Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2728034  +6/-4     
Author:Shooting Shark
4/30/2022 1:17:15 AM

The Christians citing Acts to "prove" Paul thought of Jesus as a real person aren't really helping. Acts was written by someone else who did think of Jesus that way, so of course he's going to depict his hero as doing so.

The question seems to be inspired by a version of the fringe Jesus Myth hypothesis, namely the one presented by amateur writer Earl Doherty and recently championed by PhD graduate and anti-Christian activist Richard Carrier. Doherty argues that the first form of Christianity didn't believe he was a historical figure at all and imagined he lived in the heavens - in the "sub-lunar celestial sphere", to be precise. According to Doherty, Paul's writings reflect this belief in a purely celestial Jesus and he had no conception of Jesus as an earthly, historical person. Then, Doherty argues, the mythic/celestial Jesus got "historicised" later and turned into a god-man who did things on earth, which is the Jesus we find in the gospels and Acts. The earlier "Celestial Jesus" proto-Christianity then faded away (vanished without trace, actually) and we were left with the historical god-man Jesus of the gospels. 

While this idea is strangely popular amongst internet atheists who have never studied the material, pretty much every scholar on the planet thinks it's hogwash.

To begin with, while Paul's letters put far more emphasis on what he believed about the risen Jesus and very little on the earthly Jesus he never met, there are clear references in his writings which make it obvious that he believed that Jesus had been a man, had taught, had been executed and had family and friends. It is extremely difficult for the "Jesus Myth" proponents to make these references go away.

Paul says Jesus was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans1:3). He refers to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1Cor. 2:8) and that he died and was buried (1Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had an earthly, physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians1:19). Doherty and Carrier work very hard to try to argue that passages that say he was "born of a woman" actually mean "not born of a woman", but they have failed to convince scholars.

The second flaw in Doherty's thesis lies in his claim that this idea of "fleshly" events happening in some "sub-lunar" celestial realm up in the heavens was a common and accepted concept in the Middle Platonism of the time. He argues that if we look at the way Paul depicts Jesus (once we've argued away all the clear references to him being a human), we see exactly the kind of Middle Platonic conception of a celestial being in a "fleshly" yet non-terrestrial realm. Unfortunately, when he is pressed to provide actual examples of this, he comes up with nothing much to substantiate this claim. In fact, once when a knowledgeable online debater challenged him to provide some evidence that pagans actually believed in a sub-lunar, non-terrestrial realm where gods etc could "take on flesh", get crucified and die etc he admitted that he couldn't do so:

"I get the idea that you have interpreted me as though I were saying: the pagans placed the myths of their savior gods in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret Paul that way. Actually, my movement was in the opposite direction. I have always worked first with the early Christian record, and come to a heavenly-realm understanding of it through internal evidence (supported by the unworkability of an earthly understanding of that record)"

This is an extraordinary admission by Doherty. His book argues that we can read Paul as believing in this "fleshly sub-lunar realm" because this can be found in Middle Platonic thought. But here he admits that he can't produce evidence that this idea existed in Middle Platonism because he's actually getting this whole idea from a reading of Paul that simply assumes this whole "fleshly sub-lunar realm" idea. In other words, this whole central plank of his thesis is based on 
a priori circular reasoning. The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has engaged Doherty and his followers in online debate and came away scornfully unimpressed. He noted:

"... the plausibility of D[oherty]'s hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism.

"If you think that this is not the case, please name anyone among the actual and recognized experts in ancient philosophy and/or on Middle Platonism who thinks D's views on what the ancients thought about the way the world was constructed, and who did what where, has any merit."

The final fatal flaw in Doherty's thesis is his contrived idea that there was a "mythic Jesus Christianity" that existed alongside the better known "historical Jesus Christianity" until the latter won the battle for dominance and wiped out any reference to the former. Until Doherty came along and became the first person in about 2000 years to realise what happened.

This is completely implausible. While the idea of Machiavellian early Christians completely erasing all trace of earlier forms of Christianity may appeal to zealots and conspiracy theorists, it simply doesn't square with the evidence. It's true that later "orthodox" forms of Christianity were happy to burn the books of their "heretical" rivals to keep them from infecting the faithful. But this doesn't mean they were also happy to wipe out all trace or mention of these "heresies". On the contrary, they were keen to write long and detailed books explaining why their heretical rivals were wrong and why the orthodox view was right. They often distorted their rivals' ideas when they did this and sometimes the heresy in question had been dead for so long they were confused about precisely what the heretics in question had believed (they just knew they were wrong), but they certainly didn't erase all mention of them. They felt it was important to refute even minor or long dead heresies in as much detail as possible, just in case they rose up again (as some did occasionally).

But Doherty would have us believe that in amongst all these apologetic, anti-heretical literature there is pretty much 
NO reference to what should have been the biggest and most threatening heresy of all - the heresy that the historical Jesus never existed. Not only would Doherty's supposed "mythic Jesus Christianity" be a major threat to "historical Jesus Christianity" even after it had declined and vanished, it would actually have been THE major threat by merit of the fact that it was the original form of Christianity. Yet we find not a whisper about it in any of this literature. Doherty would have us believe that these writers bothered to condemn tiny and long-extinct heretical sects, yet ignored the elephant in the room and made no mention of this primary threat to their interpretation of Jesus.  

This silence makes no sense.

Unless, of course, this whole "mythic Jesus Christianity" is a figment of Doherty's speculations and didn't exist at all. Then the silence about it in the sources makes perfect sense.

So it's pretty clear why Doherty's thesis gets no traction in the academic sphere and is regarded as a flawed theory by an enthusiastic amateur. The idea that Paul didn't believe that Jesus had been a real, historical person simply doesn't work.

 
 
 
iv class="q-box qu-gutterBottom qu-bg--raised">
 
Profile photo for Emmanuel Mensah
 
 
 
 


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728035 Commentary: Are you serious Crowbot?  +5/-3     
Author:Shooting Shark
4/30/2022 1:57:22 AM

Reply to: 2728034

Over 99% of historical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus was a real person. It doesn’t matter if that scholar is liberal or conservative, or Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish. The <1% of historians that believe Jesus is a myth are mostly atheists or agnostics. And it’s only the ‘internet infidel’ crowd that takes their arguments seriously.

At least one of the arguments that Jesus mythicists will often push is that Paul was mostly silent about the historical Jesus. Here’s GA Wells, one of the minority voices, who writes:

“Paul’s letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth…. They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master…. These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels he worked so many.”

(The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 22)

 

And why didn’t Paul quote Jesus’ praise of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7? Or why not quote the Sermon on the Mount when Paul was teaching the Romans to bless their persecutors to give his message more authority? (Romans 12:14) Or why did Paul say, “we don’t know how to pray as we ought” (Romans 8:26-27) when Jesus taught his followers how to pray in Matthew 6:8-13?

One of those famous internet atheists, Dan Barker, sides with the Wells, writing:

“The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus: Paul, who never met Jesus, fails to mention a single deed or saying of Jesus…and sometimes contradicts what Jesus supposedly said. To Paul, Jesus was a heavenly disembodied Christ figure, not a man of flesh and blood.”

 

At first glance, the mythicists seem like they have a point. But there are a few problems here.

ARGUING FROM SILENCE IS USUALLY A POOR WAY TO PROVE YOUR POINT

For starters, arguing from silence is usually a terrible way to argue. For example, Union General Ulysses S Grant says nothing about the Emancipation Proclamation. The famous explorer Marco Polo traveled to China but never mentions the Great Wall. The archives of Portugal do not allude to the travels of Amerigo Vespucci.

An estimated 16,000-60,000 people died in 79 AD due to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. But we only hear about this event in a personal letter of Pliny’s. The relative silence of historians we’d expect to mention these events doesn’t cause scholars to doubt their occurrence.

Regarding arguments from silence, philosopher Tim McGrew writes:

“Such arguments from silence are pervasive in New Testament scholarship, but they are tenuous at b (http://best….it)est….it is a risky business to speculate upon the motives of authors for including or omitting various facts. To create an appearance of inconsistency by this device…is methodologically unsound.” (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology)

 

PAUL’S LETTERS WERE OCCASIONAL

There’s also the fact that most of Paul’s letters were occasional. Paul often wrote to combat error, or to provide specific guidance to churches. So, for example, Paul writes his entire letter to the Galatians to fight the doctrine of the Judaizers. Or there are the specific answers Paul gives about marriage, meat sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, and public worship in 1 Corinthians.

