PensivePenny wrote:

angelo wrote:Despite Dejurer thinking Paul never existed either, I believe he did and had it not been for Paul, xtianity would today not exist.
I also strongly believe that Paul had the classic symptoms of schizophrenia. The foundation stone for the Jesus myth and the birth of the Christian cult.
Remember, it's only the last century or so that this debilitating illness was recognized.

Paul with schizophrenia? Multiple-personality disorder too? Could he have been the twelve disciples and Jesus too?

On what do you base this belief? I'd like to know more.

It's amazing the similarities between the thought processes of the myther and that of the typical Trump supporter addled by piles of fake news.

Stein

duvduv wrote:Angelo, may I request you to come back to the overall subject of this thread? If you want to talk about schizophrenia just start a thread on the subject.

You obviously don't see the tie in between the delusions of Paul and the completely mythical Jesus!

The alleged delusions of Paul ...

RealityRules wrote:The alleged delusions of Paul ...

If even a fraction of Paul's rantings are anywhere near to his alleged ravings, I'll rest my case.

The Pauline texts are as likely (or even more likely) to be polemic* rhetoric as they are to reflect mental illness.

* paulemic rhetoric

angelo wrote:Despite Dejurer thinking Paul never existed either, I believe he did and had it not been for Paul, xtianity would today not exist.
I also strongly believe that Paul had the classic symptoms of schizophrenia. The foundation stone for the Jesus myth and the birth of the Christian cult.
Remember, it's only the last century or so that this debilitating illness was recognized.

Your belief or speculation about Paul has zero negative effect on the argument that Paul was a fiction character fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century as a witness to the non-historical resurrection of the Lord from heaven [God Creator] in the monstrous fables called Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Some people who believe Paul existed also strongly believe Satan and the Holy Ghost did and do now.

We already know that there are billions of people who believe Paul existed and do so without a shred of historical evidence.

The argument that Paul was a fiction character is supported by writings from antiquity .

angelo wrote:Like all cults, xtianity had a founder. And Paul or the author/s of Mark are it. From our understanding of schizophrenia today it's not hard to envision the start of most major religions.
The biography of Muhammad is a perfect example also. Most schizos have grand delusions of superiority at times. Of hearing voices and visions. I should know, I have a an adult daughter with this debilitating mental illness.

Sorry to hear of your daughter's illness.

Now, you wouldn't expect her to start a religion in her condition.

Please do not ever forget that gMark's story of Jesus is fiction and the author nowhere claimed he intended to start a religion or mentioned any thing about Christians.

gMark is propaganda against the Jews to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple.

There is simply no historical evidence anywhere that Paul of Tarsus a supposed Pharisee of the tibe of Bejamin started a cult of Christians since the time of Gaius or anytime before the death of Nero.

Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles and the letters under the name of Paul were invented no earlirer than the 2nd century.

But it is feasable that a dellusinal person who heard voices and saw visions was believed by a group of superstitious, backward illiterate people who then told one and all that a person they know conversed to angels or god himself.
Before long this rumour spread far and wide until Constantine made it the state religion. [ in a nut shell ]

angelo wrote:

duvduv wrote:Angelo, may I request you to come back to the overall subject of this thread? If you want to talk about schizophrenia just start a thread on the subject.

You obviously don't see the tie in between the delusions of Paul and the completely mythical Jesus!

What delusions are you talking about? When [in which century] did Paul have delusions? Who told you that Paul had delusions?

There is no historical evidence to support the claim a writer called Paul actually lived and had delusions in the 1st century and up to the time of Nero.

All writings under the name of Paul are dated no earlier than the 2nd century and the character called Paul is not mentioned anywhere in all non-apologetic sources up to the end of the 3rd to early 4th century.

The authors of letters under the name of Paul were not delusional but found to be liars and deceivers over 1600 years ago.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_against_hierocles.htm

Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards...

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#BOOK%20III

Macarius Magnes Apocritus 3

But he who said, "I am a Jew," and "I am a Roman," is neither thing, although he attaches himself to both. For he who plays the hypocrite and speaks of what he is not, lays the foundation of his deeds in guile, and by putting round him a mask of deceit, he cheats the clear issue and steals the truth, laying siege in different ways to the soul's understanding, and enslaving by the juggler's art those who are easily influenced...........................................We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

angelo wrote:But it is feasable that a dellusinal person who heard voices and saw visions was believed by a group of superstitious, backward illiterate people who then told one and all that a person they know conversed to angels or god himself.
Before long this rumour spread far and wide until Constantine made it the state religion. [ in a nut shell ]

Don't people believe myth Gods exist?

Don't people believe Satan exist?

Don't people believe a Holy Ghost exist?

Don't believe Angels exist?

Gods, Satan, the Holy Ghost and Angels do not exist but billions of people believe they do.

It was the very same thing for Jesus --the character never existed but people believed he did up to this very day.

The story of Jesus was perfectly feasible to people who believe in Gods, Ghosts, Devils and Angels.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and supposed 1st century writings attributed to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Suetonius so we can see if those writings mentioned Jesus, the disciples and Paul or a new religion where a character called Jesus was worshiped as a God.

We get nothing--all blanks.

It is in the 2nd century that non-Apologetic writers mention a character called Jesus who was worshiped as a God and also made reference to his twelve disciples but not Paul at all.

According to Origen's Against Celsus it is claimed Celsus wrote "True Discourse".

Celsus " a non-apologetic writer supposedly wrote about the Jesus story in the late 2nd century but nothing about the Acts of the Apostles and nothing about Paul and letters to Churches.

