Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Paul tells us at the beginning of Galatians that he is an apostle neither from man nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the father... and taking up the idea in 1:11f he explains that his gospel was neither according to man or taught by man, but received by revelation of Jesus Christ. He is clear that his gospel of the crucified Christ was not something derived from his predecessors. He was chosen before birth and called through grace, when God revealed his Son to Paul.
Mr Holding doesn't seem to perceive the significance of this regarding Paul as a witness to Jesus. It is not merely that Paul wasn't a direct witness to Jesus, but that his knowledge of him came through a revelation, not from a source in this world. There is no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalem group, though apparently messianists, even knew anything about Jesus.
I don't think Tacitus ever claimed that he got his knowledge of Nero from a revelation.
- spin December 24, 2008 4:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Maybe some enterprising apologist can explain why Paul, so utterly concerned to write volumes about the gospel of salvation, never once quotes Jesus to substantiate his arguments, when in the nature of the case, a quotation from Jesus would be the absolute end of all argument.
Can you imagine Billy Graham preaching sermons for ten years and never once quoting the bible?
Wouldn't that make you scratch your head and think something was amiss?
Then neither can we imagine apostle Paul giving gospel and doctrinal instruction to his Christian converts and never once quoting Jesus, which supplies rational warrant to skeptics who say the gospel sayings of Jesus was either:
a - a late fabrications after Paul or
b - existed in Paul's day, but spelled out a very legalistic Jewish Christianity that Paul, the good businessman, knew his prospective Gentile audiences would not wish to align themselves with.
Oh, before I forget, one good argument that Acts is nothing more than spin-doctored history to support Paul's ministry, is it's ridiculous portrayal of the apostles quoting the Old Testament to settle the question of Gentile salvation (Acts 15). If this had truly been a meeting of the original apostles with other legalistic "believers", well, everybody present would thus accept the authority of Jesus. But nobody is quoting Jesus to settle a question about how somebody gets saved?!
Like I said, Acts is nothing but Pauline propaganda, and conservative scholars have never adequately addressed these unexpected omissions.
- greg 6
January 1, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Saint Saul and His Letters
- From American Atheists
By American Atheists - An Educational Organization for Atheists
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Saint Saul and his letters
In addition to your comments, I consider Paul as one who was extremely intent on "converting" people and getting followers.
As an example: in order to reduce resistance to conversion he made a concerted effort to completely eliminate circumcision as any kind of a requirement for becoming a christian. He knew that besides the any physical trauma of the circumcision itself the Greeks, Romans and others frowned on the practice. Many were anti semitic enough to want no part of being identified in such fashion with anything Jewish. In addition to this the mindset was such that exposure of the glans was to be at an absolute minimum. It was fine for anyone in the olympics to be nude- but only if the glans were covered by the foreskin.
Hal 84
- Hal 84
December 24, 2008 9:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Credal evidence
Since the author takes 1 Corinthians to be written by Paul, we should look at 1Cor 15. There he describes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as a historical event that was witnessed by hundreds of people, "most of whom are still living." He wouldn't say that if this was a made up story.
A little later in the same work, Paul says he'll be sending some of the Corinthian believers to Judea. Where they can meet some of those witnesses. He wouldn't do that if he was trying to put something over on them.
- ChrisB
July 15, 2009 9:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.