Did St Paul believe in Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdoroTeDevote
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even Jewish scholars agree with the fact Jesus was real, and Roman records as well. If the original apostles lied, why would they all die for their faith.
 
Also there is no way, still the Roman accounts claim him CRUCIFIED on earth under Pontius. Even the jews say this and rebuke this in the talmud by flat out lying saying he was hanged even though they did that only to stop him being congruent with the “they shall pierce his hands and feet”
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said:
If the original apostles lied, why would they all die for their faith.
Click to expand...
First, keep in mind people die for lies all the time. The 9/11 hijackers, for one.
The response to this is usually that the apostles were direct witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection, so they wouldn’t die for a lie. But the only mention of any apostle dying at all in the Bible is James, and there’s no actual story (we don;t know if he recanted or even was offered).

All other stories come from 5th century or later history, or tradition. And none is corroborated.
For example, the story of Peter dying upside down is not history but comes from the Acts of Peter, a book so crazy the Church declared it apocryphal (it’s a great read - flying wizards, talking dogs, walking crosses). So, that the apostles died for a “lie” is not based on history anyway.

That being said, again, people die for lies ALL THE TIME. Even direct witnesses. How many witches were burned at the stake? IS witchcraft real? Why would they die for a lie? How many scientists did the Church kill? if no one “dies for a lie”, why didn’t the Church say “Well, I guess we were wrong. He died for gravity”.
The whole concept is ludicrous.

I’m not saying the Resurrection isn’t real, that’s a different debate. But if you really want to hang your hat on “not dying for a lie”, you’re in a heap of trouble. Hopefully you’ve got a lot more than that.
 
I’m not even going to watch the rest of that. That’s absolute nonsense. This man ought I read St. Paul’s Epistles.
 
This does not refute the 6hours of darkness that was recorded along with an earthquake by pliney the younger
 
Last edited:
Clement notes Peter’s martyrdom.
Also don’t make the comparison between Muslim plane hijackers and ancient Christians; one was voluntary, the other was basically involuntary.
 
Also I’d like someone to give me their opinion on ascension of isaiah. …
 
AdoroTeDevote said:
Also don’t make the comparison between Muslim plane hijackers and ancient Christians; one was voluntary, the other was basically involuntary.
Click to expand...
if you say anyone that is willing to die for something must know it is truthful, then please explain why Christians are truthful but Muslims are not. Forget hijackers if it offends you. There are literally thousands of Muslims that died for Mohammed. Why are they not “correct”?

Look, saying that “someone died for it so it must be true” is a ridiculous argument. If that’s the best you’ve got, you’re in deep trouble.
 
AdoroTeDevote said:
Clement notes Peter’s martyrdom.
Click to expand...
Clement got it from the Acts of Peter. The Acts of Peter is crazy. It’s like a Harry Potter novel. read it. That’s where the martyrdom of Peter comes from. The death of Peter is neither historically confirmed nor mentioned even once in the Bible.
 
AdoroTeDevote said:
Can I get a thorough debunking of this?
Click to expand...
There are three general categories about Jesus historicity in terms of Paul:
  1. Jesus did exists, was one person, and the Gospels are for the most part accurate historical accounts. Paul is talking about a real person.
  2. Jesus is an composite figure - a mythical figure, but is based on and extended from one or more real persons. Paul may or may not have been talking about a real person.
  3. “Cosmic Jesus” - Jesus was never a real person (this video), and he was originally a mythic figure that became ‘real’ over several decades.
My current belief is #2. I don’t think #3 is correct primarily because the Gospel stories are so inconsistent and full of problems. In other words, if Jesus were completely mythical, the historical account would be more reliable. An example: Jesus being raised in Nazareth but born in Bethlehem is a mess. I don’t want to go into it in detail, but if Jesus were NOT real, the Gospel writers would just place him in Bethlehem to start - solves a ton of problems.

Another issue is that Paul complains about not being treated the same as the apostles. He writes in his letters how Peter gets to stay at believer’s houses and gets better food, but because he was not an apostle, he get’s second-rate treatment. Paul was also short and ugly - think Danny DeVito or Joe Pesci. Why would he complain about Peter (which he consider a competitor - they did not get along) if he wasn;t real?
 
That article says that none of those were because they were scientists. 🤔
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
We can list dozens more intellectual thinkers, philosophers, politicians, and other ‘heretics’.
Click to expand...
That was not the Catholic Church. That was people in the middle ages. They often killed those who disagreed. To pin it on the Church is incorrect.
 
AZ42 said:
That article says that none of those were because they were scientists.
Click to expand...
The title of the article is “Scientists Executed by the Catholic Church”.
I don’t follow your point.
 
AZ42 said:
Did you read the article?
Click to expand...
Of course I did. It’s my reference. I realize it is defending the Church. That’s why I posted it. But it still talks about people murdered by the Church for their beliefs.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you saying the Church never killed anyone?
Are you saying the Church never killed someone because of “science” but rather because of “heresy”?
Why is that distinction meaningful? That makes it OK?
Are you saying that people that were leaders of the Church that ordered executions should not be treated as Church officials because the ordered executions?
 
Peter was a direct witness to the Resurrection. This isn’t difficult
 
Lots and lots of people have died for their beliefs. That’s undeniable.

However, the argument runs that the apostles would have known that the resurrection was false. Why would you suffer persecution and terrible deaths for something that you knew were absolutely untrue? They could easily have merged back into ordinary life. Not a single one denied the resurrection even when apart from each other and no worry gains were given to them as an incentive. In fact, many early disciples gave up fortunate positions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top