it was just a routine application, one that was going to succeed in the first place. None of the people who passed the story on were liars but the determination to see providence at work led to a completely different story at the output from what was present at the input. It was not lies but it wasn't truth either.

 

Sometimes I liken some of the stories in the O.T to a father telling the child sitting on his lap stories that are not factual but contain something that is understood by the childs imagination. In this case God is the father and the child is Israel. But here am risking falling back into xtian apolgetics mode - old habits die hard.

 

Back to your point about Paul. Whatever happened to him on the road to Damascus I think we are at least dealing with a historical figure rather than some creative work of literture - he comes across as being very human in his emotions and having all the quirks of real human being. Paul describes meeting the people who followed Jesus, especially graphic and realistic is his account of the high emotions raised when he confronted Peter. For Paul, Jesus and his principle followers are very real - he meets and talks to the latter directly. How then can I account for what Paul then preaches to the world even today? He is real person, he speaks directly to the people who knew Jesus so I cannot account for the content of his preaching as being the result of faulty tramission, i.e not lies but not truth either.

[Ouroboros]

What's strange with Paul's account of actions is that he persecuted the Christians of some reason, heretic cult as he saw them, when he had his vision (he never met Jesus personally or made any references to have met him when he was supposedly alive), the first thing he does is not to confer with the apostles, but he leaves the country for many years, study the scriptures on his own, and not until much later does he meet with the disciples of Jesus. By then he had established his own ideas and "revelation" about Jesus and who he was. It's very possible that he completely misunderstood the Christians' view and teaching, since he did all on his own. He even boasted about how he corrected the apostles, and how he learned all the things through his own studying and "revelations".

 

The Gospels were then written after Paul's death, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, so the original Church was gone, and it's true teachings lost. The only congregations that were left, were the ones Paul started (and possible a very few original ones). So the Gospels and the understanding of Jesus is filtered through Paul's ideas, rather than the apostles.

 

This leaves us with quite a lot to question about the real teachings that predated Paul. We also know that while Paul was alive, he encountered Gnostic Christians that didn't see Jesus as much as a real person as Christians do today. And it is extremely suspicious that there could be Gnostic views of Jesus before 50 AD, when all the original apostles still were alive.

 

I see it as a possibility that Paul tweaked the original message, and made Jesus to this miracle working, real person idea, through stealing the teachings from a more Hellenistic mixed Jewish cult. I wish it was possible to go back and see what really happened, and it wouldn't surprise me if Philo's teachings were the real starting point of all this. Maybe there were teachers and philosophers that followed Philo's ideas, and maybe one of them, a leader of the pack, was Jesus (or maybe even under another name).

 

In essence it's possible that Jesus was a real physical person, but never a miracle maker, God's son, person. He was like Buddha, had a new view of things, and from there, Paul embellished the ideas and later the authors of the Gospels did it even more.

[Golden Meadows]

What's strange with Paul's account of actions is that he persecuted the Christians of some reason, heretic cult as he saw them, when he had his vision (he never met Jesus personally or made any references to have met him when he was supposedly alive), the first thing he does is not to confer with the apostles, but he leaves the country for many years, study the scriptures on his own, and not until much later does he meet with the disciples of Jesus. By then he had established his own ideas and "revelation" about Jesus and who he was. It's very possible that he completely misunderstood the Christians' view and teaching, since he did all on his own. He even boasted about how he corrected the apostles, and how he learned all the things through his own studying and "revelations".

 

The Gospels were then written after Paul's death, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, so the original Church was gone, and it's true teachings lost. The only congregations that were left, were the ones Paul started (and possible a very few original ones). So the Gospels and the understanding of Jesus is filtered through Paul's ideas, rather than the apostles.

 

This leaves us with quite a lot to question about the real teachings that predated Paul. We also know that while Paul was alive, he encountered Gnostic Christians that didn't see Jesus as much as a real person as Christians do today. And it is extremely suspicious that there could be Gnostic views of Jesus before 50 AD, when all the original apostles still were alive.

 

I see it as a possibility that Paul tweaked the original message, and made Jesus to this miracle working, real person idea, through stealing the teachings from a more Hellenistic mixed Jewish cult. I wish it was possible to go back and see what really happened, and it wouldn't surprise me if Philo's teachings were the real starting point of all this. Maybe there were teachers and philosophers that followed Philo's ideas, and maybe one of them, a leader of the pack, was Jesus (or maybe even under another name).

