Origins Of Christianity

[Learner]

Then Luke is also influenced in the same way, which means you should be able to make the "same" case as you do for Paul.. which would be interesting to read.

I suppose it's down to there being the need and understanding from the Theist pov for the obvious need to be 'two of more witness' as it's strongly emphasized, biblically.


In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul outlines the core aspects of the gospel, which align with the accounts in Luke-Acts, suggesting that he considered Luke's work as a foundational authority for the Christian faith. There are synchronizations like where it's mentioned the "we" in the passages in Acts, which indicate that the author of Luke-Acts was a traveling companion of Paul, further suggesting a close relationship and mutual influence.

Who's influencing who, one must wonder? Both very educated writers. Do you detect any hint of dishonesty with either, or both of the writers? If so, interestingly I would like to see the conflicting verses, passages highlighted...and, with some 'psychological profiling' behind the characters, one should be able to deduce from their writings..maybe?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think if you are going to talk about the origins of Christian mythology, it's a mistake not to discuss other mythologies that predate or were contemporaneous with Christianity.

For example:

• Heracles – A demi-god born of Zeus and a mortal woman, Heracles is a Greek figure whose life includes divine parentage, suffering, heroic trials, and eventual apotheosis (becoming a god). The idea of a god interacting with a mortal to produce a special son resonates with the narrative of Jesus’ virgin birth and divine mission.
• Prometheus – While not a demi-god, he was a titan who suffers on behalf of humanity. He defies the higher gods to bring fire (a symbol of knowledge and salvation) to mankind and is punished severely for it. There are parallels between this and Christ's sacrificial role in bringing "light" (spiritual truth) to humans.
• Mithras – The Persian-Roman god Mithras was venerated in a mystery religion that predated or was contemporaneous with early Christianity. Mithras was associated with salvation, rebirth, and a communal meal involving bread and wine—rituals with striking similarities to Christian Eucharist practices.
• Osiris – Osiris dies, is dismembered, and is later resurrected with the help of his wife Isis. He becomes a symbol of rebirth and the afterlife, with clear thematic connections to Christ's death and resurrection narrative.
• Krishna – Though very different in cultural context, Krishna is a divine incarnation who comes to Earth, performs miracles, and teaches about dharma (righteousness). His story includes a miraculous birth, divine mission, and cultic devotion, all of which invite comparison to Jesus.

It seems there was both a cultural appetite for savior figures and a tendency to borrow from existing religious motifs—divine or semi-divine beings who could bridge the human and the divine, offering redemption, wisdom, or salvation. These figures often became the centerpieces of emerging cults or belief systems. Of these, Mithraism stands out: its rituals, moral teachings, and symbolic meals bore striking resemblances to early Christianity. It wasn’t just a thematic overlap—it was a competing religion. Ultimately, as Christianity gained institutional backing, Mithraism was stamped out, its memory largely erased by the ascendant Christian order.

 

[DBT]

Then Luke is also influenced in the same way, which means you should be able to make the "same" case as you do for Paul.. which would be interesting to read.

I suppose it's down to there being the need and understanding from the Theist pov for the obvious need to be 'two of more witness' as it's strongly emphasized, biblically.


In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul outlines the core aspects of the gospel, which align with the accounts in Luke-Acts, suggesting that he considered Luke's work as a foundational authority for the Christian faith. There are synchronizations like where it's mentioned the "we" in the passages in Acts, which indicate that the author of Luke-Acts was a traveling companion of Paul, further suggesting a close relationship and mutual influence.

Who's influencing who, one must wonder? Both very educated writers. Do you detect any hint of dishonesty with either, or both of the writers? If so, interestingly I would like to see the conflicting verses, passages highlighted...and, with some 'psychological profiling' behind the characters, one should be able to deduce from their writings..maybe?

It doesn't matter who it is. The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul says "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin."

The claim is that the origin is not human. That claim does not preclude human influence.

 

[Swammerdami]

Then Luke is also influenced in the same way, which means you should be able to make the "same" case as you do for Paul.. which would be interesting to read.

I suppose it's down to there being the need and understanding from the Theist pov for the obvious need to be 'two of more witness' as it's strongly emphasized, biblically.


In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul outlines the core aspects of the gospel, which align with the accounts in Luke-Acts, suggesting that he considered Luke's work as a foundational authority for the Christian faith. There are synchronizations like where it's mentioned the "we" in the passages in Acts, which indicate that the author of Luke-Acts was a traveling companion of Paul, further suggesting a close relationship and mutual influence.