Non-Apologetic writings appear to be in sync with or corroborate the existing manuscripts.

A. No manuscripts dated to the 1st century or before c 70 CE mentions Jesus, the disciples and Paul.
A. No Non Apologetic writing attributed to 1st century writers mentions Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

B. Manuscripts dated to the 2nd -3rd century mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.
B. Non-Apologetic writings attributed to 2nd-3rd century mention Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The evidence supports the argument that Jesus and Paul were fabricated no earlier than the 2nd century and people in the same 2nd-3rd century BELIEVED the stories were true and that the events occurred about a hundred years earlier in the time of Pilate up to Nero.

Double post.

So if Constantine made the State Christian Religion out of a rumour, what degree of certainty
is there that this Christian rumour was in fact, originally, from the 1st or even 2nd century?

Certain (100%)
Almost Certain (87-99%)
Probable (61-86%)
Chances about EVEN (40-60%)
Probably not (13-39%)
Almost certainly not (1-12%)
Impossible (0%)


BUYER BEWARE

angelo wrote:But it is feasable that a dellusinal person who heard voices and saw visions was believed by a group of superstitious, backward illiterate people who then told one and all that a person they know conversed to angels or god himself.
Before long this rumour spread far and wide until Constantine made it the state religion. [ in a nut shell ]

If such a rumour started in the 1st century, what is the chance said rumour was the cause of an emperor to act three centuries later (after said emperor -Constantine- is said to have used the cross on standards (and shields(?)) carried by his troops before he became emperor).

RealityRules wrote:

angelo wrote:But it is feasable that a dellusinal person who heard voices and saw visions was believed by a group of superstitious, backward illiterate people who then told one and all that a person they know conversed to angels or god himself.
Before long this rumour spread far and wide until Constantine made it the state religion. [ in a nut shell ]

If such a rumour started in the 1st century, what is the chance said rumour was the cause of an emperor to act three centuries later (after said emperor -Constantine- is said to have used the cross on standards (and shields(?)) carried by his troops before he became emperor).

By that time there were "Christians" all over the Roman Empire. Probably equal in numbers to Pagans. For political reasons, Contatine decided to make it the state religion. Whether it's true or he made it up having a dream of fighting under a cross we'll never know.

angelo wrote:By that time there were "Christians" all over the Roman Empire. Probably equal in numbers to Pagans.

Most estimates c.325 CE provide a dominant pagan demographic between 90-95%.

The Christians were a very small minority but that didn't worry the Boss.

angelo wrote:
For political reasons, Constantine decided to make it [Christianity] the state religion. Whether it's true, or he made it up having a dream of fighting under a cross we'll never know.

I don't think anyone has argued that Constantine (or Paul) made up Christianity by "having a dream of fighting under a cross".

Moreover, Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. He merely favoured it. It was Theodosius who, later in the 4th century, essentially made Christianity the state religion.

RealityRules wrote:Moreover, Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. He merely favoured it.

This issue is debated, and here are examples of the two sides:

Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century
Scott Bradbury, Classical Philology, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 120-139

Scholars have been unduly hesitant to accept the idea of a Constantinian ban on sacrifice for two reasons. First, the debate has focused too much on the evidence of Eusebius' Vita Constantini and has become a referendum on Eusebius' reliability. In the process other important evidence has not been given the prominence it deserves. Second, many skeptics have doubted the general ban on sacrifices because it would have been, in their view, provocative and politically unfeasible.

◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

It was Theodosius who, later in the 4th century, essentially made Christianity the state religion.

If we look at the Christian Revolution of the 4th century as a game of chess, between the Christians and the pagans, then Constantine played the opening gambits while Theodosius played the end game.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Who would assume that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate??

Why would someone assume a known unreliable and known inaccurate source was reliable??

If Scholars today claim the authorship, dating and chronology of the writings in the Church Canon were almost entirely erroneous then the report of Eusebius must be unreliable.

dejuror wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

◦ Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Who would assume that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate??

Eusebius' report - found in "Vita Constantini" - concerns Constantine's prohibition of pagan temple operations in the eastern empire after his military victory 324 CE.

Why would someone assume a known unreliable and known inaccurate source was reliable??

There are virtually no other contemporary accounts of what happened after Constantine became supreme. The history of this epoch often defers to the "Church Historians" of the 5th century.

That does not imply that this information in "Vita Constantini" is either reliable or unreliable - with respect to the severity of Constantine's prohibitions.

Eusebius was gloating at the rise of the Christian state and the fall of paganism.

If Scholars today claim the authorship, dating and chronology of the writings in the Church Canon were almost entirely erroneous then the report of Eusebius must be unreliable.

Be that as it may, this report of Eusebius was not related to the so-called history of the so-called "Early Christians". It was related to events in the Roman Empire during the sole military dictatorship of Constantine,

Whether elements of it are reliable or not is debated. I showed both sides of the debate.

.


http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_diaspora.htm

"..the texts of the New Testament and other early Christian writings made much better sense if you pried the traditional puzzle apart, reshuffled the pieces, and started over again ...

"... If there was a historical Jesus in the first place ...even he was no more than one significant factor. Radical critics sometimes say that Judaism was only partly the origin of the Christian faith, that paganism contributed just as much of the original DNA. Indeed, in some ways this reflects the traditional Jewish view of Christianity as far as I understand it: Christianity is a somewhat paganized form of Jewish ethical monotheism and therefore inherently benign, though still heretical."