Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 11:56:11 GMT -4
I won't bother to argue with a Catholic over whether Peter was really the first Pope or not. It seems pretty clear that he was the leader of the Church Jesus established, so if you believe the current Roman Catholic church is the continuation of that church then yeah, he was effectively the first Pope, despite the actual office having been created hundreds of years after his time. If you don't beleive the RC church is a continuation of the original then it doesn't much matter.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 15:25:03 GMT -4
And I find that more than a few Christians are anti-atheist. I guess that goes without saying.
Yes - but encountering Christians does not necessarily make Jesus any more real than encountering a believer in Zeus would make Zeus real.
As to Paul meeting Peter -- yes, he did. But that does not then make stories of Peter that appear later necessarily true.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 11, 2008 15:26:02 GMT -4
But you must concede that more than just christians and "anti-christians" are interested in this debate. It just sounds silly to me. But I do agree that many atheists are hostile to Christianity. I'm of the opinion that both sides have flaws, and those atheists and christians that are obsessed with ruining the other aren't doing anybody any good.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 15:36:54 GMT -4
But you must concede that more than just christians and "anti-christians" are interested in this debate. Okay, sure. Other people out there might also be interested. But are they really likely to want to get into an internet debate over the topic? So the people you're most likely to encounter in such a debate will tend to be one or the other. EDIT: Gillian seems genuinely interested in just the historical curiosity of whether Jesus existed or not, and I wouldn't call her an anti-Christian, so I guess there really are some who would be interested just for the sake of history.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 11, 2008 15:50:29 GMT -4
But you must concede that more than just christians and "anti-christians" are interested in this debate. It just sounds silly to me. I'm certainly not an "anti-Christian." I'm not Christian, haven't been in years, but I have no problems with Christianity in general. Just certain Christians, just as I have a problem with certain atheists, or even Pagans. I'm opposed to anyone telling me how to see God. However, I am interested in history in general. Since Christianity had such profound importance over the events of my primary era of study, it is a matter of historical curiosity as to whether or not there was a real Jesus. However, since that era isn't one I've studied extensively, I'm perfectly willing to concede that there are things I've been taught but am wrong about. No religion, including my current Pagan beliefs or my childhood Catholic ones, has any kind of moral authority as to What Really Happened, even when they try to convince you otherwise. And wdmundt, my point was rather that, since there were Christians before Paul, he cannot have been said to have invented Christianity. They do say that converts have the strongest faith, after all; according to Catholic tradition, the centurion who presided over the Crucifixion later became a martyr and saint.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 17:18:01 GMT -4
And wdmundt, my point was rather that, since there were Christians before Paul, he cannot have been said to have invented Christianity. They do say that converts have the strongest faith, after all; according to Catholic tradition, the centurion who presided over the Crucifixion later became a martyr and saint. I don't think Paul invented Christianity. I think he likely was one of the first steps in the path toward inventing Jesus.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 19:20:50 GMT -4
I don't think Paul invented Christianity. I think he likely was one of the first steps in the path toward inventing Jesus.I'd like to see your evidence for that theory.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2008 20:36:53 GMT -4
If this thread keeps going I'm going to have to haul out all my inherited Christian histories and lexiconacoldoctrinalthesis stuff. ;D
When I first joined this forum, I'd search through my books, write stuff down and take my time typing up my post. Lately I've been lazy and not contributed so much to these religious threads. ;D
Catholics would consider Peter the first pope. Protestants, probably not. But RC's will believe almost anything a priest tells them, even if it doesn't make any sense. Maybe today, it is different - I hope it is. Years ago, Catholics didn't need to read the Bible, all they had to do was go to church and confession.
The anti-Christian thing is funny. So much friction today is between Christian denominations - mostly Protestant vs. R. Catholic. To me, there is hardly anything more hilarious than Christian groups arguing and attacking each other over doctrinal interpretations. Oh, where is the spirit of Christ within these people? They all read the same book (well almost the same) but experience totally different revelations.