 

In essence it's possible that Jesus was a real physical person, but never a miracle maker, God's son, person. He was like Buddha, had a new view of things, and from there, Paul embellished the ideas and later the authors of the Gospels did it even more.

 

 

 

 

In essence it's possible that Jesus was a real physical person, but never a miracle maker, God's son, person.

 

I agree- Paul seems to be very clearly a real person and that same Paul says he met apostles of Jesus who must have confirmed whatever Paul already knew about him. If we did not have the writings of Paul then it would much easier to write off the historicity of Jesus, but since we do it therefore poses, at face value, serious objections to Jesus being purely myth as well as witnessing to the veracity of events like the resurrection. At lot depends on the character of Paul - at times he has to assure his readers that he is not a liar. If a person belives this to be true then a lot follows on from it.

[Antlerman]

I would interested in reading other people opinions on what motivated the writers of the NT -especially the gospels - something that goes beyond the simple "liars" type answers. Virtually everybody here disbelieves some or all the contents of the NT, indeed the whole bible, but any ideas why people, who would seem to believe in God, would knowingly fabricate his words yet not fear his wrath?

When I was in Bible College a head instructor used to say to us as an argument to the veracity of the stories and teachings of the Bible, "Good men wouldn't, and evil men couldn't". In other words for these reasons what you see in the Bible cannot be false. To a young mind eager to learn the knowledge of God on his way to serve the Lord in ministry, this sounded brilliant, simple, and indisputable!!

 

As an adult unafraid to reason objectively, this is dog crap.

 

I do not see reason to view the authors of the NT writings to be conniving liars, yet this does not make what they embraced as truth to suddenly become - the truth. It was true to them. So to answer the instructor's pseudo-logical argument: "Sincere believers could."

 

What they wrote is true to what they believed. However, what man today interprets what they believed is what man today calls - the truth. This is not valid. It is in reality what they believe, they believed. (Throw that one straight into the face of those who say science is a belief)! It is at best, and educated assessment of what they believed, which is ultimately - what they believed. In the contexts of what they knew in their world, it was the truth to them. "Truth", on this level of belief is really what has meaning to you and works for you. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Does what you belief set you free? Then how is it a lie?

 

When you consider this, plus all the factors of oral traditions, cultural influences, embellishments, etc, the very best you get is a "picture", not "The Truth". That idea we have "The Truth" is ridiculous, and itself is a lie.

[Ouroboros]

What's confusing is that if we had the situation that Jesus was a very skilled and informed teacher, that brought new ideas to the Jewish faith. The followers saw him as annointed by God, and gave them new hope. They saw his actions and teachings as the "spritual" Jesus, while the teacher was a physical person. Maybe Jesus was killed for his new maybe Gnostic teachings, and the discples saw his death as a step into a new phase, a spiritual only. Jesus resurrected in spirit, or ghost. So the confusion is Jesus as a body or a spirit. He could have been a real body, but the spirit part was taken by faith.

 

If they started to teach Jesus risen, in a spiritual sense, that could have been distored by time to mean a bodily resurrection. It fits better to how the disciples supposedly met Jesus afterwards, as a ghost or spirit that walked through walls and took shape they couldn't recognize.

 

Now, if one looks at how thousands of people only 100 years ago could be certain to see the effects of N-Rays, and they fooled themselves into believing to see something that wasn't there. I'm certain, that's something that could have been done here too. People "seing" Jesus, because they wanted to dearly their faith to be true.

[Dhampir]

There is the idea that Saul being from Tarsus, where Mithraism was the cult du' jour, got the idea that maybe there was some correlation. Certainly the christianity that Paul ended up with is virtually identical in ideology, with a few key differences.

[Golden Meadows]

"Truth", on this level of belief is really what has meaning to you and works for you. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". Does what you belief set you free? Then how is it a lie?

 

When you consider this, plus all the factors of oral traditions, cultural influences, embellishments, etc, the very best you get is a "picture", not "The Truth". That idea we have "The Truth" is ridiculous, and itself is a lie.

