Did St Paul believe in Jesus?

[Wesrock]

AdoroTeDevote:

Clement notes Peter’s martyrdom.

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.

Acts of Peter is considered to have been written in the second half of the second century, which would place it after 150 AD.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is considered to have been written between 70 at the earliest to 140 AD at the latest.

So… do the math.

 

[KevinK]

Dying for a belief is not much of a defense. History is full of people dying for their beliefs (both true and false).

 

[goout]

AZ42:

That article says that none of those were because they were scientists.

The title of the article is “Scientists Executed by the Catholic Church”.
I don’t follow your point.

The point is that you googled an easy string of search terms without reading the content, and posted the article with the assumption that the title of the book reveals it’s content.
And you were mistaken.
The article precisely debunks the myth you are espousing, that the Catholic Church is anti science.

We spoke about this in another thread, where you were challenged to argue with the settled science of human conception. ie unique human dna at conception, and the full potentiality of unique human beings. And you took a pass in favor of secular mythologies and misinformation.
On other threads you are championing science in the area of evolution. But if you misunderstand the relationship between science and faith, how do you expect anyone to be converted to your point of view. You may not realize it, but you are in the same camp as fundamentalists, you just happen to have different conclusions.

So yes, let’s talk about the Catholic Church and science. The water is warm, jump right in.

 

[LateCatholic]

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is considered to have been written between 70 at the earliest to 140 AD at the latest.

Can you provide reference where Peter’s death as a martyr dying upside down for Christ comes from a source earlier than the Acts of Peter, which the Church considers invalid.

 

[LateCatholic]

We spoke about this in another thread, where you were challenged to argue with the settled science of human conception. ie unique human dna at conception, and the full potentiality of unique human beings. And you took a pass in favor of secular mythologies and misinformation.
On other threads you are championing science in the area of evolution. But if you misunderstand the relationship between science and faith, how do you expect anyone to be converted to your point of view. You may not realize it, but you are in the same camp as fundamentalists, you just happen to have different conclusions.

Well I clearly can’t respond to all these because it would just be a rehash of other threads.
As I stated, where are we disagreeing? You say the Church supports science? I bring up numerous references where this is refuted to the point where the Church MURDERS scientists. You don’t like my reference, which is fine - you will not I posted several others in the other threads.

I still do not understand your point. Are you truly saying the Church never attacked or punished scientists? Why then did the Church OFFICIALLY apologize for its stance on heliocentricity and Galileo in 1992?
Who seriously denies that Church has a history of being anti-science?
Why are people so against evolution in these forums, one of the most celebrated and validated scientific theories in history?

It’s one thing to argue against evolution or scientific theories. But it’s another to claim you are pro-science AND do the same.

I’m willing to have a nice conversation about this. But please clarify. Are you saying the Church was NEVER anti-science? Or just not anti-science now? The former is simply so ridiculous to be sublime. The latter could be interesting - but you know where my thoughts lie.

 

[LateCatholic]

you are in the same camp as fundamentalists, you just happen to have different conclusions.

This is always the route apologists take when they lose the argument. I’m not saying you have lost, just that this route won’t sway me. “You are religious too!” doesn’t mean anything when I’m talking about evolution.

Look - the evidence and facts are irrefutable. The Genesis story is not meant to be taken literally. Evolution is one basis for that, but there are dozens more, from all areas of science and discovery. Now, extrapolate. If Genesis is NOT literal, what is the true nature of Original Sin - and by further extension, the Atonement? These are legitimate questions. There are many more. I maintain the Church must change it’s broken dogma based on what we have discovered. Other cling on, kicking and screaming. I’m not afraid of change. Are you?

 

[LateCatholic]

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?

Again:

1. There is no historical basis for the apostles “suffering persecution and terrible deaths”.
2. There is no evidence that - even if they died - they were given an option to recant.
3. The whole concept is ridiculous anyway. Do you believe in witchcraft? Why would so many witches allow themselves to burn at the stake then? According to you this is even more convincing. They themselves are the witches, not just witnesses like the apostles.

Like I said, if this is the best proof we have of the Resurrection, we are in trouble
.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus, who appeared to him on the road to Damascus, was the reason for Paul’s conversion. Of course, he believed in Jesus.

 

[TULIPed]

Why are there really, really smart people who believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and Atonement?

 

[LateCatholic]

Why are there really, really smart people who believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and Atonement?

The correct question is why are there really, really smart people that want YOU to believe in original Sin and the Atonement?

You have no idea what they believe. They could know it’s wrong but don’t want to lose power and influence and thus perpetuate the concept. Throughout history, religion has been used by those in power to keep others in line - or to take their money. Why don’t you question the concept and come up with your own beliefs instead of just relying on someone that you think is smarter than you. That’s actually a logical fallacy.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why don’t you question the concept and come up with your own beliefs instead of just relying on someone that you think is smarter than you.

Because that’s how we get nonsense like Scientology.

We have to believe in what coincides with reality. Catholicism presents the most cohesive belief structure that deals with both theological issues and what we see at work in the world. The fact that people have abused religious belief for personal gain does not invalidate all religion.

It also does not address the myriad miracles recorded in Christian history, nor does it properly explain the radical shift in societal structure and direction which accompanied the mass conversions to Catholicism in the early AD’s.

Arguments like your’s are popular because they’re assertions which can’t be proven, but sound good to anyone who feels a little disenfranchised by some aspect of a belief system. They prey on gullibility and the innate desire to rebel against a preexisting establishment. There’s no actual substance to them.

Throughout history, everyhting has been used to keep people in line or extort money from them. Many things, such as organized government, have been used to that end to far greater effect and scope than religion could ever hope to achieve.

 

[MarthaSo]

The apostles didn’t suffer persecution?
Wasn’t St. John exiled? Also St. Paul, not one of the 12 but scripture states his persecutions clearly. Josephus mentions the death of James. Scripture also records the martyrdom of St Stephen and St James. Also in the time of Nero for example Christians were persecuted and killed but are you saying that none of Jesus disciples were ever persecuted or killed or am I misunderstanding because I only read this small part of the thread. Thank you

 

[curious_cath]

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.

I started a discussion about Jesus as one or two persons here:

One Jesus or two Jesuses? Sacred Scripture

I have been puzzled for some time already about the question if Jesus of the Bible which is identical to my Jesus of faith and the historical Jesus are one and the same or two separate persons? Sometimes we take the historical Jesus as a “lower edition” of our Jesus of faith. But why would history be lower than anything else? Should not our faith be completely based on historically accurate accounts and thus on the historically understood person of Jesus? I am puzzled as ever.

I believe separating Jesus into two “Jesuses” is a corruption of His person, His high integrity character and His divine historical figure.

 

[LateCatholic]

Peter was a direct witness to the Resurrection. This isn’t difficult

There were NO direct witnesses to the Resurrection, in ANY Gospel.
In two of the Gospels, Peter does visit the empty tomb. But he did not witness the Resurrection. In 3 of the Gospels (you can also include Acts), Peter is in a group where some claim to see Jesus.
But saying that there were direct witnesses is not true.

 

[curious_cath]

There were NO direct witnesses to the Resurrection, in ANY Gospel.

I like your agnostic approach but it will mislead you. The resurrection does not depend on eye witnesses because it is an historical fact even before you ask about witnesses. The raising of Lazarus had many eye witnesses and the man had been in the tomb for 4 days already! Still, Lazarus was raised and, as a consequence, Jesus got a celebration as a glorious King when He entered Jerusalem a few days afterward.

Jesus is alive among the believers today and this is in itself an evidence of His resurrection. There are two kinds of people, those have Jesus alive in them and those who have Jesus dead in them. If Jesus is dead in you, then who would expect you to tell the truth about Him? If Jesus is alive in you, then what else would you need to know His resurrection?

 

[TULIPed]

Maybe. I know a fair number of people smarter than me that are either really good actors, or they actually believe that on that first Easter morning 2,000 years ago, a group of women found an empty tomb and everything changed. But maybe you’re right.

Almost a third of the world is Christian. Assuming a standard distribution, that’s a lot of smart people. A whole bunch of them - millions - have the same access to information as you do. Are all of them in on the power play?

Respectfully LC - you keep suggesting that we haven’t thought about our faith - I mean really, really thought about it. Or maybe we have, but we’re just not smart enough to figure out the way we’re being manipulated. (Maybe you don’t mean it that way - but perception is reality, no?)

I’m not as smart as you. I certainly don’t understand philosophy like you do. You’re breadth of knowledge and experience is impressive. (And I’m pretty sure you know and love our King too - but for the sake of good reparte, indulge me )

But I know a thing or 2 about sin. I know about it personally. I know that it invades and pollutes every cell of my body. I know that the Bible knows about sin. When Paul says in Romans 7:

“15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

He nailed it - at least for me - and maybe a fair portion of 2 Billion other people

 

[Lee1]

There is this duality which many of us struggle with but I think of it as my base self which sins rather than some discreet other. When I’m happiest I have a higher self if you like which guides the base self towards what is right. Sometimes it feels like handling a chimpanzee!

 

[LateCatholic]

I like your agnostic approach but it will mislead you. The resurrection does not depend on eye witnesses because it is an historical fact even before you ask about witnesses. The raising of Lazarus had many eye witnesses and the man had been in the tomb for 4 days already! Still, Lazarus was raised and, as a consequence, Jesus got a celebration as a glorious King when He entered Jerusalem a few days afterward.

Jesus is alive among the believers today and this is in itself an evidence of His resurrection. There are two kinds of people, those have Jesus alive in them and those who have Jesus dead in them. If Jesus is dead in you, then who would expect you to tell the truth about Him? If Jesus is alive in you, then what else would you need to know His resurrection?

You are reading too far into my comment. Someone said Peter was a direct witness to the Resurrection. From a historical standpoint - even if you include the Gospels as history (which they are not) - there were no direct witnesses to the Resurrection. A few people claim to have seen an empty tomb. Later, several people claim to have seen Jesus again. According to the Gospels, there was either one appearance, a few, or none. If You include Acts and 1 Cor, there were more appearances, and up to 500 people may have claimed to have seen him. Some were able to recognize him immediately, some only after a bit, some not at all.
Unfortunately, there is no historical corroboration outside of the Gospels for the Resurrection. Most scholars assume that either it did not happen or at the time, Jesus was a very minor figure not worthy of any historical mention. That’s the history as we know it.

I realize believing in the Resurrection is a faith issue. I’m not sure yet what I believe. But, my personally opinion is that it doesn’t matter. I still subscribe to Jesus message - love your neighbor, help the less fortunate, etc. That won’t change regardless of if the Resurrection is a real event or not.

 

[Lee1]

Jesus is in the Holy Eucharist in every tabernacle on earth and sits at the right hand of The Father in Heaven. He is SO alive.

As far as the question “did St Paul believe in Jesus?” Is concerned, I don’t know about you but I’d believe in the existence of Jesus if He knocked me off my horse!

 

[angel12]

You have no idea what they believe. They could know it’s wrong but don’t want to lose power and influence and thus perpetuate the concept.

You seem to be saying that it’s unlikely that “very smart people” could believe something that you don’t believe, that they must just be pretending to.

I hope that’s not the case, because it would be very arrogant of you.