Who's influencing who, one must wonder? Both very educated writers. Do you detect any hint of dishonesty with either, or both of the writers? If so, interestingly I would like to see the conflicting verses, passages highlighted...and, with some 'psychological profiling' behind the characters, one should be able to deduce from their writings..maybe?

I agree. The relationships among Paul, Luke and "Luke" the author might be discernible and might shed light on "Origins of Christianity", if that is the topic of this thread. I personally lack the time, talent, knowledge and motivation to pursue this, but it does seem like an interesting topic.

It doesn't matter who it is. The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

Are you SURE that is The ONLY Issue®? I skimmed the thread's OP and was able to discern no thesis or question there, so I'll go by the title of the thread. Did Jehovah appear to Joseph and Mary with exciting news of a virgin birth? That would be one exciting "Origin" for "Christianity" but even many Christians don't believe that.

AFAICT, DBT takes the view that the Archangel Gabriel did NOT whisper sweet-nothings in Paul's ear, and that once we agree with that, the "Origin of Christianity" ceases to be a topic, let alone a topic of interest. Neither Tom Sawyer nor Huckleberry Finn ever existed; I suppose those fictions should also be ignored, along with the entire New Testament. A religion suddenly took over much of the world? Who knows why? Who cares?

OTOH, right here at this very message-board SOME atheists seem intrigued by the topic. Here I read the claim that Paul's writing dates to the first century BC and also read the claim that (the entirety of?) Paul's writing dates to the 2nd century AD !! !?!?! Anything to obfuscate any "Origin" for "Christianity."

 

[NoHolyCows]

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul says "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin."

The claim is that the origin is not human. That claim does not preclude human influence.

Paul’s insistence that his gospel isn’t “of human origin” is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, not a demonstration of divine authorship. The style, structure, and argumentative techniques in Galatians mirror the conventions of Greek epistolary rhetoric, where opening appeals to authority were commonplace to bolster the writer’s credibility. In fact, the very inclusion of the Antioch dispute in Galatians 2:11–14 reads like a carefully crafted polemic: Paul recounts confronting Peter over table fellowship in a way that maximizes tension and moral indignation. This sort of literary shaping is textbook human composition.

Decades later, the narratives we call the gospels were compiled by anonymous authors who wove together oral traditions, earlier written fragments, and selective Old Testament quotations to serve the needs of emerging Christian communities. Mark’s Gospel, likely penned around 70 CE, stands as the earliest example. Every manuscript we possess of Mark and its synoptic counterparts bears countless variants—spelling differences, added clarifications, theological glosses—introduced by generations of scribes. Those textual mutations are incontrovertible proof of continuous human intervention in copying and editing.

Long before anything was ever committed to papyrus, stories about Jesus circulated orally in Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile circles. Oral transmission depends on memory, personal perspective, and the social context of the storyteller. Each retelling inevitably filters the account through human biases and communal needs, reshaping details to emphasize theological points or to address local controversies.

Moreover, Paul’s own letters omit the very core narratives later celebrated in the gospels—there is no mention of a virgin birth, no recounting of miraculous healings, no detailed resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. If his gospel sprang pure and untouched from divine origin, we would see perfect consistency across all accounts. Instead, we find divergent chronologies, conflicting details, and theological agendas that reflect the concerns and debates of early Christian communities.

At the end of the day, historical and textual criticism leaves no room for the idea that Paul’s gospel bypassed human agency. From the rhetorical conventions he employs, to the editorial revisions found in every surviving manuscript, to the inevitable alterations introduced by oral culture, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a message shaped, transmitted, and preserved by fallible human beings. The claim “not of human origin” crumbles under the weight of the texts themselves.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

An analogy.

If you know something about American musicology you would know the roots of American pop music go back to black gospel music. Blues was influenced by gospel music. Rhythms, ruffs and beats. Blues morphed into white rock and roll. Paganized black Christian gospel music in a sense.


Point beng cutter always absorbs and evolve.

Elvis was a gospel singer in a different form.

AI Overview
In the time of Jesus,
Greek was undoubtedly a major and influential culture, particularly in terms of language and administration, throughout Judea and the broader Roman Empire. However, it wasn't the sole dominant culture, especially in a region as culturally and politically complex as Judea.


AI Overview
Why Does the Bible Specify That Paul Was a Roman Citizen ...
The Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus, which was a city in the Roman province of Cilicia, not in Rome or Judea, according to the New Testament. He was also a Roman citizen by birth, likely due to his parents being granted citizenship or being born in a Roman colony. W


AI Overview
Not all Jews opposed Paul, but a significant number of Jews, particularly some religious leaders, fiercely opposed Paul's teachings and sought to harm him.

