Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never said he "converted to Christianity." If you think he did say that, please quote the verse in the Bible.

I never said he said that. If you want to nitpick everything, fine. What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them, and thus made it his lifelong mission to convert others, primarily gentiles. I find that longer than converted to Christianity for the purposes of this forum, but whatever floats your boat.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He does say he did meet Peter and James in Jerusalem. You are only guessing when you say that you think they talked about Jesus.


True, but that's pretty much what everyone in this thread is doing as well on the historicity of Jesus. I'm actually also taking the position of most scholars.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never described Jesus (think about that for a while) and never mentioned Jesus' miracles or what Jesus allegedly said or did (other than for the brief section about the Last Supper, as I said, I strongly suspect is an interpolation). You have a poor understanding of what Paul's ministry was all about. Once again, I suggest you go back and read your bible. You haven't presented any evidence, and then you tell me and Bucky that we are dismissing it. Please present your evidence that Paul knew of a flesh and blood human Jesus.

If you won't accept the evidence I've already provided, I think we're done here. I have studied the Bible. I have studied what scholars say on the subject. I never claimed to be an expert, however, but I stand by what I have said. I also was never trying to write a thorough dissertation on the subject. Others, who are scholars, have done so adequately, and this isnt' my life's work. I apologize if my tone got at all hostile, but it started when Bucky initially came at me with a fairly hostile tone. I'm always amazed how hostile other atheists are out there. It makes me sad.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you got this far into my post without dropping out because you're so busy. Just in case you're interested, I think Paul associated with Peter and James because he was trying to undermine them. Paul was probably a Roman government agent employed to keep an eye on problematic Jews and dampened down their messianic dreams. He was spectacularly unsuccessful in his own time, as they started a rather large war against Rome in 66 to 70 CE.

Ok, you had me nodding along when you mentioned Paul trying to undermine Peter and James, because there is actually evidence that supports Paul having a very different view of things from Peter, but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent. That frankly sounds crazy. But at least you've provided me with the information I need to not worry so much about what you think of my opinion on the matter.

Cheers.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PersephoneK's post
12-10-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(11-10-2013 10:43 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I would much rather be part of the crazy minority who's correct than just go along with sheep who blindly quote.

Ditto.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(11-10-2013 10:43 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Really to believe Jesus was any type of messiah you have to bend and twist..because according to the Jewish people he didn't even come close to what the real messiah wss supposed to do.

I actually agree with you there. I never said Jesus was the messiah, or god, or anything other than a real human who probably existed in the first century Palestine.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PersephoneK's post
12-10-2013, 06:08 PM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(11-10-2013 02:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This will be a bit long for Persephonek, but it's pretty interesting for anyone who is wondering about Paul's (the creator of Christianity) relationship with the family and disciples of Jesus...

Hahahahahaha! That's hilarious!

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 01:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 03:09 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(12-10-2013 06:01 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never said he "converted to Christianity." If you think he did say that, please quote the verse in the Bible.

I never said he said that. If you want to nitpick everything, fine. What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them, and thus made it his lifelong mission to convert others, primarily gentiles. I find that longer than converted to Christianity for the purposes of this forum, but whatever floats your boat.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He does say he did meet Peter and James in Jerusalem. You are only guessing when you say that you think they talked about Jesus.


True, but that's pretty much what everyone in this thread is doing as well on the historicity of Jesus. I'm actually also taking the position of most scholars.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never described Jesus (think about that for a while) and never mentioned Jesus' miracles or what Jesus allegedly said or did (other than for the brief section about the Last Supper, as I said, I strongly suspect is an interpolation). You have a poor understanding of what Paul's ministry was all about. Once again, I suggest you go back and read your bible. You haven't presented any evidence, and then you tell me and Bucky that we are dismissing it. Please present your evidence that Paul knew of a flesh and blood human Jesus.