Did Jesus exist? When I read the Bible, it strikes me as genuine many of His sayings. I know that's not a scientific approach, but it is what it is. Either he existed, or the "Q" source was a literary genius.
Maybe we should ask the question: What was it about Christianity that appealed so much to people? How did it become the official religion of Rome in only three hundred years time? What was the effect of Christianity upon people that they became martyrs rather than deny their faith?
Was Jesus God? (see new thread)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 11, 2008 21:01:34 GMT -4
But RC's will believe almost anything a priest tells them, even if it doesn't make any sense. Maybe today, it is different - I hope it is. Years ago, Catholics didn't need to read the Bible, all they had to do was go to church and confession. Officially, no, Catholics still don't have to read the Bible, but I'm not sure it's a tenet of most other Christian faiths, either. Admittedly, the Catholics did put an awful lot of roadblocks in the way of the common people reading the Bible, but that was a long time ago. However, it's pretty obvious based on polls conducted in the US that American Catholics, at least, don't believe anything a priest tells them. American Catholics are about as likely as not to disagree with the Pope on issues of married priests, female priests, abortion, and gay rights. They are more likely than not to disagree with the Pope about birth control.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2008 21:24:38 GMT -4
But RC's will believe almost anything a priest tells them, even if it doesn't make any sense. Maybe today, it is different - I hope it is. Years ago, Catholics didn't need to read the Bible, all they had to do was go to church and confession. Officially, no, Catholics still don't have to read the Bible, but I'm not sure it's a tenet of most other Christian faiths, either. Admittedly, the Catholics did put an awful lot of roadblocks in the way of the common people reading the Bible, but that was a long time ago. However, it's pretty obvious based on polls conducted in the US that American Catholics, at least, don't believe anything a priest tells them. American Catholics are about as likely as not to disagree with the Pope on issues of married priests, female priests, abortion, and gay rights. They are more likely than not to disagree with the Pope about birth control. In my day, if a priest said something was a sin,we believed it. Only thing, we might not have thought it was a big enough sin to send us to hell. And of course, we could always momentarily feel sorry and tell the sin in confession, and be forgiven by God.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2008 21:28:26 GMT -4
I don't think Paul invented Christianity. I think he likely was one of the first steps in the path toward inventing Jesus.I'd like to see your evidence for that theory. I'd say that if Paul hadn't existed, we wouldn't be discussing anything about Jesus today. Without Paul, a Jewishlike Christianity under James might have had some sucess, either as a Jewish sect or different type of Christian sect. But who knows if it would have spread without the inclusion of the Gentiles.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 21:38:57 GMT -4
I don't have a lot of time to go into the details right now -- but what I'd ask is this: what does Paul really tell us about Jesus the person? In looking into what he does say, it is important to not let gospel-based assumptions color your view of what he says. What does he actually tell us about the man and his teachings?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 11, 2008 21:53:11 GMT -4
I don't think Paul talks about Jesus much at all. He speaks about the message, and of how to be saved and enter the kingdom of heaven. ...which kind of indicates that Jesus need not have existed I admit, except that there would have to have been a conspiracy involving Paul, the Apostles and others. ;D On the other hand...because there is so much more about Jesus in the Gospels themselves, it could show that while Jesus existed, Paul was only concerned with the message of salvation, not in Jesus's life itself. Thomas Jefferson: "Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." Albert Schweitzer: "Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord." Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark): "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar): "Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism." Carl Jung (Psychologist): "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." An interesting webpage: www.bowness.demon.co.uk/paul.htm
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 23:54:47 GMT -4
In all his epistles Paul was writing to members of the Church, therefore he could assume a basic knowledge of Jesus and his teachings among his audience, and so he didn't have to cover the same ground the Gospels did. The epistles are not evangelistic, they are regulatory. Paul doesn't cover basics - he goes straight for deeper doctrines and counsel.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 23:57:03 GMT -4
Do you want a rundown of everything Paul says about Jesus? That could take some time.
|
|