Here's why some Jews were out to get Paul:

Conversion from Persecutor to Proclaimer: Paul, originally known as Saul, was a Jewish leader and a zealous persecutor of the early Christians. His dramatic conversion to Christianity and his subsequent preaching of Jesus as the Messiah angered many of his former Jewish colleagues and those who were against Christianity

AI Overview
No, Paul would not have read the Gospels as we know them today. The Gospels were written after Paul's letters. However, Paul was familiar with the core message of the gospel through oral tradition and interactions with other early Christians.
Here's why:

Timing of the Gospels:
The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written later than Paul's letters. Most scholars date Paul's letters to the 50s CE, while the Gospels were written in the late first century CE.

Paul took refuge in his Roman citizenship when Jews were after hi head.

The giosel Jesus reinforced Mosaic Law and the Jewish prophets. Paul made it attractive to pagans-gentiles.

So again, the gospel sound bites attributed to Jesus may have had little to do with who an HJ may have been.

To say that the cultures, politics, ad religions in the area were complex is an understatement.

I watched a show a few days ago on the Roman siege of Masada Jewish rebels took refuse on a near impregnable plateau. Romans bout a ramp and when they got to the top all Jews had committed suicide. A shrine in modern Israel.

Point being Judean Jews hated the Romans, they were under a military occupation. Another reason why Jerusalem Jews would hated Paul.

A wandering Jewish rabbi preaching love your enemies being Rome would not have gotten much traction. Same with give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

The gospels were written after the fall of Israel. The end of the Jewish world came, the Temple was destroyed and Israel divested.

The one way the gospels make sense is a sensationalized fictional recumbent for converts in the empire.

The idea of the gospel Jesus as a singular source of morality is an indefensible position.

Fro the old 60s comedy group Firesign Theater, 'give them a light and they will follow it anywhere'.

 

[DBT]

Then Luke is also influenced in the same way, which means you should be able to make the "same" case as you do for Paul.. which would be interesting to read.

I suppose it's down to there being the need and understanding from the Theist pov for the obvious need to be 'two of more witness' as it's strongly emphasized, biblically.


In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul outlines the core aspects of the gospel, which align with the accounts in Luke-Acts, suggesting that he considered Luke's work as a foundational authority for the Christian faith. There are synchronizations like where it's mentioned the "we" in the passages in Acts, which indicate that the author of Luke-Acts was a traveling companion of Paul, further suggesting a close relationship and mutual influence.

Who's influencing who, one must wonder? Both very educated writers. Do you detect any hint of dishonesty with either, or both of the writers? If so, interestingly I would like to see the conflicting verses, passages highlighted...and, with some 'psychological profiling' behind the characters, one should be able to deduce from their writings..maybe?

I agree. The relationships among Paul, Luke and "Luke" the author might be discernible and might shed light on "Origins of Christianity", if that is the topic of this thread. I personally lack the time, talent, knowledge and motivation to pursue this, but it does seem like an interesting topic.

It doesn't matter who it is. The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

Are you SURE that is The ONLY Issue®? I skimmed the thread's OP and was able to discern no thesis or question there, so I'll go by the title of the thread. Did Jehovah appear to Joseph and Mary with exciting news of a virgin birth? That would be one exciting "Origin" for "Christianity" but even many Christians don't believe that.

AFAICT, DBT takes the view that the Archangel Gabriel did NOT whisper sweet-nothings in Paul's ear, and that once we agree with that, the "Origin of Christianity" ceases to be a topic, let alone a topic of interest. Neither Tom Sawyer nor Huckleberry Finn ever existed; I suppose those fictions should also be ignored, along with the entire New Testament. A religion suddenly took over much of the world? Who knows why? Who cares?

OTOH, right here at this very message-board SOME atheists seem intrigued by the topic. Here I read the claim that Paul's writing dates to the first century BC and also read the claim that (the entirety of?) Paul's writing dates to the 2nd century AD !! !?!?! Anything to obfuscate any "Origin" for "Christianity."

Generally speaking, obviously it's not the only issue with the bible or its theology, there are many problems, but as this is the point I raised, Pauls claim of divine inspiration while usung Greek philosophy is the focus in this instance.

 

[DBT]

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul says "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin."

The claim is that the origin is not human. That claim does not preclude human influence.

Paul’s insistence that his gospel isn’t “of human origin” is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, not a demonstration of divine authorship. The style, structure, and argumentative techniques in Galatians mirror the conventions of Greek epistolary rhetoric, where opening appeals to authority were commonplace to bolster the writer’s credibility. In fact, the very inclusion of the Antioch dispute in Galatians 2:11–14 reads like a carefully crafted polemic: Paul recounts confronting Peter over table fellowship in a way that maximizes tension and moral indignation. This sort of literary shaping is textbook human composition.