If you won't accept the evidence I've already provided, I think we're done here. I have studied the Bible. I have studied what scholars say on the subject. I never claimed to be an expert, however, but I stand by what I have said. I also was never trying to write a thorough dissertation on the subject. Others, who are scholars, have done so adequately, and this isnt' my life's work. I apologize if my tone got at all hostile, but it started when Bucky initially came at me with a fairly hostile tone. I'm always amazed how hostile other atheists are out there. It makes me sad.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you got this far into my post without dropping out because you're so busy. Just in case you're interested, I think Paul associated with Peter and James because he was trying to undermine them. Paul was probably a Roman government agent employed to keep an eye on problematic Jews and dampened down their messianic dreams. He was spectacularly unsuccessful in his own time, as they started a rather large war against Rome in 66 to 70 CE.

Ok, you had me nodding along when you mentioned Paul trying to undermine Peter and James, because there is actually evidence that supports Paul having a very different view of things from Peter, but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent. That frankly sounds crazy. But at least you've provided me with the information I need to not worry so much about what you think of my opinion on the matter.

Cheers.

Hi...glad you're still in the conversation. You did write
"Paul says in Galatians that he visited Peter and James (Jesus' brother) for 15 days 3 years after he converted to Christianity. Why would he do so?"

The reason I'm nitpicking about you saying Paul said he "converted to Christianity" is that I don't think Paul was actually trying to create a new religion, and in fact he would never of heard of the term "Christianity." Paul almost certainly died before the gospels were written so it's almost impossible to say that he was a Christian... despite the fact that his bullshit was used to help create what became Christianity.

RE
"What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them..."

NO NO NO NO!!!!. You are wrong about this (so, in fact, are 99.99% of Christians). I'm not deliberately picking on you… this is an important point.... there was no road to Damascus conversion. If Paul had met Jesus's ghost on the road to Demascus he would have said so, yet he never mentioned it even once in any of his letters. The road to Damascus story was made up by the author of Acts writing sometime probably in the early to mid second century. The author was trying to legitimise a link that didn't exist, one between Jesus and Paul. Paul never met Jesus or Jesus' ghost.

So what you may ask? Well, it means that the basic theology of Christianity was invented by this nutcase called Paul, and didn't originate from Jesus (which is what nearly all Christians believe.) That has profound implications for the legitimacy of Christianity.

Paul never talked about Jesus's teachings, other than in one small section where he rabbits on about what Jesus allegedly said at the last supper, and this is almost certainly an interpolation. Paul never described Jesus, never mentioned his miracles, and barely mentioned anything Jesus said or did. Paul only talked about his own mythical Christ who, in my opinion, quite clearly was not the Jesus that we think we know so well from the Gospels. This is a difficult concept to understand, but is profoundly important for anyone who wants to truly understand the essence of Christianity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 02:03 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 02:30 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(12-10-2013 06:01 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never said he "converted to Christianity." If you think he did say that, please quote the verse in the Bible.

I never said he said that. If you want to nitpick everything, fine. What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them, and thus made it his lifelong mission to convert others, primarily gentiles. I find that longer than converted to Christianity for the purposes of this forum, but whatever floats your boat.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He does say he did meet Peter and James in Jerusalem. You are only guessing when you say that you think they talked about Jesus.


True, but that's pretty much what everyone in this thread is doing as well on the historicity of Jesus. I'm actually also taking the position of most scholars.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never described Jesus (think about that for a while) and never mentioned Jesus' miracles or what Jesus allegedly said or did (other than for the brief section about the Last Supper, as I said, I strongly suspect is an interpolation). You have a poor understanding of what Paul's ministry was all about. Once again, I suggest you go back and read your bible. You haven't presented any evidence, and then you tell me and Bucky that we are dismissing it. Please present your evidence that Paul knew of a flesh and blood human Jesus.

If you won't accept the evidence I've already provided, I think we're done here. I have studied the Bible. I have studied what scholars say on the subject. I never claimed to be an expert, however, but I stand by what I have said. I also was never trying to write a thorough dissertation on the subject. Others, who are scholars, have done so adequately, and this isnt' my life's work. I apologize if my tone got at all hostile, but it started when Bucky initially came at me with a fairly hostile tone. I'm always amazed how hostile other atheists are out there. It makes me sad.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you got this far into my post without dropping out because you're so busy. Just in case you're interested, I think Paul associated with Peter and James because he was trying to undermine them. Paul was probably a Roman government agent employed to keep an eye on problematic Jews and dampened down their messianic dreams. He was spectacularly unsuccessful in his own time, as they started a rather large war against Rome in 66 to 70 CE.

