Paul's Beliefs (I'd apreciate Rook's insight on this one)
Offline I was having a discussion on my response to the Blasphemy Challenge video about the biblical Paul. This guy said this (I'll post the whole thing uncut): Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
infinitysedge (3 days ago) marked as spam
you delete my comments? i can't see them. but anyway you've now gone from talking about absolute scientific proof to talking about historical truth, you can't use the same arguments for one as you do the other, you can prove through a variety of methods if something is historically valid. also btw the bible was not all by "illiterate fisherman" paul, who wrote half the new testament was a very well educated roman citizen, and luke was a doctor, so...yeah.
I answeread:
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
phillipetrindade (3 days ago) marked as spam
Of course I didn't delete your comments, infinitysedge. But there was a second discussion and our argument got sort of buried. It's still there, though. Well, science is science. In both cases, when we find out a better explanation to something, or new info that modifies the current theory, we changeit accordingly. In that sense, all science is the same.
phillipetrindade (3 days ago) marked as spam
And about Paul, if you know a little about christian mythology, you'll know that to him, Jesus was a mythical figure who never lived on earth. To Paul, the physical life of Jesus never occurred and the crussification, the ressurrection and the ascention all took place n the mythical realm. So, yeah...
phillipetrindade (3 days ago) marked as spam
And BTW, there is no such thing as "absolute scientific truth". That's the reason why it's science, not religion. Again, science (all kinds of it) changes according to what we know at the time and what we can observe out of it.
I said that based on "The God Who Wasn't There". The movie says that Paul believed on Christ Jesus, a deity that did all the crussifying, ressurrecting and ascending on the mythycal realm. But then the theists started to question what I had said...
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
curwinci (2 days ago) marked as spam
have you ever read 1Corinthians 15? (this is just one example) Paul says that if the resurection never happened then our faith is futile, useless, and we are to be pittied more than all men. I don't know where you got your information from, but from reading the testimony of Paul himself, it is evident that indeed he believed.
phillipetrindade (2 days ago) marked as spam
Dude, when did i ever say Paul didn't believe in resurrection?? All I said is that to him, Jesus never existed among us, he was a strictly divine figure... Please don't put words on my mouth... It offends me.
curwinci (2 days ago) marked as spam
I know that you didn't say that paul didn't believe in resurection. The thing is, Paul talks specifically about the reseraction of Jesus Christ. And he says that if Christ did not raise from the dead, then our faith would be useless.
phillipetrindade (1 day ago) marked as spam
But that's my point, curwinci, I did NOT say that Paul didn't believe JC rose from the dead. Paul believes Jesus was crucified, died, rose from the dead (ressurected) and ascended into heaven. He does. Only none of it happens on Earth but on the mythycal realm.
curwinci (1 day ago) marked as spam
Phill, where do you get your information about Paul's beliefs from?
phillipetrindade (1 day ago) marked as spam
curwinci, I get my biblical information from te bible, from historians and scholars.
Now I'm asking our historian: did I get it wrong? Is he right?
He later sent me an e-mail (a very extensive one at that) in which he said:
Hey Phill, this is really long, sorry about that.
In order to die you must have first have been alive; to have suffered you must have had life; to have resurrected you must have first lived. Paul believed in the actual humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus. He believed that Jesus came to earth as a human, was crucified buried and died, here on earth, not in some mystical realm. Everywhere Paul speaks about the death and resurrection of Christ he speaks in a literal sense.
This subject is important because it gives credibility to the testimony of Paul and to who Jesus was and to what He did. Thus I am presenting you with the words of Paul (well translated, but you get the point) and his testimony about Christ.
In Acts 17:31, Paul was speaking to the people of Athens about God, and says, “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” The proof he gave was the resurrection of Jesus. People witnessed it and testified about it (not in a mystical realm but here on earth). That is the proof.
Paul believed the Scriptures and the prophecies of the OT prophets. Romans 1:1-4 says, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God – the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” The coming of a savior to earth was promised as far back as Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heal.”
Romans 5:15 says, “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.”
Romans 8:3 says, “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.”
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” Paul testifies to the death and resurrection of Jesus “according to the scriptures”. And what do the scriptures say about it? He was born of the virgin marry, suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, buried and raised from the dead. He also gives credibility to the testimonies of Peter and the other apostles and all those who also saw Jesus resurrected.