Decades later, the narratives we call the gospels were compiled by anonymous authors who wove together oral traditions, earlier written fragments, and selective Old Testament quotations to serve the needs of emerging Christian communities. Mark’s Gospel, likely penned around 70 CE, stands as the earliest example. Every manuscript we possess of Mark and its synoptic counterparts bears countless variants—spelling differences, added clarifications, theological glosses—introduced by generations of scribes. Those textual mutations are incontrovertible proof of continuous human intervention in copying and editing.

Long before anything was ever committed to papyrus, stories about Jesus circulated orally in Hellenistic Jewish and Gentile circles. Oral transmission depends on memory, personal perspective, and the social context of the storyteller. Each retelling inevitably filters the account through human biases and communal needs, reshaping details to emphasize theological points or to address local controversies.

Moreover, Paul’s own letters omit the very core narratives later celebrated in the gospels—there is no mention of a virgin birth, no recounting of miraculous healings, no detailed resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. If his gospel sprang pure and untouched from divine origin, we would see perfect consistency across all accounts. Instead, we find divergent chronologies, conflicting details, and theological agendas that reflect the concerns and debates of early Christian communities.

At the end of the day, historical and textual criticism leaves no room for the idea that Paul’s gospel bypassed human agency. From the rhetorical conventions he employs, to the editorial revisions found in every surviving manuscript, to the inevitable alterations introduced by oral culture, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a message shaped, transmitted, and preserved by fallible human beings. The claim “not of human origin” crumbles under the weight of the texts themselves.

NHC

Well said.

 

[steve_bank]

Claiming divinity or divine inspiration is the norm throughout history to justify what someone wants.

Today 'god hates abortion' and god says 'all life is sacred'.

on the left 'god and Jesus love and accept gays'.

In the extreme Israeli Zionists claim god gave them all of what was Judea and hey have a right to all of it today.

The RCC says the pope speaks for god on morality. Birth control is against g9d;s will.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Paul’s insistence that his gospel isn’t “of human origin” is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, not a demonstration of divine authorship.

If his gospel sprang pure and untouched from divine origin ...

... no room for the idea that Paul’s gospel bypassed human agency.

The claim “not of human origin” crumbles under the weight of the texts themselves.

All that fatuous and excessive verbiage pretending to be an argument is dispensed with below and easily.

1. The claim is NOT that Paul's message is divinely authored. The claim is that Paul's message is divinely inspired. The claim regards divine inspiration and NOT divine authorship.

2. It follows, therefore, that there is no claim that the gospel was "pure and untouched" after its "divine origin".

3. That is to say that there is no claim that there is no human agency associated with the teaching.

4. The claim for "not of human origin" has not crumbled, because neither you nor DBT (or anyone else arguing against the possibility of divine origin) has dealt with the matter of divine inspiration including the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship. To put it another way: until you deal with the issue of divine inspiration and how it differs from divine authorship, you are not addressing the issue at hand, you are not establishing the impossibility of there having been divine inspiration.

Pauls claim of divine inspiration while usung Greek philosophy is the focus in this instance.

A claim of inspiration does not preclude the use of philosophy or poetry or myth, etc., Greek or otherwise. That in itself indicates that divine inspiration has not been your focus.

 

[NoHolyCows]

1. The claim is NOT that Paul's message is divinely authored. The claim is that Paul's message is divinely inspired. The claim regards divine inspiration and NOT divine authorship.

Invoking “divine inspiration” is simply a semantic sleight-of-hand. When you separate inspiration from authorship, you acknowledge that human minds, languages, cultural assumptions and rhetorical conventions did the real work. There is no empirically verifiable difference between a human poet struck by “inspiration” and a self-described prophet claiming the same. Modern psychological research shows that “inspiration” is indistinguishable from ordinary creativity and memory reconstruction. Claiming inspiration doesn’t resolve a single historical or textual anomaly—it just retreats behind an unfalsifiable label.

2. It follows, therefore, that there is no claim that the gospel was "pure and untouched" after its "divine origin".

Admitting post-origin corruption destroys any practical distinction between divine and human material. If God really inspired Paul’s words, why did later copyists feel free to alter them—adding clarifications, smoothing grammar, even inserting entirely new sentences? We know from textual criticism that every New Testament book survives only in copies riddled with thousands of variants, from spelling mistakes to doctrinal glosses. If divine inspiration offers no immunity against these changes, it adds nothing that human authorship wouldn’t explain more parsimoniously.

3. That is to say that there is no claim that there is no human agency associated with the teaching.

Exactly—human agency is undeniable. Every layer of the New Testament reflects debates, power struggles, regional customs and editorial agendas of early Christian communities. Councils fought over which texts to include; scribes revised passages to settle local disputes; copyists injected marginal notes that later became “scripture.” There is zero evidence of anything beyond human politics and psychology at work. Attaching “divine inspiration” afterward is just a post hoc stamp of approval with no independent warrant.

4. The claim for "not of human origin" has not crumbled, because neither you nor DBT (or anyone else arguing against the possibility of divine origin) has dealt with the matter of divine inspiration including the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship. To put it another way: until you deal with the issue of divine inspiration and how it differs from divine authorship, you are not addressing the issue at hand, you are not establishing the impossibility of there having been divine inspiration.

There is nothing substantive to “deal with,” because divine inspiration is defined in such a way that it cannot be tested or disproven. You say inspiration isn’t authorship—but you still rely entirely on human evidence to defend it. Every argument for inspiration comes from passages written by humans, preserved by humans, debated by humans. You cannot step outside human testimony to point at any objective marker of the divine. That makes “inspiration” a vacuous claim—one that explains nothing and cannot be falsified. Reason demands that we judge texts by the methods that apply to all ancient literature. Under those methods, the New Testament is incontrovertibly a human product, warts and all. There is simply no non-circular way to rescue “divine inspiration” from being an article of faith rather than an established fact.

NHC

 

[DBT]

''Divine inspiration'' implies that God is the author. That it is not the 'work of man,' that God more or less dictates what is written by the human hand, where theists have claimed that the bible is the infallible word of God because it is Inspired.

 

[DBT]

The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul says "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin."

The claim is that the origin is not human. That claim does not preclude human influence.

As with ''not the work of man,'' ''not of human origin'' doesn't imply that Paul meant that human influence played a part in his preaching or theology.

To mean that it may include human influence waters down the authority of the message. Humans are fallible. Humans are prone to errors. If Paul meant that human influence played a part, his teachings could be considered human and fallible.

 

[steve_bank]

The issue is the claim that what is being preached or taught is not the work of man, that it is divinely inspired, when the content itself has clearly been influenced by human thinkers and their work incorporated into the teachings.

According to Galatians 1:11, Paul says "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin."

The claim is that the origin is not human. That claim does not preclude human influence.

As with ''not the work of man,'' ''not of human origin'' doesn't imply that Paul meant that human influence played a part in his preaching or theology.

To mean that it may include human influence waters down the authority of the message. Humans are fallible. Humans are prone to errors. If Paul meant that human influence played a part, his teachings could be considered human and fallible.

That is exactly the case with the RCC and the pope. Any admission of moral failure undermines the claims to authority.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Invoking “divine inspiration” is simply a semantic sleight-of-hand.

Unsupported assertion. And also a false assertion. As a matter of fact, you actually effectively admit that there is a difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship when you say:

When you separate inspiration from authorship, you acknowledge that human minds, languages, cultural assumptions and rhetorical conventions did the real work.

As has been discussed, even Paul emphasizes understanding as being of prime importance, and Paul never denies that understanding is always dependent on human effort.

There is no empirically verifiable difference between a human poet struck by “inspiration” and a self-described prophet claiming the same.

So, now that you have indubitable reason to retract your non-sense about "a semantic sleight-of-hand", you might be able to realize that human understanding is not limited to what is "empirically verifiable" and that human understanding is not necessarily claimed to be necessarily superior for seeming to have been divinely inspired.

Modern psychological research shows that “inspiration” is indistinguishable from ordinary creativity and memory reconstruction.

You need "[m]odern psychological research" in order to be aware that understanding relates to one's own creativity? Sheesh. What a sad, very sad, maximally sad reference to "research". Your remark would have been much better if it had been based on your own experience.

The divine inspiration at issue does not eliminate - nor even diminish - the need for the personal creativity which gives rise to understanding. Indeed, it would be very much the opposite: an experience of such inspiration stimulates realization of the need for a more developed understanding.

If God really inspired Paul’s words, why did later copyists feel free to alter them—adding clarifications, smoothing grammar, even inserting entirely new sentences?

First of all, precisely because they are not God's words. But even if they were God's words, and as was discussed earlier, even God's words could be altered since even God's words would have been limited by the limits inherent to human language with such limitation itself always providing and allowing for expression modification.

Besides all that, Paul's words are not to be idolized. No words are to be idolized, because understandings are always to be further developed. It is quite possible that some copyists imagined themselves as communicating and furthering an already furthered understanding.