I am in agreement with you and Hansolo with respect to the possible influences in the wider development and growth in the new religion known as xtianity, but at this stage I am inclined towards the position -mainly through Pauls letters - that a person called Jesus actually existed and that his body went missing from the tomb. The other letters that form part of the NT can easily be intrepreted as pious writing rather than the works of the claimed authors but in Pauls case this is a much more difficult argument. I understand the authorship of some of his letters are indeed disputed but it does not affect the specific issues mentioned here as best I know.

[Antlerman]

I am in agreement with you and Hansolo with respect to the possible influences in the wider development and growth in the new religion known as xtianity, but at this stage I am inclined towards the position -mainly through Pauls letters - that a person called Jesus actually existed and that his body went missing from the tomb. The other letters that form part of the NT can easily be intrepreted as pious writing rather than the works of the claimed authors but in Pauls case this is a much more difficult argument. I understand the authorship of some of his letters are indeed disputed but it does not affect the specific issues mentioned here as best I know.

I am currently more inclined to the historical Jesus for the reasons you state, but I don't see the missing body in Paul's writings. I'm planning to go down that path of discussion in another thread with Amy who is arguing for the physical resurrection. We'll see if that pans out?

[Mythra]

It's important to try and understand the overall climate of human perception in 1st century Palestine and the Roman Empire. The gospel story did not develop during a period when people thought critically about things and were skeptical of outlandish claims.

 

Perhaps no one knowingly created a fraud in developing the gospel story. It's possible that the christ legend existed in oral form for a hundred years or more (getting increasingly fantastic with each telling) before Paul began having heavenly visions and the writer of Mark's gospel finally committed some of the stories to written form. This would help account for the wide variety of early beliefs and disagreements concerning the nature of Jesus and the gospel story. Some of these varied beliefs went on for hundreds of years - even the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE didn't settle the matter completely.

 

As Richard Carrier says, It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety.

 

From this great article.

[Golden Meadows]

I am currently more inclined to the historical Jesus for the reasons you state, but I don't see the missing body in Paul's writings. I'm planning to go down that path of discussion in another thread with Amy who is arguing for the physical resurrection. We'll see if that pans out?

Main issues for me relate to what Paul as a former Pharisee would have understood by "resurrection". From what I have read this would suggest a physical resurrection. Since Paul does not deal directly with the problem of Jesus bones still resting in Jerusalem nor is there any tradition relating to the veneration of Jesus bones recoreded in tradition, unlike those of the apostles etc, I think the body was no longer in the tomb - but am not suggesting this is proof of a resurrection.

[Ouroboros]

But Paul doesn't say anything about when Jesus lived, or that he even met him. He also was proud that he never spoke to any of the apostles before he had studied the scriptures and even gone on mission to start Churches. Shouldn't the turn-around he did on the road have led him to go to the other Apostles to get the story and background to Jesus? What did he even know about the Christians or Christianity at that point, besides from his persecution of them? Did he understand the "message" correctly? Were did he get the "gospel" from if not from the apostles?

[Golden Meadows]

But Paul doesn't say anything about when Jesus lived, or that he even met him. He also was proud that he never spoke to any of the apostles before he had studied the scriptures and even gone on mission to start Churches. Shouldn't the turn-around he did on the road have led him to go to the other Apostles to get the story and background to Jesus? What did he even know about the Christians or Christianity at that point, besides from his persecution of them? Did he understand the "message" correctly? Were did he get the "gospel" from if not from the apostles?

 

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him? I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something, without invoking mental illness, since I am not an atheist. This does not mean I believe it was God. The biggest problems I have with xtianity is not the presence of a spiritual force at work, but rather, the nature of it.

[Japedo]

 

 

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him? I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something, without invoking mental illness, since I am not an atheist. This does not mean I believe it was God. The biggest problems I have with xtianity is not the presence of a spiritual force at work, but rather, the nature of it.

 

Why does any spirituality nature of it or otherwise have to be present at all? Seeking back thru time even with the ancient Egyptians or Greeks..they had their stories too. Where did they come form? Did People deliberately lie? Personalities and powers were given to these gods by someone.. who? why? Once you answer that you'll have your answer to the Christianity question. Even with the history of the church there was a time to question government was on equal footing as questioning god.. one could be killed for such a huge offensive as a question. People are so worried about sinning and fearing god, they don't pay attention to real life. Religion is smoke and mirrors IMO. Religion and god(s) was created to control man not to free them.

[Ouroboros]

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him?

That all shows that the fault is God's or Jesus'. Jesus handpicked people to be his disciples, yet they weren't good enough, but Jesus had to pick someone else.

 

If we simply look at the situation from the view that Jesus died, and did not get resurrected bodily, then Paul's words about meeting Jesus were not bodily, but either spiritually or delusionary. He's vision isn't proof that Jesus was resurrected, but only that Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected. There are people that get visions of aliens and they turn around their lifes and it changes everything from there on, should we assume they had a real encounter with the alien, or that there could be other explanations.

 

If Jesus spent 3 years teaching the message to his disciples, but the message was then given to Paul separately, then wasn't Jesus 3 years wasted time? Why wasn't it important to Paul to get the facts and message straight from the discples? Didn't he trust them?

 

And when it comes to trusting Paul, that is the key. A Christian have to trust Paul to be a believer. One person. Someone they have never met. Someone that was a fundamentalist and an extremist from start, and full of pride of his own ability to understand. Paul's behavior is very similar to other people's behavior starting their own religions.

 

I'm certain that Paul didn't intentionally create a false religion. He had a vision, but not necessarily a real Jesus or even supernatural. When alternative explanations can be found, only belief (or trust) can take you over the hurdle.

 

Why not just come, die, and show himself to Paul and give him the message? Was God's idea from the beginning to hide and cloud the message in mystery and doubt intentional? Then we're just back to the beginning that

 

I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something, without invoking mental illness, since I am not an atheist. This does not mean I believe it was God. The biggest problems I have with xtianity is not the presence of a spiritual force at work, but rather, the nature of it.

Okay. Btw, good point that it doesn't have to be God.

 

Let's say the Jewish religion is true, and Satan made up the whole thing to lead people away from Judaism? What's the evidence to the contrary?

 

As I said before, I don't think most of the followers intentionally lied, but they were still misled. Ideas can have that kind of force.

 

Scientist René-Prosper Blondlot's N-Rays are a perfect example of how people can be easily fooled by their own ideas, and the whole world can follow, until someone starts questioning and wonder if the explanation is something else. People do want to believe, and sometimes they even "see" things that are not there.

[Mythra]

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him? I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something,

 

One of the problems is the persistent idea that every word in the bible is the truth. The primary account of Paul's Damascus experience comes from the book of Acts. Written LONG after Paul was dead. And considered by most critical scholars to be a non-historical account with many of its details having been culled from Josephus.

 

And even the Acts accounts are contradictory. In one place Paul sees a light but hears no voice. Then in another it has him hearing a voice, but seeing nothing.

 

Paul himself briefly mentions his conversion in Galatians. In Paul's account, I don't believe he mentions anything about the dramatic occurances detailed in Acts. Only that God revealed the Son to him, and he immediately left for Arabia for three years. Then 14 more years go by before Paul is accepted by the Apostles. Notice apostles. They are not referred to as disciples of Jesus until the gospels come along, many years later.

 

Apostles / disciples. There is a difference.

[Ouroboros]

True.

 

And also the Gospels can completely agree on who where the 12 disciples either. How can that be so difficult from eyewitnesses who where there not to know? And if someone did have 3-4 names, why did God let them forget to explain that?

 

I think Paul mentions that he had a vision of Jesus in one of his letters, but Acts gives more "story" around it, and it's very certain it was written down at a much later date. I'm not sure if it was done after Paul's death, but it was earliest when Paul was at his end of the rope (30-40 years later), or a few years after Paul's death.

 

It is certain that it was written before 170 or so, but no one believes it was written before 70 AD.

[Mythra]

Tradition has Paul being beheaded in Rome under Nero - most likely in 64 CE.

 

The median dating for the book of Acts is around 110 CE. Several generations went by between Paul's demise and the authorship of Acts.

 

The whole damascus story may be a fabrication. Paul doesn't mention it in any of his letters, other than in 1 Corinthians, where he claims "last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time"

 

I've learned to question everything that was written during that time. Trustworthy sources (especially from partisan christians) were few and far between. And, it was a common occurance for scribes to make "slight improvements or corrections" to the text with every new copy.