Ok, you had me nodding along when you mentioned Paul trying to undermine Peter and James, because there is actually evidence that supports Paul having a very different view of things from Peter, but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent. That frankly sounds crazy. But at least you've provided me with the information I need to not worry so much about what you think of my opinion on the matter.

Cheers.

RE...
"I apologize if my tone got at all hostile,"

Fair enough....and I get no pleasure out of arguing with you either. I hope you don't interpret the fact that I disagree with you as hostility but rather as a sharing of knowledge that we can all benefit from.

I must point out something though... your blog on Atwill is totally unfair. You haven't read his book. You do not know enough about the topic to make your own judgement. You curtly dismiss his ideas based solely on the opinions of others, and that's not cool. There's nothing wrong with reporting other scholarly opinion in an article, but you must not base your own judgement solely on others' opinions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 02:16 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 03:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(12-10-2013 06:01 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never said he "converted to Christianity." If you think he did say that, please quote the verse in the Bible.

I never said he said that. If you want to nitpick everything, fine. What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them, and thus made it his lifelong mission to convert others, primarily gentiles. I find that longer than converted to Christianity for the purposes of this forum, but whatever floats your boat.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He does say he did meet Peter and James in Jerusalem. You are only guessing when you say that you think they talked about Jesus.


True, but that's pretty much what everyone in this thread is doing as well on the historicity of Jesus. I'm actually also taking the position of most scholars.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul never described Jesus (think about that for a while) and never mentioned Jesus' miracles or what Jesus allegedly said or did (other than for the brief section about the Last Supper, as I said, I strongly suspect is an interpolation). You have a poor understanding of what Paul's ministry was all about. Once again, I suggest you go back and read your bible. You haven't presented any evidence, and then you tell me and Bucky that we are dismissing it. Please present your evidence that Paul knew of a flesh and blood human Jesus.

If you won't accept the evidence I've already provided, I think we're done here. I have studied the Bible. I have studied what scholars say on the subject. I never claimed to be an expert, however, but I stand by what I have said. I also was never trying to write a thorough dissertation on the subject. Others, who are scholars, have done so adequately, and this isnt' my life's work. I apologize if my tone got at all hostile, but it started when Bucky initially came at me with a fairly hostile tone. I'm always amazed how hostile other atheists are out there. It makes me sad.

(10-10-2013 10:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I hope you got this far into my post without dropping out because you're so busy. Just in case you're interested, I think Paul associated with Peter and James because he was trying to undermine them. Paul was probably a Roman government agent employed to keep an eye on problematic Jews and dampened down their messianic dreams. He was spectacularly unsuccessful in his own time, as they started a rather large war against Rome in 66 to 70 CE.

Ok, you had me nodding along when you mentioned Paul trying to undermine Peter and James, because there is actually evidence that supports Paul having a very different view of things from Peter, but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent. That frankly sounds crazy. But at least you've provided me with the information I need to not worry so much about what you think of my opinion on the matter.

Cheers.

RE..."but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent."

Ok... I can't blame you for thinking that that is outlandish. I've been studying the origins of Christianity for the last seven years, and it was only about two years ago that I worked out that Paul probably was a Roman government agent.

I've written a not too long blog on this here...

http://www.markfulton.org/was-christiani...nment-plot

If you are genuinely interested in the history, I suggest you read it. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but I think you owe it to yourself to be open-minded.

And, by the way, Mr Atwill's extremely interesting book is available at Amazon as an e-book for only $9.99. That would be money well spent.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 02:28 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(13-10-2013 02:03 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 06:01 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  I never said he said that. If you want to nitpick everything, fine. What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them, and thus made it his lifelong mission to convert others, primarily gentiles. I find that longer than converted to Christianity for the purposes of this forum, but whatever floats your boat.



True, but that's pretty much what everyone in this thread is doing as well on the historicity of Jesus. I'm actually also taking the position of most scholars.