Also keep in mind the related matter of translation. All translation is or becomes interpretation. Of course, even without translation from one language to another, all understanding that communicates is interpreted in order to become understood. All understanding is subjective, personal, and that is the case with or without reasoning that is based on intersubjective agreement regarding empirical matters.

When talking about God, the issue is always human understanding.

There is zero evidence of anything beyond human politics and psychology at work. Attaching “divine inspiration” afterward is just a post hoc stamp of approval with no independent warrant.

Yet another incorrect attribution. Within this discussion, noting the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship is utterly disconnected from matters having to do with approval. Rather, noting the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship is entirely intended to set focus upon matters regarding the nature or process of human understanding.

Focus is set upon human understanding if and when love of neighbor, love for an other person, is held to be important. Love for the other person is inseparable from undertaking to understand the understanding had by that person, and understanding that understanding is necessarily dependent on the ability to consider context as part of perspective. The pseudo-argument against Paul at issue in this thread evidences next to no concern with context.

Although the pseudo-arguments against the possibility of divine inspiration evidence not the slightest interest in love for neighbor, that love can be atheological. Indeed, even when a religious person creates acts of love, they are atheological not only because they are not being done by God but also because they are intended entirely for the sake of the other person. And maybe that fact will provide for some insight into a perspective regarding God which is applicable with or without belief in the actuality of God, because it really has to do with the nature of a love for an other. And maybe that fact will provide some impetus for realizing that trans-perspectival viewpoints are, more often than not, superior to merely "empirically verifiable" perspectives.

There is nothing substantive to “deal with,” because divine inspiration is defined in such a way that it cannot be tested or disproven. You say inspiration isn’t authorship—but you still rely entirely on human evidence to defend it

Inspiration is a matter of experience; it is not a matter of evidence. Inspiration is always an experience which changes perspective or at least affects understanding. It is not the experience which ultimately matters; it is the understanding affected by the experience and effected after the experience which ultimately matters.

There is simply no non-circular way to rescue “divine inspiration” from being an article of faith rather than an established fact.

If you think that there has been an attempt "to rescue 'divine inspiration'", then you have badly misunderstood. The only fact of the matter is that the argument at issue and as presented fails as a logical argument against Paul's claim that "the gospel I preached is not of human origin" because that failed argument relies on (and never gets beyond) the notion that Paul claims that the gospel he preached was divinely authored. A fatal flaw with that argument persists. Consider the following:

''Divine inspiration'' implies that God is the author.

You see, that is an example of an actual attempt to rescue - in this case, it is an attempt to rescue divine authorship, with that attempt at rescue serving as an attempt to rescue the argument (such as it is) presented against Paul. The rescue fails, because the term "implies" is an acknowledgement that divine inspiration is not necessarily divine authorship and, therefore, that divine inspiration allows for human influence and creativity.

human influence waters down the authority of the message.

The whole pseudo-argument has a limited understanding about authority. That limited understanding is common and has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief in God. The sort of authority not taken into acount by the pseudo-argument and its defenders relates to inspiration and understanding. It is authority without imposition. The substance of understanding follows after an experience of authority, but it is not authority or the experience of authority which produces the substance of the understanding which follows after an experience of authority. Human influence does not dilute authority even if human influence affects understanding.

 

[steve_bank]

The academic Christian, try to turn the lack of evidence into a convoluted exercise in wordy formality to bury the fundamental issue. Belief in a god which can not be proven objective;y.


As to divine authority, a glaring example is the con artist Donald Trump. After narrowly escaping assassination it was by god's will.

He periodically invokes god and god's will, establish divine authority in the eyes of his Christian base.

There are Evangelicals who believe Trump was sent by god to help them, Trump capitalizes on it.

Same Theo-politics as in ancient Egypt and Israel.

The Council Of Nicaea was about poetical power among Christian leaders. The result was a new unified Christian theology determined by compromise over conflicting views. Not by what Jesus says in the NT.

We are still the same basic humans as 2000 years ago.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Unsupported assertion. And also a false assertion. As a matter of fact, you actually effectively admit that there is a difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship when you say:

When you separate inspiration from authorship, you acknowledge that human minds, languages, cultural assumptions and rhetorical conventions did the real work.

As has been discussed, even Paul emphasizes understanding as being of prime importance, and Paul never denies that understanding is always dependent on human effort.

Admitting that human minds, languages and cultural conventions shape a text doesn’t validate any divine element—it highlights the entirely human machinery behind every word. “Inspiration” here is nothing more than a label for an internal sensation, not a detectable force that overrode the biases, education and rhetorical habits of Paul or any other early Christian writer.

Paul’s repeated calls for careful reasoning, debate and persuasion make clear that he trusted human intellect, not a mystical override. If his message truly bypassed human cognition, he would present it as self-evident, but instead he insists on argument, evidence and engagement—hallmarks of a message born in human thought.

So, now that you have indubitable reason to retract your non-sense about "a semantic sleight-of-hand", you might be able to realize that human understanding is not limited to what is "empirically verifiable" and that human understanding is not necessarily claimed to be necessarily superior for seeming to have been divinely inspired.

Every claim that enters our world must be expressed in words and ideas we can test, critique and compare. If “divine inspiration” cannot be scrutinized through the same tools we apply to any ancient writing—historical context, textual criticism, linguistic analysis—it becomes an untestable faith statement, indistinguishable from any other private conviction.

You need "[m]odern psychological research" in order to be aware that understanding relates to one's own creativity? Sheesh. What a sad, very sad, maximally sad reference to "research". Your remark would have been much better if it had been based on your own experience.

The divine inspiration at issue does not eliminate - nor even diminish - the need for the personal creativity which gives rise to understanding. Indeed, it would be very much the opposite: an experience of such inspiration stimulates realization of the need for a more developed understanding.

Feeling “inspired” doesn’t tap into any supernatural reservoir—it lights up the same neural networks that underlie every human flash of insight. Whether you call it divine or not, inspiration is a psychological phenomenon. Elevating it to proof of heaven-sourced truth ignores the fact that poets, playwrights and scientists all report identical states of creative surge.

First of all, precisely because they are not God's words. But even if they were God's words, and as was discussed earlier, even God's words could be altered since even God's words would have been limited by the limits inherent to human language with such limitation itself always providing and allowing for expression modification.

Besides all that, Paul's words are not to be idolized. No words are to be idolized, because understandings are always to be further developed. It is quite possible that some copyists imagined themselves as communicating and furthering an already furthered understanding.

Also keep in mind the related matter of translation. All translation is or becomes interpretation. Of course, even without translation from one language to another, all understanding that communicates is interpreted in order to become understood. All understanding is subjective, personal, and that is the case with or without reasoning that is based on intersubjective agreement regarding empirical matters.

When talking about God, the issue is always human understanding.

The manuscript tradition bears out that no New Testament text survives unaltered: tens of thousands of variants reflect scribal corrections, clarifications and doctrinal tweaks. Translation layers introduce further choices, each one the product of human judgment. These realities confirm that what we read is a human-edited document, not an unbreakable transmission of divine speech.

Yet another incorrect attribution. Within this discussion, noting the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship is utterly disconnected from matters having to do with approval. Rather, noting the difference between divine inspiration and divine authorship is entirely intended to set focus upon matters regarding the nature or process of human understanding.

Focus is set upon human understanding if and when love of neighbor, love for an other person, is held to be important. Love for the other person is inseparable from undertaking to understand the understanding had by that person, and understanding that understanding is necessarily dependent on the ability to consider context as part of perspective. The pseudo-argument against Paul at issue in this thread evidences next to no concern with context.

Although the pseudo-arguments against the possibility of divine inspiration evidence not the slightest interest in love for neighbor, that love can be atheological. Indeed, even when a religious person creates acts of love, they are atheological not only because they are not being done by God but also because they are intended entirely for the sake of the other person. And maybe that fact will provide for some insight into a perspective regarding God which is applicable with or without belief in the actuality of God, because it really has to do with the nature of a love for an other. And maybe that fact will provide some impetus for realizing that trans-perspectival viewpoints are, more often than not, superior to merely "empirically verifiable" perspectives.

High-minded talk about love and neighborly concern, while admirable, has no bearing on whether a text displays a supernatural origin. The evidence lies in the pages themselves—filled with human debates, power plays and cultural assumptions. No amount of theological elegance can overwrite the clear record of human hands shaping, editing and canonizing these writings.

Inspiration is a matter of experience; it is not a matter of evidence. Inspiration is always an experience which changes perspective or at least affects understanding. It is not the experience which ultimately matters; it is the understanding affected by the experience and effected after the experience which ultimately matters.

If inspiration rests solely on a subjective experience, it carries no historical weight. What endures is the text, and that text bears every hallmark of human composition: multiple authors, variant readings, redactional layers and contextual shaping. A private mental state doesn’t alter the objective fact that these documents emerged from human communities wrestling over meaning.