Galatians 1: 6-7: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Again, what is the Gospel of Christ?…
Later in the same chapter, in verse19, Paul gives mention to Jesus’ brother.
In chapter 2 Paul tells of being accepted by the apostles. If Paul denied the humanity of Christ, the apostles would not have accepted him. Also, if Paul denied the humanity of Christ he is preaching against himself. He can’t believe the apostles testimony about Christ but then have his own completely different belief about Christ. He also warns anyone who preaches a different Gospel, or anyone who gives false testimony about Christ. What good is it to Paul to believe in something and to suffer for that same thing if it didn’t really happen?
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:20 “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” What power is there is Christ did not here on earth live, die and rise from the dead? Philippians 2:5-11 says “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross. Therefore god exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is the Power.
Colossians 1:21-23 says, “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s Physical body through death to present you holy in his sigh, without blemish and free from accusation”
1 Timothy 1:15 says, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst.”
1 Timothy 2: 5 Paul says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
I think what I am getting at is clear. Sorry that it is so long. I will try and get back to you about your previous letter to me as soon as I can. I am busy during the weeks with school, but I think that I might have time sometime this week.
Was I wrong about Paul's beliefs? This last e-mail of his is very compelling...
Bottom line: did Paul believe on physical earth-bound Jesus or not?
Thank you for your patience!!!
http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!
- Login to post comments
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Rook for helping me figure this out! Really... Thanks! =D
This is what I responded:
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
First, I’d like to thank you for bringing this up. It made me dig deeper into the mythical nature of the Jesus Christ figure (or, as Paul would call him, Christ Jesus). So, thanks!
Now, history is not a certainty. We cannot be sure about what really happened in any given time because we rely on someone else’s accounts. And they can be biased. That is why we need additional confirmation of the fact in matter. If you ask a Nazi and a Jew about World War II, you’ll get different stories. Maybe it won’t even sound like they’re talking about the same event. So, again, the more sources there are which confirm a historical event, better the chance it really happened.
Historically speaking, the community is divided on the matter of the physical existence of Jesus Christ because of misinformation and bias. If you look at the actual facts, you’ll see that the evidence to support the existence of the living, breathing Jesus is very, very weak. Let’s, once more, use an example: we are pretty sure Julius Caesar was an actual historical figure, for several reasons. We have his face on the coin during the time he was said to have lived (it’s important to note that the coin was in circulation around the time he lived and not later. If he didn’t exist, that would be weird). There are accurate accounts of him and his deeds by many contemporary historians. Etc. On the case of JC, we have… The Bible. No accounts from different sources (not until more then 50 years after his death). No images, documents, any contemporary evidence of his existence. Now, if this man lived and did such grandiose things, wouldn’t someone have noticed? Anyone? The fact of the matter is, no historian, scholar, scribe, any kind of authority figure or anyone who would’ve been able to report ever heard of a man that allegedly performed several miracles, was persecuted, crucified, returned from the dead and rose into the heavens. Not one, at the time he was supposed to have lived (not even a short while later).
Let’s get to Paul. He talked about the god Christ Jesus. He said he had a vision and that this figure came and told him about himself. And yes, Paul did believe in the veracity of his own vision. But have you noticed he never refers to the virgin birth of Mary? Or, for that matter, to any sort of actual, flash-and-blood birth of Christ? But wait, I’m going too fast. Considering we’re talking about what Paul believed, let’s only take into consideration what Paul wrote. So, let’s only consider Romans, First Corinthians, Galatians and Philippeans; the books of Paul in which you based your arguments.
You don’t start off very well. Your first argument doesn’t apply. Paul talks about the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus (a sum up, if you will). So, one doesn’t have to have lived a physical live in order to do all that; to Paul, JC was more like the greek gods. These gods do all that on the mythical realm. So, yes, he speaks about it literally because he believes it did happen; in another realm of existence.
Then you say you’ll present the word of Paul, but goes right into Acts. Paul didn’t write Acts; therefore it’s not his word. I’ll disregard that paragraph. It’s no proof.