If you won't accept the evidence I've already provided, I think we're done here. I have studied the Bible. I have studied what scholars say on the subject. I never claimed to be an expert, however, but I stand by what I have said. I also was never trying to write a thorough dissertation on the subject. Others, who are scholars, have done so adequately, and this isnt' my life's work. I apologize if my tone got at all hostile, but it started when Bucky initially came at me with a fairly hostile tone. I'm always amazed how hostile other atheists are out there. It makes me sad.


Ok, you had me nodding along when you mentioned Paul trying to undermine Peter and James, because there is actually evidence that supports Paul having a very different view of things from Peter, but then you lost me at Paul "probably" being a Roman government agent. That frankly sounds crazy. But at least you've provided me with the information I need to not worry so much about what you think of my opinion on the matter.

Cheers.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 02:37 AM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(12-10-2013 06:08 PM)PersephoneK Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 02:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This will be a bit long for Persephonek, but it's pretty interesting for anyone who is wondering about Paul's (the creator of Christianity) relationship with the family and disciples of Jesus...

Hahahahahaha! That's hilarious!

Well...you called yourself "lazy," and you admitted (and quite obviously hadn't) read the whole thread, and....you haven't read Atwill's book....so....you've created an image of yourself that you're not particularly interested in reading anything too long. You can, of course, prove me wrong....
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Story of Jesus Christ now proven to be a fabrication
(13-10-2013 01:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi...glad you're still in the conversation. You did write
"Paul says in Galatians that he visited Peter and James (Jesus' brother) for 15 days 3 years after he converted to Christianity. Why would he do so?"

The reason I'm nitpicking about you saying Paul said he "converted to Christianity" is that I don't think Paul was actually trying to create a new religion, and in fact he would never of heard of the term "Christianity." Paul almost certainly died before the gospels were written so it's almost impossible to say that he was a Christian... despite the fact that his bullshit was used to help create what became Christianity.

I don't think Paul was trying to create a new religion either or that he probably thought of himself as "Christian" although he may have. By the end of the First Century others were referring to this group of Jesus followers as Christians so its certainly plausible that was the oral tradition circulating during Paul's lifetime, and that he thought of himself as a Christian. I think the terminology is irrelevant for the point of this thread though on whether or not Jesus existed.


(13-10-2013 01:48 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE
"What I should have said was when Paul claimed to have had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus and then began following his teachings as he understood them..."

NO NO NO NO!!!!. You are wrong about this (so, in fact, are 99.99% of Christians). I'm not deliberately picking on you… this is an important point.... there was no road to Damascus conversion. If Paul had met Jesus's ghost on the road to Demascus he would have said so, yet he never mentioned it even once in any of his letters. The road to Damascus story was made up by the author of Acts writing sometime probably in the early to mid second century. The author was trying to legitimise a link that didn't exist, one between Jesus and Paul. Paul never met Jesus or Jesus' ghost.

So what you may ask? Well, it means that the basic theology of Christianity was invented by this nutcase called Paul, and didn't originate from Jesus (which is what nearly all Christians believe.) That has profound implications for the legitimacy of Christianity.

Paul never talked about Jesus's teachings, other than in one small section where he rabbits on about what Jesus allegedly said at the last supper, and this is almost certainly an interpolation. Paul never described Jesus, never mentioned his miracles, and barely mentioned anything Jesus said or did. Paul only talked about his own mythical Christ who, in my opinion, quite clearly was not the Jesus that we think we know so well from the Gospels. This is a difficult concept to understand, but is profoundly important for anyone who wants to truly understand the essence of Christianity.


I disagree with your analysis, though will concede my mistake about "Paul claiming" his vision on the road to Damascus, although he does say he obtained the knowledge by revelation from Jesus in Galatians. That seems pretty clear to me.

And no, its not a difficult concept to understand... I just disagree with your conclusions. Paul certainly saw Jesus differently than Peter and probably the other apostles. And in many ways, yes, he "created" a mythical Christ, but I think the evidence is still strong that he did so based on his understanding of a real man named Jesus who lived in Galilee.

I think there is much more evidence to show that Jesus was a real person, who was transformed via legend into God by his followers. I do not see the evidence to support that he never existed, or was created from thin air.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." ~Rene Descartes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: