Archeologist can find no traces of the guy. Where are the writings about him from non Christians? Paul is a myth.

There's even been a recent documentary about him!

http://www.whatispaul.com/

This could change your life. Seriously.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 07:43PM by matt.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01248/paul_mccartney2_1248328c.jpg

Botox shine and bad brow lift.

But the Paul Paul, the Biblical Paul Paul, I think he probably existed. I like blaming him for royally screwing up what could have been a decent religion.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01248/
> paul_mccartney2_1248328c.jpg
>
> Botox shine and bad brow lift.
>
> But the Paul Paul, the Biblical Paul Paul, I think
> he probably existed. I like blaming him for
> royally screwing up what could have been a decent
> religion.


I'm no fan of Paul, but some of the stuff attributed to him was written by others.

If neither Jesus or Paul existed, then who started Christianity? The Jesus /myth people think Paul made up Jesus. Logical deduction: Christianity doesn't exist either. Okaaay

When people claim Jesus didn't exist they usually say that Paul made it up.

So I want these people to prove that Paul existed. It's a semi-joke.

anon1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When people claim Jesus didn't exist they usually
> say that Paul made it up.
>
> So I want these people to prove that Paul existed.
> It's a semi-joke.
I got that. My comment was a feeble attempt at another joke.Obviously, I need to work on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 08:02PM by bona dea.

anon1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When people claim Jesus didn't exist they usually
> say that Paul made it up.
>
> So I want these people to prove that Paul existed.
> It's a semi-joke.

And it did not go unnoticed! It was actually an ironical point. And a well-made one, too.

Did Jesus exist? I have no idea if a seed character for Jesus existed in some form.

But did Paul exist? Was that his name? Did he make up or exaggerate the Jesus story? I don't know about his actual identity but Christianity is real as I can readily prove.

Whether or not Paul is responsible I don't know. But I do know no character that could have been Jesus himself did any writing due to the time frame.

So, someone in the Paul role had to exist, but it is does not follow that someone named Jesus had to exist.

This is something that the Jesus myth people on this board refuse to do.

According to them the epistles are not evidence but "hearsay."

Using their qualifications I think it's fair to say Paul never existed. I think the epistles may not exist either.

anon1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is something that the Jesus myth people on
> this board refuse to do.
>
> According to them the epistles are not evidence
> but "hearsay."
>
> Using their qualifications I think it's fair to
> say Paul never existed. I think the epistles may
> not exist either.

They kind of remind me of the birthers. Not to get political, but they aren't going to believe Obama was born in the US because they won't accept any evidence. They believe in a vast conspiracy and nothing is gong to change their minds. Nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 10:01PM by bona dea.

I can ask a Christian where he got his religion, and he will point to the Bible, an actual physical thing that exists.

Since books don't write themselves (that includes epistles), someone wrote it. I would not put myself in the position to prove exactly who Paul or any of the other writers were.

But I can hold the book that required an author and find a Christian (which proves Christianity exists) which is a whole lot more factual than speculating that the author wrote about a real person. Some author (we can call him Paul or Fred for all I care) existed. We can't be as sure about the character the author writes about.

Does that make what I was trying to say more clear?

(A birther bona dea? That's a low blow!)

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can ask a Christian where he got his religion,
> and he will point to the Bible, an actual physical
> thing that exists.
>
> Since books don't write themselves (that includes
> epistles), someone wrote it. I would not put
> myself in the position to prove exactly who Paul
> or any of the other writers were.
>
> But I can hold the book that required an author
> and find a Christian (which proves Christianity
> exists) which is a whole lot more factual than
> speculating that the author wrote about a real
> person. Some author (we can call him Paul or Fred
> for all I care) existed. We can't be as sure about
> the character the author writes about.
>
> Does that make what I was trying to say more
> clear?
>
> (A birther bona dea? That's a low blow!)

The epistles are not accepted as anything near authentic by the Jesus/myth people though. They may exist but in their minds, they have as much truth as a fairy tale so Paul could well be made up so far as they are concerned. As far as birthers, I wasn't referring to you, but a few other posters on these threads and it was meant to be a low blow.The comment about Christian not existing was meant as sarcasm. obviously, there are Christians



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:30PM by bona dea.

you can hold a BOM in your hand, it had an author

There Are Mormons and Christians

Please Explain the difference

Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

We have plenty of examples from many cultures about how mythology arises. Neither Christianity or Mormonism are unique, IMO.

If Paul made up Jesus, he got away with one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. Which is more logical-that Jesus was real and Paul founded a religion around him or that he made the whole thing up and convinced everyone that a guy from their own place and time was real when he wasn't? Gee, you'd think someone might have noticed or checked it out. Maybe the Romans who were trying to stamp out the movement and who had access to the records of the time, might have used that as evidence against Christianity.. Like they say, if there are two possibilities, the simplest is usually right.