And think about it for a minute. If there weren’t some false teachers in Corinth saying there’s no resurrection, the great resurrection teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 would be missing from our Bibles! Jesus’ miracles, parables, virgin birth, arguments with the Pharisees, and so forth weren’t relevant to Paul’s purposes in writing those particular letters.

THE SILENCE OF PAUL…ABOUT PAUL

In his book Did Jesus Exist?, agnostic Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman points out that Paul wasn’t just silent about some historical facts about Jesus, he also didn’t tell us a lot about himself. Like for instance: Who taught Paul? Where did he grow up? What did he do for a living? What did he do during his three years in Arabia or Damascus before meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem? Or in the following fourteen years? Where did he go? Paul doesn’t tell us in his letters. We only learn about a few of these things from reading Acts.

Wells mentions that we don’t learn about Jesus’ miracles from Paul. But Paul said he had miracles in his ministry, and that was proof he was an apostle. (Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12) Does Wells expect us to believe that Paul believed he and the other apostles had miracles, but Jesus didn’t?

THE SILENCE OF OTHER EARLY CHRISTIANS

But we can take it a step further. We have three letters from John, or at least attributed to him. Scholars believe he was writing to combat the proto-gnostics who were saying that sin wasn’t really a thing, and Jesus wasn’t a physical being. (1 John 1:1-3, 8) But the writer of these epistles, who wrote just like the writer of John’s Gospel, (I think they are both written by John, but some scholars debate that) doesn’t mention Jesus turning water into wine, healing a man born blind, feeding the 5,000, walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead. He doesn’t even quote the words of Jesus from that gospel. Why was the writer of 1-3 John silent about these things? Because they didn’t suit his purposes, not because he didn’t think that they happened.

Furthermore, most scholars believe that the author of Luke’s Gospel is the same author of Acts. Acts is Luke’s sequel. But in Acts, Lukes makes little use of the Jesus tradition he’s obviously familiar with. Clearly the lack of references to Jesus’ teachings in Acts doesn’t show that Luke was ignorant about what Jesus taught!

And what about the writings of some of the early church fathers? 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Polycarp’s letters to the Philippians. These letters fail to mention:

  • Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.
  • His parables.
  • That he healed the sick and cast out demons.
  • That he was transfigured on the mountain.
  • That he got into arguments with the Pharisees.
  • That he cleansed the temple.
  • That Judas betrayed him.
  • That Pilate had him crucified.

Do we conclude that these writers didn’t think Jesus existed? No, we don’t. In the case of Polycarp, he quotes Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but these other traditions were not relevant to why he was writing so he fails to mention them.

PAUL’S “SILENCE” DOESN’T PROVE WHAT THE MYTHICISTS CLAIM

Finally, Paul wasn’t silent about the historical Jesus. Paul knows a lot about Jesus. He knows that Jesus was a descendant of David, that:

  • He had a mother (Galatians 4:4)
  • He was a Jew who lived according to the Law (Gal 4.4)
  • He a brother named James and other siblings. (Gal. 1:18–19)
  • He had a disciple named Peter and John. (Gal 1:18–2:9)
  • He had 12 disciples. (1 Cor. 15:5)
  • He had a mission to the Jews. (Romans 15:8)
  • He taught on divorce and remarriage. (1 Cor. 7:10–12)
  • He taught about giving to support missions. (1 Cor. 9:14)
  • He taught about the end of all things. (1 Thess. 4:15)
  • He welcomed people. (Romans 15:5, 7)
  • He was humble and served others. (Philippians 2:7–9)
  • He shared a final meal with his disciples. (1 Cor. 11:23–26)
  • He was betrayed. (1 Cor. 11:23)
  • He was abused. (Romans 15:3)
  • He was crucified at the instigation of the Jews of Judea. (1 Thess. 2:14–15, 1 Cor. 1:23)
  • He was buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)
  • That it was believed that he appeared to his disciples after his death. (1 Cor. 15:5–8)