[Golden Meadows]

 

 

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him? I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something, without invoking mental illness, since I am not an atheist. This does not mean I believe it was God. The biggest problems I have with xtianity is not the presence of a spiritual force at work, but rather, the nature of it.

 

Why does any spirituality nature of it or otherwise have to be present at all?

I was not suggesting there must be a spiritual dimension to what Paul reports - I was only mentioning that I did not automatically reject such claims. Its not through some act of faith on my part I have not become an atheist its for reasons that are not worth raising here in any detail since they cannot be meet the verifiable evidence standards that I would expect if someone made such claims to me.

 

Seeking back thru time even with the ancient Egyptians or Greeks..they had their stories too. Where did they come form? Did People deliberately lie?

In my opinion they experienced the workings of God(s) but it has been filtered down to us through mediums which are strange to the modern mind.

 

 

Personalities and powers were given to these gods by someone.. who? why?

It is natural for man to anthropomorphize the workings of spiritual beings.

 

 

 

Once you answer that you'll have your answer to the Christianity question.

I'm listening, please explain.

 

 

Even with the history of the church there was a time to question government was on equal footing as questioning god.. one could be killed for such a huge offensive as a question.

I do not believe that a divine being who ordinarily keeps himself hid would want a person of good-will searching for truth to suppress their reasoning faculties or conscience.

 

People are so worried about sinning and fearing god, they don't pay attention to real life.

I don't think "god" desires fear and intimidation as the driving force - god did not have to make us in the first place.

 

Religion is smoke and mirrors IMO. Religion and god(s) was created to control man not to free them.

I take your point but I dont agree it apllies to all of mankinds spiritual aspirations.

[Golden Meadows]

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him?

That all shows that the fault is God's or Jesus'. Jesus handpicked people to be his disciples, yet they weren't good enough, but Jesus had to pick someone else.

I could speculate why Jesus decided to go this route but its only an opinion and its not an issue i have raised.

 

If we simply look at the situation from the view that Jesus died, and did not get resurrected bodily, then Paul's words about meeting Jesus were not bodily, but either spiritually or delusionary. He's vision isn't proof that Jesus was resurrected, but only that Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected. There are people that get visions of aliens and they turn around their lifes and it changes everything from there on, should we assume they had a real encounter with the alien, or that there could be other explanations.

If you read my orignal posts I was not arguing the case for resurrection but only that the balance of available evidence, for me, pointed towards the historicity of Jesus and that perhaps his body has gone "missing" from the tomb, thats not the same as resurrection.

 

 

 

If Jesus spent 3 years teaching the message to his disciples, but the message was then given to Paul separately, then wasn't Jesus 3 years wasted time? Why wasn't it important to Paul to get the facts and message straight from the discples? Didn't he trust them?

These are very good points and I have no clear answers as to why this strange behaviour came about. What is your view?

 

And when it comes to trusting Paul, that is the key. A Christian have to trust Paul to be a believer. One person. Someone they have never met. Someone that was a fundamentalist and an extremist from start, and full of pride of his own ability to understand. Paul's behavior is very similar to other people's behavior starting their own religions.

I agree. Paul, with all his very human emotions, comes across as a real person and I find it very hard to accept that he is a work of fiction as others have suggested. I also agree that a person then has to make up their mind as to the character of Paul and reach conclusions based on that.

 

I'm certain that Paul didn't intentionally create a false religion. He had a vision, but not necessarily a real Jesus or even supernatural.

Why is the issue of it being a real jesus or vision important to you?

 

 

When alternative explanations can be found, only belief (or trust) can take you over the hurdle.

We are not handling scientific data but having to weigh up the balance of probabilties yet also recognising that the xtian revelation claims we are to live by faith and there is not going to be for most of us a Damascus road experience or doubting Thomas style verification. I no longer argue or try to prove the existence of God - I would rather watch paint dry. If a person doesn't want to believe then they will find plenty of objections to support that view.

 

Why not just come, die, and show himself to Paul and give him the message? Was God's idea from the beginning to hide and cloud the message in mystery and doubt intentional?

I don't know, maybe he wanted to teach the church he had founded to keep the doors open to outsiders rather than fortress xtianity.