So what about other gods and mythical creatures that people believed are real. Did they all require an actual seed character?

I think some did and some did not. I really don't know which ones had a real thing that inspired the myth.

Was there a seed character for the god Pan? Zeus? Pele the volcano goddess?

How do we determine which religious gods were fabricated or based on an actual person? I'm not willing to say which is the simplest possibility. Sometimes just making something up is more simple. Take the case of Moroni. Surely JS had to have a seed character? (JS would be the "Paul" in Mormonism.)

I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't think there is enough evidence (like a birth certificate!) to know for sure. It's a non issue for me because like you and others point out, a real Jesus does not make the supernatural claims about Jesus real.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what about other gods and mythical creatures
> that people believed are real. Did they all
> require an actual seed character?
>
> I think some did and some did not. I really don't
> know which ones had a real thing that inspired the
> myth.
>
> Was there a seed character for the god Pan? Zeus?
> Pele the volcano goddess?
>
> How do we determine which religious gods were
> fabricated or based on an actual person? I'm not
> willing to say which is the simplest possibility.
> Sometimes just making something up is more simple.
> Take the case of Moroni. Surely JS had to have a
> seed character? (JS would be the "Paul" in
> Mormonism.)
>
> I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't
> think there is enough evidence (like a birth
> certificate!) to know for sure. It's a non issue
> for me because like you and others point out, a
> real Jesus does not make the supernatural claims
> about Jesus real.
There may have been, but those gods started out in prehistory and we don't know. Jesus didn't. That is a big difference and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Pele the volcano goddess....hey i thought that dude played soccor!! hmmmm..... oh thats right...dont take any volacanic rocks home or you will be smited by the Godess Pele?!?!?! hawaii.... anyone here do a mission there??? ride a bike up the waipi'o valley? not likely!! but possible!! you would have to be one badass rider!

If Joseph Smith made up the angel moroni, he got away with one of the greatest conspiracies of the 19th century. Which is more logical- that Moroni was real and delivered a set of gold plates to Joseph Smith, or that he made the whole thing up and created a religion 14 million strong? Gee, you'd think someone might have noticed or checked it out. Maybe the americans who were trying to stamp out the movement and who had access to the newspapers of the time, might have used that as evidence against mormonism.. Like they say, if there are two possibilities, the simplest is usually right.

1. To say that those who usually reject the assertion that a historical jesus existed also say that Paul made it up is a straw argument. That is a logical fallacy.

2. The acts and epistles are not evidence that a historical jesus existed, but that doesn't mean they weren't written. They're exactly the same as the Book of Mormon: Made up writings of men trying to build on commonly-held beliefs with just enough twist to get a following.

3. Anyone in a "paul role" didn't have to convince Jews living in Jerusalem during the 1st century that Jesus existed. The earliest manuscript from the new testament that has been found (P52) dates to 125 AD, a century after the subject supposedly perished. The first manuscript attributed to Paul (P46) dates to 150 AD.

I was using the same example (Moroni) at the same time you were!

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was using the same example (Moroni) at the same
> time you were!

Moroni supposedly lived the distant past and it would be impossible to check. Jesus and Paul were contempories living in the same small area. It would be pretty easy to check it out. It would be impossible to check out Moroni. Huge difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:31PM by bona dea.

Moroni showed up in JS's writing. It's the same situation because Moroni visited JS in person which means JS had contemporary proof of meeting him.

Did JS require a seed character to write about Moroni any more than Paul would have? I simply could not speculate. JS says he had first hand evidence Moroni existed.

I don't see that Paul's claims are that much more credible. However like you, I think the other references, even though they are not great add credence to Paul's claims.

But I'm wondering about this. I can find lots of Mormons who wrote in books about Moroni. In two thousand years, would someone think those books meant there are more references to prove Moroni existed? Mormon authors write as if Moroni was a factual person even though he lived in ancient times. Would people in the future know a Mormon with educational credentials who mentions Moroni was still a bogus source? I sure hope so!