But Paul’s main focus was Christ and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) It is what the cross and resurrection accomplish for the believer is what Paul is obsessed with. He’s interested in unpacking that teaching to the young churches. But his alleged silence isn’t a good argument to think that Jesus didn’t really exist. Bart Ehrman, no friend of traditional Christianity concludes that the so-called silence of Paul is a really bad way to argue, writing:

“What do these silences show? They do not show that these authors did not know about the historical Jesus, because they clearly did. If anything, the silences simply show that these traditions about Jesus were not relevant to their purposes…What we can know is that Paul certainly thought that Jesus existed. He had a clear knowledge of important aspects of Jesus’s life—a completely human life, in which he was born as a Jew to a Jewish woman and became a minister to the Jews before they rejected him, leading to his death. He knew some of Jesus’s teachings. And he knew how Jesus died, by crucifixion. For whatever reason, that was the most important aspect of Jesus’s life: his death. And Paul could scarcely have thought that Jesus died if he hadn’t lived”.

 

(Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, p. 145)

While I’ve disagreed with Dr. Ehrman on a lot of things (as anyone who follows me on here can attest) I have to offer a hearty amen here.

 
 
 
iv>
 
Profile photo for Jack Wallace
 
 
 
 


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728036 Commentary: Are you serious Crowbot? (Attribution to the article above)  +1/-2     
Author:Shooting Shark
4/30/2022 2:02:01 AM

Reply to: 2728035

https://www.quora.com/profile/Erik-Manning-3



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728067 Still no evidence proving Paul/Saul's existence. Opinions, his sayings  +2/-3     
Author:TheCrow
4/30/2022 11:57:52 AM

Reply to: 2728036

Still no evidence proving Paul/Saul's existence. Opinions, his sayings recorded more than a century after his death mean nothing, anymore than the common belief that four, later five elements are enough to explain the world:

Classical elements typically refer to waterearthfire,&nbsp;air, and (later) aether, which were proposed to explain the nature and complexity of all matter in terms of simpler substances.

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728069 Still no evidence proving Paul/Saul's existence. Opinions, his sayings  +2/-3     
Author:TheCrow
4/30/2022 12:07:54 PM

Reply to: 2728067

How about this?

Where are Paul's original letters?
 
Image result for do any of Paul/Saul of Tarsus writing exist?
 
The earliest copy of Paul's letters is called P46 and dates to around the 3rd Century AD.
 
The earliest copy...


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728091 Still no evidence?  +6/-2     
Author:Shooting Shark
4/30/2022 2:33:55 PM

Reply to: 2728069

Crowbot,

You are obviously ignorant of the professional standards by which historians analyse and interpret history.

The fragnment you posted is profoundly significant, ( for PROVING the EXISTENCE of SAINT PAUL. ) The extant written records of PLATO, for example, only date back to the 15th or 16th century. (He lived  420-348 BC). This is common of all ancient figures. Biblical figures by contrast arte the most well documented today, for many reasons acceptable to secular and religious scjhpolars alike.

Caligula ( Emperor of Rome ) has only TWO written texts extant today that  speak of his reign. ( written by a third party about him no less, like the writer of ACTS wrote about Paul.)

Later texts are well recorded for Caligula, and even PLATO but NONE dont date that far back to within 100 years of their lifetimes ....Yet no serious scholar would question Caligula, Plato, or Paul's EXISTENCE.

If a written fragment dated to within the living memory of those who knew Paul personally isnt evidence of his EXISTENCE, I dont know what is!

Lets pretend we are in a courtroom. You are the ex parte prosecuter of a THEORY that Paul never existed. You pull out you fragment above and say

"Exhibit A" -- Anyone coulda wrote this!...PAUL could have been a literary invention.. or if he DID exist, anyone coulda written some shite, putting words in the mouth of this guy! He's a figment not a historical person.

The judge asks if this is the summation of your argument, er "historical theory."

You say:

" I need say nothing more. There is no direct evidencer PAUL ever existed."

"The judge asks:

"Do you want to call any professional or credentialed scholars who support your theory?"

You say: "Nope. I need no further evidence."   Logic and SCIENCE are all I need, all the rest is unprovable FAITH.'

The judge smirks and says:

"Your witness, Mr Shark."