 

 

Then we're just back to the beginning that

 

I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something, without invoking mental illness, since I am not an atheist. This does not mean I believe it was God. The biggest problems I have with xtianity is not the presence of a spiritual force at work, but rather, the nature of it.

Okay. Btw, good point that it doesn't have to be God.

 

Let's say the Jewish religion is true, and Satan made up the whole thing to lead people away from Judaism? What's the evidence to the contrary?

I dont know about satan being the inspiration but I have big problems reconciling such things as the doctrine of hell with the actions of a God who is described as being Love itself.

 

 

As I said before, I don't think most of the followers intentionally lied, but they were still misled. Ideas can have that kind of force.

 

Scientist René-Prosper Blondlot's N-Rays are a perfect example of how people can be easily fooled by their own ideas, and the whole world can follow, until someone starts questioning and wonder if the explanation is something else. People do want to believe, and sometimes they even "see" things that are not there.

Agreed, and everyone is affected by this to some degree.

 

 

He did claim to encounter Jesus in some form on the road to Damascus. He claimed he got the gospel directly from Jesus but I take it from your question you do not believe him? I have no hang ups about him hearing and seeing something,

 

One of the problems is the persistent idea that every word in the bible is the truth.

Yes this is so. Even for those that accept the xtian revelation they should acknowledge that bible inspiration and inerrancy is confined to the original manuscripts which we no longer have. The other big problem is failure to undertand the idiom being used. Its not always clear when the bible is poetry, allegory, historical....etc

 

 

The primary account of Paul's Damascus experience comes from the book of Acts. Written LONG after Paul was dead. And considered by most critical scholars to be a non-historical account with many of its details having been culled from Josephus.

 

And even the Acts accounts are contradictory. In one place Paul sees a light but hears no voice. Then in another it has him hearing a voice, but seeing nothing.

 

Paul himself briefly mentions his conversion in Galatians. In Paul's account, I don't believe he mentions anything about the dramatic occurances detailed in Acts. Only that God revealed the Son to him, and he immediately left for Arabia for three years. Then 14 more years go by before Paul is accepted by the Apostles. Notice apostles. They are not referred to as disciples of Jesus until the gospels come along, many years later.

 

Apostles / disciples. There is a difference.

Since the issue of Pauls encounter being either with the physical or spiritual christ was not an issue with me I will pass on this.

[Ouroboros]

If you read my orignal posts I was not arguing the case for resurrection but only that the balance of available evidence, for me, pointed towards the historicity of Jesus and that perhaps his body has gone "missing" from the tomb, thats not the same as resurrection.

Sorry! With this one and the other thread we have going, they kind of intermix.

 

From the last couple of days of discussion I'm more willing to agree to a some kind of historical person that could have been the representation of what Paul called Jesus. But that's as far as I go for now.

 

 

If Jesus spent 3 years teaching the message to his disciples, but the message was then given to Paul separately, then wasn't Jesus 3 years wasted time? Why wasn't it important to Paul to get the facts and message straight from the discples? Didn't he trust them?

These are very good points and I have no clear answers as to why this strange behaviour came about. What is your view?

Actually, I was studying a little, of things that we discussed last year and I had forgotten. My explanation (I think) is maybe that Jesus was from the Essene faith, and Paul was persecuting them and then either had a fake or real conversion experience, then went to study in the Essene school. But that is pure speculation.

 

I agree. Paul, with all his very human emotions, comes across as a real person and I find it very hard to accept that he is a work of fiction as others have suggested. I also agree that a person then has to make up their mind as to the character of Paul and reach conclusions based on that.

Yup. I wouldn't argue that Paul never was a real person, I'm certain he was, but if his experience on the "road to damascus" was real or not. That's based on personal belief or not. That's why I keep on saying that most Christians are really are Paulinians. They trust him more than the Gospels and Jesus supposed teachings, without really realizing it.

 

Why is the issue of it being a real jesus or vision important to you?

Because a vision can be explained by natural phenomenon, a real Jesus presupposes a supernatural realm, which I can't vouch for if it exists or not. And there have been other people with visions of things without substance. (Aliens for instance) If there is a supernatural world, sure, then of course a vision could be of a "real" (or metaphysical) person, but I don't believe it exists. Just personal preference.

