HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 21, 2005 I mentioned in a recent article that Christians cannot explain satisfactorily why St. Paul, in his 100 pages of Epistles, failed to mention so many of the famous persons, places and events in the life of Jesus, as for example, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, the flight to Egypt, the miracles, the Sermon on the Mount, Judas Iscariot, St. Peter’s thrice-denial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion.. These are of the very essence of the story of Jesus as received today. It’s utterly inconceivable that someone knowing all about these things and preaching Christianity would fail to mention them. Skip Toomaloo has provided very convincing proof that indeed Christians have no satisfactory explanations for this rather shocking phenomenon. He posted an article or two purporting to explain these omissions, but offered no valid arguments, resorting to the inevitable rationalizations, evasions, fallacies and alibis that are the stock in trade of Christian apologists. He claims, for example, that St. Paul did talk about the life of Jesus at length but that no one ever wrote it down, that St. Paul did not write about it because he had poor eyesight and so left it to the apostles, and that St. Paul’s mission was to preach morality not write a biography of Jesus. Of course, there is no evidence to substantiate any of these evasions. They exist only as an escape clause whereby Christians will not be obligated to make any believable demonstrations of the truth of the New Testament. Obviously, to judge from his diction, Skip Toomaloo is an intelligent person and must be aware of the sort of casuistries and chicaneries that he is brokering. If Paul’s eyesight was so bad, why did he write 100 pages of Epistles at all? And since, despite his astigmatism, myopia or cataracts, he managed 100 pages, couldn’t he just squeeze in few words to show that he knew who Jesus really was supposed to be, in contrast to the illusory Jesus he supposedly saw near Damascus? How does Toomaloo know that St. Paul told all about Jesus’ life but that no one wrote down his words? He would have had to know, Toomaloo says, since it cannot be otherwise. My argument is that Paul was not divinely inspired or he would have known and related the episodes in Jesus’ life. But Toomaloo is reasoning that he must have known and related all, because we know that St. Paul was divinely inspired. So Toomaloo is taking as a premise the very idea that I contend that the evidence proves false. This is known as begging the question. Give me a reason why I should assume that Paul was divinely inspired in the first place, and then I’ll be willing to allow that he may have known about the life of Jesus despite his failure to relate that knowledge. I admit that I posted my original article to see if Toomaloo or anyone else of his persuasion would produce any sort of new evidence that I hadn’t heard already, to disprove or put into question my assertions, but no compelling counterevidence was forthcoming. I can only assume therefore that my point is well taken. St. Paul did not mention the details of the life of Jesus, and the only plausible explanation is that he didn’t know about them. They were invented by unknown persons after the Epistles were written! St. Paul admitted that he never saw Jesus in the flesh. He claimed that he saw Jesus in a vision. I do not accept a vision as genuine evidence. Apparently, rumors were common in the Levant at the time, and supposed sightings of the expected Messiah may have given rise to the legend that he had appeared. Compare UFO’s, the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. Greeks and Romans had their sightings too. The poet Pindar said that the god Poseidon had been seen at the Olympic Games. So it is quite conceivable that there was no Jesus at all, not even as a mortal man. St. Paul may have fallen prey to tall tales. But I doubt it. I think St. Paul deliberately invented Christianity out of thin air, taking advantage of stories that were all the rage in his day. He would capitalize upon common fantasies and fancies to build a church that he would preside. Thus he would be in a position of power, wealth, comfort and dignity, without having to do any work or manage a business. In fact, this very subject is a topic in a couple of his Epistles. He justifies collections (2 Corinthians 8, 9). But did anyone ever audit Paul's collections? He requests to be afforded lodging when he comes to preach (Philemon 1:22). But did he expect to be billed? Why does a man who knows that through his faith he can move mountains, multiply fish, and turn water into wine have to collect mere money and crave lodging? Some of Paul’s spiritual successors of the modern day, instead of working miracles to feed the poor, as they should be able to do, will require of the poor their few pennies, on the pretext that they will use the money to feed those even poorer, as they walk about in their expensive clothes and drive their fancy cars from their opulent rectories and parsonages, never lifting a finger to do any real work. I think that the key to understanding the Epistles is to see St. Paul as a mountebank. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