I, Shooting Shark, attorney for the defense of Saint Paul ( God rest his soul) , put YOU on the stand.

ME: "Mr Crowbot, do you have any recognized credentials as a schoilar of ancient history?"

YOU: "No, you silly Garbage Eater! I drink and blog on Netfriction all day, and I MAKE my own history! 

ME: "I see.  Do you have any recognized credentials as an attorney at law? 

YOU: No, Im an autodidact. I post and repost articles I find on the internet that desparace TRUMP!

ME:  Why do your spend you time this way?

YOU: Objection your Honor! The defense is asking questions irrelevent to the issue at hand!

ME: Probative discovery, yourt Honor. The witnesses state of mind and motives are  very gewrmain to this inquiry.

Judge: Objection Overulled. But be quick about your discovery Mr Shark.

ME Thank you. your Honor.

Now Mr Crowbot. is it true that I  began this tread on Netfriction with you a while back, quoting the Apostle Pauls spiritual objections to modern and ancient  sexual confusion and debauchery ( Romans 1)   in response you your assertion that all humans are animals, and higher mamals in particular are in some cases homosexual?  

You : Thats correct.

Me> And in that thread You asserted, if I understood you correctly, that animals are considered natural and not immoral in their homosexual behavior. So by extension human homosexual behavior should be likewise considered Natural and not immoral in ' human animals?"

You: Correctamundo. Youre not a stupid as you look, sparky!

Judge: You will refrain from making such adhominem attacks to anyone in this courtroom, Mr Crowbot, or I will hold you in contempt!"    

You: ( sheepishly, looking a lot like Eddie Haskel  ) "Yes, Your Honor."

Me: So was your assertion that St Paul never existed an attempt to make a political, historical or theological assertion?

You: All the above, I suppose. You white Nationalist extreemist Neo Facists and Trumpist morons blindly follow the writings and unknown motives of a guy who, as far as known facts are concernded, may never have evbenm existed. What could be more appaling that that, especially when you wnat to limit human FREEDOM in the mane of what you ( and the fictional Paul) woukld label "sin"

Judge: You have been warned, Mr Crowbot. This is your last warning.

YOU: " Yes, Your Honor"     

Me: Well I could spend a lot of time documenting methods and rules of evidence for historical scholarship. The point is, such methods should and are applied in an even handed mannar, if one is seeking the TRUTH-- which prersumably is the altruistic goal of historical scholarship. But no such analysis is exempt from human perspective. Do you find it compelling that no recognized scholar, wgeither an atheist or a theologian would find your theory acceptable?

YOU; No, not at all. Just because no one agfees with me, doesnt mean I'm wrong!

ME: Well you see,. Mr Crowbot, in matters of law, language, the actual meaning of words, working theories of Guilt and Innocence, truth and falsehood, "acceptable evidence" apeals to the concept of the judgement of a "reasonable man."

Is it reasonable to assume you are correct, when you have declined to offer even one professional and recognized historian or scholar of ancirent texts who would seriously DOUBT or has expounded the NON-EXISTENCE OF SAINT PAUL?

YOU: No. I dont need anyone elses opinion. your "reasonable man" doesnt excist either, its all a matter of personal opinion, and FAITH.. its not SCIENCE!! its not PROOF!!

Me: I rest my case.

Judge:

Mr Crowbot, the Court finds your self-referent assertions about the NON EXISTENCE of SAINT PAUL to be ill conceived. You seem to be oblivious to a body of thought and scholarship concerning the man (St Paul) which has been throughly examinded during the past two thousand years, by a wide variety of sources and perspectives.

It appears your personal motives in this case are alternately  personal, political, or both, and not specifically relevent to aserious and dispationate inquiry into the facts of history itself. 

In this case, it appears you make an a priori judgementn that Paul did not exist, and attempt to reason from that basis, with no respect for circumstancial of factual historical influences and sources, which the figure Paul cleraly inspired, which impies his excistence to a reasonable man.

This attempt on your part is itself a non-reasonable application of reason, itself.

In short, this COURT RULES in favor of the actual EXISTENCE ofd Saint Paul/Saul of Tarsus. 

It also finds you to be a leftist

USEFUL IDIOT.