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moroni showed up in JS's writing. It's the same
> situation because Moroni visited JS in person
> which means JS had contemporary proof of meeting
> him.
>
> Did JS require a seed character to write about
> Moroni any more than Paul would have? I simply
> could not speculate. JS says he had first hand
> evidence Moroni existed.
>
> I don't see that Paul's claims are that much more
> credible. However like you, I think the other
> references, even though they are not great add
> credence to Paul's claims.
>
> But I'm wondering about this. I can find lots of
> Mormons who wrote in books about Moroni. In two
> thousand years, would someone think those books
> meant there are more references to prove Moroni
> existed? Mormon authors write as if Moroni was a
> factual person even though he lived in ancient
> times. Would people in the future know a Mormon
> with educational credentials who mentions Moroni
> was still a bogus source? I sure hope so!
But when Paul was preaching, anyone could have checked out Jesus because he had lived in a specific place in their country and in their own time. When JS claimed to have met Moroni, he was an angel from nearly 2000 years in the past and his birthplace was rather vague. Nobody else saw him, just Joseph. You can check out a guy who supposedly was born in the next town a few years in the past and who died in a specific place in a specific year'Find his family, his grave, the death record, his friends, or his enemies. If he was real, someone will remember. There will be traces . It is kind of hard to track down an angel who lived someplace in North America as a mortal nearly 2000 years ago and who is now an angel who resides in heaven and who has appeared to one man and only one. Not the same thing at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 10:00PM by bona dea.

How do we know anyone actually did find out that information about Jesus in his time? If they couldn't find him, we wouldn't know.

It's hard to know for sure, but I agree with your point. Maybe lots of people did check out the story and found evidence at the time. Who knows. That's not great proof but a possibility.

They would include some detail as to the fact checking. You know, add credibility, citing the source, etc.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do we know anyone actually did find out that
> information about Jesus in his time? If they
> couldn't find him, we wouldn't know.
>
> It's hard to know for sure, but I agree with your
> point. Maybe lots of people did check out the
> story and found evidence at the time. Who knows.
> That's not great proof but a possibility.
I think the people who lived in Nazareth and the surrounding areas would have figured it out and I think if there was any real doubt, the Romans would have used this to discredit the Christians.

chulotc Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> 1. To say that those who usually reject the
> assertion that a historical jesus existed also say
> that Paul made it up is a straw argument. That is
> a logical fallacy.

Jesu myth people usually do say Paul made it up. That is not a logical fallacy. I did not say they always say it.

> 2. The acts and epistles are not evidence that a
> historical jesus existed, but that doesn't mean
> they weren't written. They're exactly the same as
> the Book of Mormon: Made up writings of men trying
> to build on commonly-held beliefs with just enough
> twist to get a following.

The acts epistles and gospels are very different from the BoM. For you to say that they are not evidence of a hisorical Jesus is absurd. You can say that it is not good evidence if you'd like, but to say that it is not evidence is the same as saying the epistles are not evidence for there being a Paul.

> 3. Anyone in a "paul role" didn't have to convince
> Jews living in Jerusalem during the 1st century
> that Jesus existed. The earliest manuscript from
> the new testament that has been found (P52) dates
> to 125 AD, a century after the subject supposedly
> perished. The first manuscript attributed to Paul
> (P46) dates to 150 AD.

We have P52. It's from the Gospel of John, which is obviously the last Gospel written. I'm not sure what you're rambling about on this part. Please elaborate.

And while you are at it. Prove that James existed. Jesus's own family must have been made up too. Josephus must have made up the part about James the Just.

I mean, if James really existed then he made up the part that Jesus was his own brother and deceived his followers. And Simon, who later took over (another family member) would have been made up. And Jude must not have existed either.

I am one of those who tends to think that Jesus really existed. However, it is confusing as it has come down to us because there are really two distinct Christianities embedded in the NT (one is the familiar one produced by Paul and the other, reflected by James the brother of Jesus has been marginalized.) But that is a topic for another time.

The reality is, Josephus is not a first hand account. Regardless of if the story of Jesus was true or not, Josephus had to have heard the story from someone else. So, the story that someone else was repeating, was it fiction or non-fiction?

Josephus actually does not help in proving the existence of Jesus in any way.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:41PM by MJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.[21][22][23]

Matthew and Jon represent 2 of the 4 Canonical gospels. It seems to me that if the gospels are not what they claim to be or written by who they are claimed, then yes, I think we need to scrutinize every aspect of the bible.

But sometimes the criteria the Jesus myth people push around here for proving Jesus existed is ridiculous.

anon1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But sometimes the criteria the Jesus myth people
> push around here for proving Jesus existed is
> ridiculous.

They want him to have been mentioned by every contemporary writer, to have written books and a video of the Sermon on the Mount would be nice.

Geez, bona, how far will you go to misrepresent what others are saying?

So far, the tally is:

-0 manuscripts that date to the 1st century that reference a man named Jesus.

-Outlandish fables of infanticide that don't even merit a mention in any contemporary records.

-Appeals to 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts that rely on 2nd and 3rd-hand testimony.

No references made about him ya know.

SOMEONE wrote them. A person. They didn't write themselves. We call that person an arbitrary name: Paul.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 10:13PM by MJ.