 

(Good discussion btw.)

 

And regarding Satan inventing Christianity, using the same argument I heard in Church, the best way of deceiving someone is not to flat out tell them an outrageous lie, but to tell them something that is close to truth, but not the whole truth. Smoke and mirrors. This way Satan got the people praying to Jesus (false god) instead of Jahweh (true god).

 

Another explanation is also that there a whole tribe of gods, and they're just having fun by giving us contradictory religions. Rats in a maze.

[Japedo]

 

I take your point but I dont agree it apllies to all of mankinds spiritual aspirations.

 

Not to worry, I'm not an 'atheist' either I'd classify myself as agnostic as I don't have any answers as to either way IF god even is. I will state however I'm not what I'd classify spiritual in any sense of the word, I don't trust emotions and I relate spirituality as to being emotional. It could be I'm completely wrong but It's how *I* personally perceive it. It is perhaps the reason I view all cults/religions as a tool to control people.

 

I think people are to easily convinced and fooled. For example, My daughter just had her Jr Prom and for the Chem free party after (we the parents put on) we had a hypnotist. I have never been to a show before and thought it would be a fun and curious thing to watch. I sat in the back because I wanted to watch everyone. I could not believe the amount of people who so easily had their fingers move together or get their arms stuck in a "circle'. People were wowed and awed that these things happened to them. I must say the power of suggestion and willingness to believe are very strong in most people, That is exactly how I view being spiritual. It's a mind trick and nothing more.

 

I have little to no knowledge about mediums and so forth, and haven't studied facts surrounding them and their accuracy. I think gods as known to man today were created by men for a wide variety of reasons. I'm a little to cynical and skeptical to trust anyone who claims to be spiritual, not to say they don't exist. I just personally have a hard time relating or understanding them. On this note, I'll bow out of the debate and learn a little something about spirituality I guess.

[Golden Meadows]

If you read my orignal posts I was not arguing the case for resurrection but only that the balance of available evidence, for me, pointed towards the historicity of Jesus and that perhaps his body has gone "missing" from the tomb, thats not the same as resurrection.

Sorry! With this one and the other thread we have going, they kind of intermix.

 

From the last couple of days of discussion I'm more willing to agree to a some kind of historical person that could have been the representation of what Paul called Jesus. But that's as far as I go for now.

 

 

If Jesus spent 3 years teaching the message to his disciples, but the message was then given to Paul separately, then wasn't Jesus 3 years wasted time? Why wasn't it important to Paul to get the facts and message straight from the discples? Didn't he trust them?

These are very good points and I have no clear answers as to why this strange behaviour came about. What is your view?

Actually, I was studying a little, of things that we discussed last year and I had forgotten. My explanation (I think) is maybe that Jesus was from the Essene faith, and Paul was persecuting them and then either had a fake or real conversion experience, then went to study in the Essene school. But that is pure speculation.

The relationship between the Essene group and xtianity is an interesting topic. Their use of different calender might resolve the ambiguity realting to the date of the last supper in the gospels and provide a more substantial portait of John the Baptists time in the desert. There is also the strange omission of any mention of the Essenes in the NT (they dont get a bad press like the sadducees or pharisees)yet we know from other contemporary writers, for example Jospehus, that they formed a significant grouping at that time. It would not surprise me if a substantial part of the early church was drawn from Essenes. That's as far as I would go based on available evidence. The is such a radical difference between Christs approach to sinners as against the essene way that is hard to regard them as being effectively the same.

 

I agree. Paul, with all his very human emotions, comes across as a real person and I find it very hard to accept that he is a work of fiction as others have suggested. I also agree that a person then has to make up their mind as to the character of Paul and reach conclusions based on that.

Yup. I wouldn't argue that Paul never was a real person, I'm certain he was, but if his experience on the "road to damascus" was real or not. That's based on personal belief or not. That's why I keep on saying that most Christians are really are Paulinians. They trust him more than the Gospels and Jesus supposed teachings, without really realizing it.

What do you see as being the significant differences between the gospels of Paul and that attributed to Jesus?

 

Why is the issue of it being a real jesus or vision important to you?

Because a vision can be explained by natural phenomenon, a real Jesus presupposes a supernatural realm, which I can't vouch for if it exists or not.