Case dismissed.           

 

 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728121 Still no evidence?  +5/-2     
Author:Shooting Shark
4/30/2022 7:30:37 PM

Reply to: 2728091

Ps. Your statement is factually wrong about The text you posed.

these date to 180-225 AD and my be viewed online from the University of Michigan library. 

You can now hold one of University of Michigan's most valuable possessions in your hands.

Well, sort of. 

Thirty of the rarest, earliest leaves of the Epistles of St. Paul, dating from 180 to 220 AD, have been digitized and turned into an interactive app usable on iPhones and iPads.

"What's especially important is the direct experience with the ancient world," Arthur Verhoogt, acting archivist of the library’s papyrology collection, said of the app, called PictureIt: EP.

 

There are many implications concerning this document .

1. The fact it was purchased in the 1930s feom an antiquities dealer in Egypt is remarkable enough. It apparently survived in the hands of monks for thousands of years -- but not so surprising in that these letters Paul wrote to the churches he started ( Corinth, Ephesus, etc) were widely copied and circulated-- even at a time when such texts were expensibe to create and hard to preserve-/ this speaks to the large volume of written texts that existed in the ancient world, as compared to the relatively few that survive concerning even Roman emperors and Ancient Greek philodophers.

2. The implication that people who knew Paul within one generation of his life wrote these letters is compelling. Paul was about 60 whe he was beheaded in Rome. These fragments fate as early as 180 AD., within 120 years of Paul's death. That implies there were many such copies in the possession of the early churches, churches which preserved and copied them at great expense because they had originally been founded by Paul's ministry throwout Asia Minor. 

There is a church in the town I live in in NH that predates the "War of Norther aggression / War of the rebellion"(civil war) by some 30 years. In the building is a carefully maintained framed series of pictures and names of every minister that has served there sine 1832. there are people who attend that church today in their nineties, or as far removed from the first minister of this church as Paul was from those  copies of his letters above.

The fact there was no printing presses -- hand copied letters -- implies the degree these people took Paul's ministry seriously. For Paul to have been a literary invention who never existed, that myth woul need to have been created by the generation that knew "Paul" personally, and would have needed to sell that idea to their small town neighbors. That would be virtually impossible for many reasons. The churches Paul started stayed in the same location, suffered persecutions, and survived later attempted  purges ( Diocletian 303-305 AD ) during which possession of these letters was a capital offense. yet the survived in such niumber they would exist in 1930 to be bought and survive in U of M

Try to convince the ninty year olds in this small town church in NH their founding ministers were a "literary creation" and never existed!

And one more thing. there were 11 other apostles whose actual lives are implied by their ministries as well, though less well documented than St Paul. Paul was the minister to " the gentiles" and as such had a much broader recognition in the pagan world. Constantines ecentual recognition of that fact, the rapid and widespread  faith of Christianity in the early 4th century led him to establish the Council of Nicea-- where the first formal consolidation of what would become Christian orthodoxy ( however divided in opinion) took place. These debates and doctrines focused on the extant writings of the Ante-Nicean fathers which were very wide spread. 

You sir, are not a scholar.

You are a propagandist. 

and a self-referent, crypto secularist.

Useful idiot! 

 

 

 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728249 Opinions of others, not direct evidence of Paul's/Saul's existence. +3/-3     
Author:TheCrow
5/1/2022 2:35:42 PM

Reply to: 2728121

And Paul never saw or heard Jesus.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2728287 Paul's/Saul's existence. Show me!  +4/-1     
Author:Shooting Shark
5/1/2022 11:13:24 PM

Reply to: 2728249

wait a minute..

Did you just imply Paul EXISTED? 

(He couldn't have "heard or seen Jesus" if he wasn't real! Was he? ) 

Ill take that as an admission you know you are WRONG.

A weak reply, even for you. 

You double -down without so much as a coherent rationale? 
another unfounded assertion? 

that's why you're a Lib, Crowbot!

Please back up your self-referent silly contention with more than just YOUR opinion!

what? not even so much as one of your cut-and-paste articles to support your argumuent? 

There has to be more than just YOU who believe what you do concerning Paul! 

Cite it! 

useful idiot! 

 



Return-To-Index