Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


WHY PAUL VIRTUALLY DECLARED JESUS A MYTH LIKE THE OTHER SAVIOURS LIKE MITHRAS

The first Christian writer we have, Paul the apostle who Christians believe was converted not long after Jesus rose from the dead, completely ignored the life of Jesus. Paul knew that the pagan world was rife with gods and holy men who were not real but mere myths that he needed to solidly ground Jesus in history and thus give his theology a more objective standard. He didn't. Because he could not. He gave the world another saviour like Hercules who was all based on hearsay.

Christians try to explain away his disinterest in Jesus as a man (which means his audience was just as disinterested!) by alleging that he had no need for the life story for the topics he chose. But he focused on morality and defending the faith so much that he would have had to use it.

Paul stated that he gave the world the complete gospel in its fullness (Romans 15:19). Yet he showed no interest in helping people to learn from Jesus' life story. He just had to do without it for there was nothing he could use. When he had nothing, the same must have been true of the apostles of Christ whom he knew. It is only nonsense that Paul was so wrapped up in the vision he had of Jesus that converted him that he wasnít able to think about the life of Jesus for Paul never gives any indication that the vision had that large of a grip on him. He was more wrapped up in the crucifixion than any vision. When he was so interested in that event which happened before Jesus appeared he was interested in Jesusí life. That he hadnít more to be interested in indicates that he just had the bare facts about Jesus as stated to him in a vision of Jesus.

He said Jesus was born of a Jewish woman and was of Davidic descent and was crucified. But he could have been assuming all that because of the visions he had or he could have been told these things in the apparitions. He only spoke of visions of Jesus after his death and he does not even tell us when Jesus lived or died. Jesus could have died and rose the third day as he says but centuries before he began appearing to Paul and the apostles.

When trying in an epistle to convert the rebel Corinthian Christians who denied that there was a resurrection of the dead and that Jesus rose back to true Christianity, Paul never once quoted Jesus or gave a miracle story from his life to convince them that at least Jesus intended to rise and could do it. He just admitted that he had no way to convince them when he uttered so much nonsense. For example, that Paul and Co suffer to spread the gospel therefore the resurrection of Jesus happened (1 Cor 15:30) as if false prophets and the wicked donít suffer for stupid things Ė it was a blatant boastful lie for him to use that argument. He even went as far as to say that the evidence for the resurrection was the visions of Jesus Ė the empty tomb story that the gospels have is refuted by its absence in such a crucial defence - and that if Jesus had not been raised the dead would be lost.

Now, they already knew about the visions but he did not elaborate on them or verify them because he couldnít and then to fill the gap he tried to make out that the dead would be lost forever if Jesus had not risen which is an obviously silly argument and shows he was desperate and he couldnít provide outside evidence that Jesus had died and was buried and vanished from the tomb. He knew that the heretics in Corinth had visions of their own which contradicted these visions and which was the basis of their belief that the resurrection was just a symbol for a spiritual experience which was why they were able to say the resurrection of all mankind had already happened. He was a fraud for he knew that there was no point in him bragging about his and the apostlesí visions when there were rival visions.

In Paulís First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, we find incontestable proof that Paul was not only into twisting facts to trick people into agreeing with him but had no evidence at all apart from ghost stories and perverted thinking that Jesus existed. His problem with the Christians of Corinth was that many of them were saying that Jesus never rose from the dead and that there is no resurrection. We know that Paul could not say that Jesusí death and burial were real and use secular sources and testimonies to prove that. There is no point in trying to convince people who think the resurrection never happened that a resurrection is possible without showing with secular material that the resurrected man was dead in the first place. What he had to do was say that Jesus must have risen for it is unbearable if he did not. So he thinks that Jesus told him in a vision that he rose therefore he died! The reason he thinks Jesus rose is because he appeared in visions! So visions then are the basis for belief in the death of Christ.

Paul used the charism of speaking in tongues which he admitted was not a very good one as one of the evidences for Christianity (1 Corinthians 14:22) in the context of edifying believers and converting unbelievers to the Christian faith. The miracles of Jesus would have been better evidence but he never thought of making them up. He never thought of Christians meeting with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to contemplate and discuss the evidence for the faith as exemplified in Christ which would make sense and impress converts. Paul said that charity never gets angry though Jesus according to the gospels often did and had an acid tongue so if he could read the gospels he wouldnít believe them.

Paul forbade association with sinners proving that the Jesus he believed in did not associate with prostitutes and the like though the gospels say he did that a lot. We read between the lines that nobody knew of this Jesus until he started appearing. Paul said that love is never offensive which shows that he denied the existence of the gospel Jesus who often offended the Jews and insulted them (Matthew 23).

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 when discussing the morality or otherwise of divorce had to give his own view and couldnít quote the saying of Jesus regarding divorce meaning that the gospels are lying when they said Jesus settled the divorce question.

Paul used to swear in things that were not very important (Galatians 1:20) showing the gospels made up the claim that Jesus forbade swearing and wanted people to be so truthful that they would not need to swear.

2 Corinthians 5:16: "From this time on, we know no person according to the flesh and if we have known Christ that way we don't do it anymore. But we know them according to the spirit." This says that just as we must forget what others were like before they were converted for they have been transformed by the power of God and just dwell on them the way they are now so we must focus on what Jesus is now a glorious risen personage in Heaven living in us now and not worry about what he did on earth. The earliest Church then opposed attempts to give Jesus a life story. Paul is plainly testifying that if gospels come we must reject them as impostures. Christians reply that he only meant we must look at the Jesus story spiritually, that is, draw spiritual lessons and strength through what we know of his life on earth. But Paul never gave a Jesus story or indicated that any of his converts had such a story. Also, Paul continually complained to the convert Corinthians about their actions and inability to believe properly even in the resurrection a very basic doctrine. He would not have meant that converts could be as good of a source of spiritual inspiration as Jesus. Even if he did, he would be indicating that not much was known of Jesus so there wasn't much one could do except use them as inspirations for it was better than nothing. Anyway, he clearly meant that the lives prior to conversion should be forgotten and or ignored just as the life of Jesus prior to now should be forgotten and or ignored. He says, "and if we have known Christ" so he is being hypothetical about knowing Jesus. His complaining about the Corinthians failing even in the basics shows that he believes that they knew nothing or little about Jesus. His meaning was, "From this time on because we live under the spiritual influence of God, we must forget and ignore the lives of others before conversion when they found God and became spiritual for we don't know them as being of the world any more and hypothetically even if we knew Jesus in the world way we must put that out of our minds and think about what he is now. We must know him as a spiritual help" .

Paul does not say who was present at the Last Supper and says he received the story from the Lord Ė in visions? Yes that is what it means for it could mean that. Take the simplest interpretation. Paul told the Corinthian Christians many of whom did not believe his claims about the resurrection or about Jesus that he received the rite of taking bread and drink in memory of the Lord Jesus from the Lord. This expression must mean that he received the rite in a vision for that is the simplest meaning. He invented the Eucharist and the gospels later lied about Jesus inventing it.

Clearly, nobody can be trusted to teach the word accurately without having visions of the Lord Jesus as a resurrected being. They need to be guided by visions all the time. This is a clear denial of the value of focusing on the earthly life of Jesus. Even Jesus has no authority unless he has risen from the dead. Paulís Jesus didnít do miracles in his pre-resurrection life. Paulís preachers can only be trusted if they repeat parrot fashion what he hears in his visions and get confirmation from Jesus in visions that its all accurate. If Jesus had an earthly life only what he says about it in visions counts now. This attitude condemns gospels as heretical for you need the living prophet, not books and also implies that the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead and judgement would have to take place before the apostles die if Christianity is true. These events would be necessary to prevent pollution of the faith. We know the early Church did teach that all these happenings were to be expected any day back then.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1 that Jesus sent him to not to baptise but to preach the gospel and not with eloquent wisdom in case the cross would lose its power. Clearly then if Paul did not preach, the cross would be powerless. That means Paul alone was proclaiming the cross. That means nobody heard or knew of the Messiahís crucifixion until Paul started having visions of Jesus. That means that the evidence for Jesus resides in visions and not in concrete history. 1 Corinthians 2 says that when Paul proclaimed the cross in Corinth he did not use wisdom or thinking to show the message of God was true but just used the power of the Holy Spirit. This means he got the people to feel that the spirit was telling them the cross was true and he also says that it was just about the cross for he wants to know nothing among them but Christ crucified. Paul knew there were plenty of people claiming communication with the Spirit who gave out contradicting doctrines so he would not have used this dangerous method unless there was no wisdom to help him verify the story right.

Paul stated that he had nothing to offer the Jews who wanted signs from Heaven to verify the gospel but the cross of Jesus which was a stumbling block for them (1 Corinthians 1:22). The cross of Christ could only be a sign or a miracle if it was revealed wholly in visions. That is what Paul is getting at here.

When the main event in Jesusí life, his crucifixion, was not historically verifiable like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, was, that means that it never happened and that there is no reason to hold that he ever lived.

Paul, or a forger, once wrote that Jesus gave his noble profession in front of Pontius Pilate. This may mean a vision of the risen Jesus and James who Paul calls the Lordís brother may not have been a blood brother for Paul indicates that nobody knew Jesus as a man but only as a risen being. Paul says the Church is the body of Jesus, that is the Church in some sense is Jesus so maybe that helps. Similar ideas were taught in paganism.

Paul in Philippians 4 stated that his followers must fill their mind with everything that is true, everything that is good and noble and everything that can be considered to be worthy of praise. Paul went on that they must keep doing all the things they learned from him and that they seen him do or heard he has done. Paul claimed to be a sinner and to be humble. He claimed that he honoured only Christ and nothing meant anything to him but the cross. Why didn't he tell them to do what they heard about Jesus doing? They didn't see that much of Paul that they could make a big thing out of copying him! The only answers that make sense is that there was no Jesus story then. Also Paul was desperate to give them an example and was stuck. There was no Jesus story so he had to put himself forward as an example.

Paul would then have dismissed the gospels as heretical nonsense or dubious at best. Their authors didnít claim to be guided by apparitions. Paulís Christianity is totally antithetical to the four gospels we have. The earliest Christian authorities didnít approve of attempts to make gospels and the gospels are lies and cannot be contemplated as evidence for a historical Jesus.

If Jesus as a man taught us by his life and example and miracles and teachings then the silence of Paul says it all. Jesus whether he was an obscure man or a complete invention still ended up being a myth.