Now, to Romans 1:1-4. Let me guess something, first… You’re using the New International Version. I’m I right? Well, my point is, a lot gets lost in translation (specially this one). As you can see for yourself, the original Greek writing states that Jesus came from the seed of David; not that he descended from David. The New American Standard Bible on the same Romans 1:1-4 states “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord”. As you can see, there’s no reference to human nature. The most important stuff gets lost on translation, for instance, the original says “descendent of David” and not “born of a descendant of David”. Therefore, “descendant of David according to the flesh” actually means, in the original Greek, OUT OF DAVID, as in from what used to be David, there was now Jesus.
You finish the first part claiming Genesis predicted the coming of Jesus… I don’t see where.
Moving on to the second part, you gave me three passages. The first too only show that Paul believed Jesus was God’s son that died for our sins. All that, as I’ve said before, as far as Paul was concerned, happened in another realm. The third passage refers to “the Scriptures”, but they are not the Gospels, since they weren’t even written on Paul’s time. He’s not referring to the scriptures that say “he (Jesus) was born of the virgin marry, suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, buried and raised from the dead”. And by the way, it’s Pontius Pilates and Virgin Mary.
On the original writings of Paul (not taking into consideration translations, since they are far from the originals), he never talks about the “earthly” life of Jesus. Not even when he is with the apostles. Peter, when accused of hypocrisy by Paul states (Gal 2:20) “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” This leads me to my next point, which also addresses these questions of yours: “He can’t believe the apostles testimony about Christ but then have his own completely different belief about Christ. He also warns anyone who preaches a different Gospel, or anyone who gives false testimony about Christ. What good is it to Paul to believe in something and to suffer for that same thing if it didn’t really happen?”
Peter believes Jesus died for him. But you can see that he doesn’t say “I was there” or anything of the kind (referring to Gal 2). Jesus died for Peter’s sins and now lives in him as he (Peter) was reborn on account of the crucifixion. That is very clear. That’s what Christianity is: to believe JC died to save you from your sins and now lives within you to help you though the day… Back in early Christianity, things weren’t very clear about the notion of Jesus. Paul even yells at the Corinthians because they confuse him with Christ (1 Cor 1:12-13): “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
No, we cannot be sure that even the Apostles believed in the living Jesus. Paul almost certainly did not. He did believe in all things attributed to Jesus from the crucifixion to the ascension, only, to him it happened on a mythical level. And that is the Gospel he refers to. So, he does believe it happened but, again, not on Earth.
On the last part of your text, you quoted Philippians 2:5-11. “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
All that could very well have happened on the mythical realm and it would still be true to Paul. There is no statement by Paul that binds the Christ Jesus to our physical reality. And, finally, the evidence actually tells us that not even the apostles believed in the living, breathing Jesus. So they wouldn’t have a problem with Paul, since their beliefs were compatible: Jesus was a mythical figure. So, there you go. That’s some of the evidence that implies Paul did not believe in the biblical earth-bound Jesus and why I share this view.
I hope to hear back from you soon; about this or any other subject! Sorry for the size of my response ;P
See ya later,
Phil.
http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!
Hi, I found your explaination of Paul's belief in a mythical Jesus very curious and I have some questions. If the answers to all these questions are posted elsewhere, please point me in the right direction.
This paragraph seems to be the core of what you are saying, so it needs to be supported. Some questions:
1. How does one live, die, ressurrect and ascend without being physically alive?
2. On what do you base the your belief that Paul, a Jew, would believe in anything like the greek gods?
3. Where in Paul's writings does it show he believe Jesus purely existed in "another realm of existence"?
Your explaination of Romans 1:1-4 completely confused me:
At the start you say the original greek states Jesus came from the "seed of David; not that he descended from David". near the end you say that the original say "descendent of David. Which is it "seed" or "descendent"? If they both mean the same thing, what is your point? Also, you seem to completely ignor the phrase "according to the flesh"? As Paul often uses "flesh" in reference to "human nature" (eg. Galatians 6:13) it seems to me that you need to explain why it is not the case in Romans?
I could ask a lot more question, but they would mostly just be a repeat of the ones I have already asked, just in another context.
However, I would like to ask one more question. In Galatians 1:19 when Paul writes about seeing James, the Lord's brother, was he refering to a real flesh and blood person?
I look forward to you answers.