And there have been other people with visions of things without substance. (Aliens for instance) If there is a supernatural world, sure, then of course a vision could be of a "real" (or metaphysical) person, but I don't believe it exists. Just personal preference.

OK I understand your point now.

 

(Good discussion btw.)

 

And regarding Satan inventing Christianity, using the same argument I heard in Church, the best way of deceiving someone is not to flat out tell them an outrageous lie, but to tell them something that is close to truth, but not the whole truth.

Agreed.

 

 

Smoke and mirrors. This way Satan got the people praying to Jesus (false god) instead of Jahweh (true god).

Yet it seems that only the person of Jesus keeps the religion of the OT alive since without him it all seems to go nowhere. My leaving behind the NT as being the infallible word of God also means, for me anyway, leaving behind the OT as well.

 

Another explanation is also that there a whole tribe of gods, and they're just having fun by giving us contradictory religions. Rats in a maze.

I can see how somebody might think that but maybe its not a healthy thought in practical terms. At some point I decided that on balance God must be love, for it seem to point to why a perfectly happy and all powerful being would bring me into existence in the first place. The second principle I hold onto is that I have the capacity to recognise right and wrong and act accordingly, i.e to love, and this is mediated through conscience and reason that God has given to each. These are my guiding lights. One of the things I am glad to leave behind in xtianity is the approach that sees everything as black and white, absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Islam has the same problem. For me God is pleased with someone who tries love his neighbour as well as self and keeps their conscience clean. This applies to all human beings including those who with good conscience don't believe in God.

 

[Golden Meadows]

 

I take your point but I dont agree it apllies to all of mankinds spiritual aspirations.

 

Not to worry, I'm not an 'atheist' either I'd classify myself as agnostic as I don't have any answers as to either way IF god even is. I will state however I'm not what I'd classify spiritual in any sense of the word, I don't trust emotions and I relate spirituality as to being emotional. It could be I'm completely wrong but It's how *I* personally perceive it.

No I think you make a good point, much of what is passed of as being spiritual is divorced from anything substantial and is really the working out of emotions. I sue spiritual in the sense that I believe that ulimate reality is not contained exclusively in matter and that there are higher powers than the whole of creation is subject to. This is a persoanl viewpoint - am not trying to argue here the case for God. Emotions I don't regard as being a bad thing, they are an important part of a human beings makeup and to suppress them leads to problems, yet to give free reign to them, ungoverned by reason, also leads to problems. I think its a question of balance.

 

It is perhaps the reason I view all cults/religions as a tool to control people.

It does make an excellent tool for crowd control but like I said earlier I don't think this covers all such experiences. There are people who have little to do with organised religion yet go about their daily lives animated by a belief in God(s).

 

I think people are to easily convinced and fooled. For example, My daughter just had her Jr Prom and for the Chem free party after (we the parents put on) we had a hypnotist. I have never been to a show before and thought it would be a fun and curious thing to watch. I sat in the back because I wanted to watch everyone. I could not believe the amount of people who so easily had their fingers move together or get their arms stuck in a "circle'. People were wowed and awed that these things happened to them. I must say the power of suggestion and willingness to believe are very strong in most people,

Agreed but this phenomena applies to all people and all activities including atheist's, not just believers and religious activities.

 

That is exactly how I view being spiritual. It's a mind trick and nothing more.

Perhaps if I shared your definition of what spiritual means I too would reach the same conclusion.

 

I have little to no knowledge about mediums and so forth, and haven't studied facts surrounding them and their accuracy. I think gods as known to man today were created by men for a wide variety of reasons.

Personally I can accept that people who have founded religions have experienced what they genuinely believed to be external communications from a divine being, the question is who and what kind of divine being? There will be charlatans for as long as there are human beings but I dont think it can all be attributed to connivence or pure malice on the part of people? What do you think?

 

I'm a little to cynical and skeptical to trust anyone who claims to be spiritual, not to say they don't exist.

Trust is an important quality but I don't think that means we have to suspend our powers of reasoning nor give into mere emotionalism.

 

I just personally have a hard time relating or understanding them. On this note, I'll bow out of the debate and learn a little something about spirituality I guess. :)

Thanks for your comments and maybe let us know what you find and any conclusions you reach!