Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:The Christian god traces back only to Saul of tarsus, who was Roman, and 'made the whole thing up'.

I just spent some time learning about Saul. It seems he never wrote anything about the life of Jesus other than the execution, resurrection, and ascension. Even though he seems to have had a central role in growing Christianity in the first decades after the crucifixion, it seems improbable he "made the whole thing up." There must have been other contemporaries who either fabricated, exaggerated, or (less likely) witnessed the Jesus events described in the gospels. It is of course possible (but unlikely) that he teamed up with Mark and decided "ok, I'll write this bullshit and you'll write that bullshit and then we got it all covered."

Again I must go back to the doubts I have concerning his motives to convert to Christianity. Christians must have hated him at the time of his conversion and seriously doubted his motives. His actions seem more aligned with a person who knows that his actions are detrimental but who does them anyway because he believes they are the right thing to do. Most probably he is delusional and actually believes he had an encounter with Jesus Christ.

Jebus wrote: I just spent some time learning about Saul. It seems he never wrote anything about the life of Jesus other than the execution, resurrection, and ascension. Even though he seems to have had a central role in growing Christianity in the first decades after the crucifixion, it seems improbable he "made the whole thing up."

I was referring primarily to the core theology; e.g. Salvation by faith, Jesus as a sacrificial lamb absorbing the sins of humanity, etc.

The "life story" of Jesus, like that of Saul himself, was fabricated over time by many people after that through oral tradition and gradual changes and additions to the scripture as more details were 'discovered' (that is, made up by story tellers and accepted and passed on by the general public). It's also fairly irrelevant to the core of the theology (and in many instances even contradicts it).

Jebus wrote:There must have been other contemporaries who either fabricated, exaggerated, or (less likely) witnessed the Jesus events described in the gospels.

That stuff (except the resurrection, which Saul dealt with) is based on oral tradition. Saul 'interpreted' the meaning and significance of Jesus' life and ministry, and created the official theology and interpretation for that era (and one that carried on long after).

Jebus wrote:It is of course possible (but unlikely) that he teamed up with Mark and decided "ok, I'll write this bullshit and you'll write that bullshit and then we got it all covered."

That's not what I was suggesting.

Jebus wrote:Christians must have hated him at the time of his conversion and seriously doubted his motives.

To the contrary, they loved him, just like Christians make a great show and celebration of converts to Christianity who used to be active atheists today.

Imagine if Richard Dawkins converted to Christianity; he would be the most beloved Christian in modern history.

Christianity is all about being born again and engaging in dramatic life changes.

Jebus wrote:Most probably he is delusional and actually believes he had an encounter with Jesus Christ.

That's a possibility, of course, that he was crazy. Is that different?

Whether he made things up, and believed them to be true or not, he still made them up. Deriving from delusion, bizarre reasoning, deception, or any combination thereof.

brimstoneSalad wrote: To the contrary, they loved him, just like Christians make a great show and celebration of converts to Christianity who used to be active atheists today

Like in the extreme case of General Butt Naked, who is now a priest who often preaches to family members of those he killed and ate.

I don't know why you assume the early Christians were the smiley, "forgiving" type we see today. They certainly weren't like that during most of Christian history. In any case, I doubt forgiveness is something Saul/Paul would have anticipated. This is an important point as we are discussing the likelihood of the theory you presented.

Whether or not he was deranged or a cold calculating liar does make a difference to me as I believe the theory is far more unlikely in the latter case.

Jebus wrote: Like in the extreme case of General Butt Naked, who is now a priest who often preaches to family members of those he killed and ate.

I haven't heard of that, that's interesting.

Jebus wrote:I don't know why you assume the early Christians were the smiley, "forgiving" type we see today. They certainly weren't like that during most of Christian history. In any case, I doubt forgiveness is something Saul/Paul would have anticipated. This is an important point as we are discussing the likelihood of the theory you presented.

Saul went out of the way to advertise the fact that he used to persecute Christians; it doesn't seem like he was otherwise particularly well known or notorious for it. It's also not entirely clear what that persecution entailed.

If he didn't anticipate it, it's something he found useful in rhetoric (just like some prominent apologists find it useful to claim to have been atheists -- whether or not they really were). He very well could have made it up, or greatly exaggerated that too.

And, of course, Acts is a historical fabrication, so there may also be later exaggeration on that point by his followers who decided it was useful.

Anyway, as to early Christian attitudes, that the concept worked and was widely repeated is evidence enough of that.
Saul had his detractors, but I haven't read much criticism of him for his past; more that dramatic change as evidence of his divine inspiration.

Jebus wrote: Whether or not he was deranged or a cold calculating liar does make a difference to me as I believe the theory is far more unlikely in the latter case.

There's no real way to tell the difference between the two for sure, since only Saul knew that, but I would recommend comparing him to modern apologists and religious leaders claiming divine inspiration.

Like this guy:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/austr ... ion-96955/

Is he crazy? Is he lying? A little bit of both? He's clearly not a reincarnation of Jesus.

Keep in mind: Not all liars are necessarily 'cold'; many of them lie and convince themselves they're doing good, giving people hope and faith. Saul was a student of philosophy and theology, and he may have seem himself as fixing Christianity and leading it off a path he disagreed with to help people, even with a little white lie behind it.
Some even believe their own lies after a while. Thanks to cognitive dissonance, the line between lying and crazy isn't always so clear.

There was a martial arts master a while back who was convinced he had magical powers, because his students were convinced by his lie and reacted to and supported to it. The feedback between master and student just escalated, where he would throw magical balls and qi and knock students over, and both became fully convinced that it was real (until he tried it on somebody who didn't drink the Kool-Aid).

It's not necessarily a very different relationship between prophet and follower.


EDIT: This questioner is awesome:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Christianity ... stians.htm

Christian apologist answering questions on a history site with the bible, and irrelevant historical references that was way off date, and giving people the run around. The questioner makes a good point: There's no evidence for any of it, and the account in Acts doesn't make any sense.

i think from what you have said that your mum and her husband to be, deep down know there are many flaws to their beliefs.
so they throw arguments at you that they know are full of crap. as they have no real argument.
to try and make you doubt yourself.
Christianity and popular religion as a whole is a crutch.
by recognising the flaws and inconsistency in their beliefs they would have to change their world view.
and many out there are not ready to change.
i think one of the best things to do with family is to leave the subject.
you have to live with them after all.
and whether your right or wrong, friction is still being created.

Regarding morality you may hear the old all morality comes from god.
I first came across this article in hitchens essential atheist. It completely overturns everything. Its a bit of a long read but totally worth it: http://www.skeptic.ca/Biblical_Ethics.htm

Pliny the Younger lived in Turkey. His letters tell us that lots of Christians lived in Turkey. The first Christians were either Jews (Nazarenes and Ebionites) or the ex-Pagan proto-Christians who believed in a celestial Jesus. It could actually be both. Keep in mind that the New Testament was entirely written in Greek.