If you think that there has been an attempt "to rescue 'divine inspiration'", then you have badly misunderstood. The only fact of the matter is that the argument at issue and as presented fails as a logical argument against Paul's claim that "the gospel I preached is not of human origin" because that failed argument relies on (and never gets beyond) the notion that Paul claims that the gospel he preached was divinely authored. A fatal flaw with that argument persists.

There is no fatal flaw—once you examine Paul’s own emphasis on human reasoning, trace the gospel’s multi-stage transmission and tally the countless textual variants, the declaration “not of human origin” dissolves into a statement of faith, unsupported by any detectable signature in the text. The New Testament stands as a human product, molded by educators, editors and believers through every generation.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

once you examine Paul’s own emphasis on human reasoning, ... the declaration “not of human origin” dissolves into a statement of faith, unsupported by any detectable signature in the text.

Given your acknowledgement of "Paul’s own emphasis on human reasoning," then I have reason to imagine that you can also realize that Paul would (more likely than not, or eventually) agree that if his message ever effects (or affects) an understanding in some other person(s), that understanding itself is not dependent on whether or not Paul's message was divinely inspired or whether the understanding person thinks of the message as divinely inspired.

Even so, it is undeniable that some persons would require hearing that a message is divinely inspired before they would even begin to seek to develop or further an understanding regarding the message. (One reason for this is that hearing/reading that a message is divinely inspired makes the message appear more determinate while any lack in understanding remains concommitant with uncertainty - with uncertainty being, for many persons, a discomfort for which they desire at least some immediate amelioration.)

This is one way in which context becomes an issue, and that relates to wondering why Paul would even mention the not of human origin matter. And this is an instance where context possibility has to be imagined to be taken into account. Here are but two context-related matters: 1) Paul is responding to a claim that his message is not divinely inspired and/or his message does not reveal anything regarding God, and he responds to that because 2) the audience Paul is addressing is very early in its understanding development, has hardly started to realize that understanding is a matter of developing/advancing a personal response-ability, and, consequently, still expects to hear (or read) messages expressed in particular fashions - typically including reference to revelation bestowed by (or inspiration from) God, along with references to trances or visions and the like. References to eureka moments would not be of use to that audience.

In addition to an emphasis on human reasoning, the writings attributed to Paul also emphasize love. Paul's most explicit love emphasis tends to be largely apophatic but, even in that way, provides additional detail to the way love is characterized in the Jesus stories. But all of this actually fits with Jesus' and the second is like unto it remark in the Matthew gospel which is well taken as indicating that the development of individual understandings about God is wholly dependent on the development of response-ability to love other persons. (Whether understanding is to be identified with verbal express-ability (it is not to be so identified) is an adjunct issue.)

All of which is to say that if God is, then even from God's perspective, the prime human issue is the matter of how human being develops. And that is an issue which is not restricted to - and which goes far beyond - merely empirical evidence.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Given your acknowledgement of "Paul’s own emphasis on human reasoning," then I have reason to imagine that you can also realize that Paul would (more likely than not, or eventually) agree that if his message ever effects (or affects) an understanding in some other person(s), that understanding itself is not dependent on whether or not Paul's message was divinely inspired or whether the understanding person thinks of the message as divinely inspired.

Of course Paul would admit that change in a listener’s mind comes through persuasion and reflection—those are the very tools he wields in his letters. That concession only underscores that his gospel functions exactly like any other human argument: it succeeds when listeners reason, believe, and decide. Whether or not they frame it as “divine” is irrelevant to its mechanics; it doesn’t transform the text into anything other than human discourse.

Even so, it is undeniable that some persons would require hearing that a message is divinely inspired before they would even begin to seek to develop or further an understanding regarding the message. (One reason for this is that hearing/reading that a message is divinely inspired makes the message appear more determinate while any lack in understanding remains concommitant with uncertainty - with uncertainty being, for many persons, a discomfort for which they desire at least some immediate amelioration.)

Appealing to psychological crutches doesn’t validate the message itself. Religions everywhere exploit the need for certainty—promising divine guarantees to soothe doubt. That tactic tells us more about human anxiety than about any actual supernatural origin. A claim becomes true only by its merits, not by its marketing.

This is one way in which context becomes an issue, and that relates to wondering why Paul would even mention the not of human origin matter. And this is an instance where context possibility has to be imagined to be taken into account. Here are but two context-related matters: 1) Paul is responding to a claim that his message is not divinely inspired and/or his message does not reveal anything regarding God, and he responds to that because 2) the audience Paul is addressing is very early in its understanding development, has hardly started to realize that understanding is a matter of developing/advancing a personal response-ability, and, consequently, still expects to hear (or read) messages expressed in particular fashions - typically including reference to revelation bestowed by (or inspiration from) God, along with references to trances or visions and the like. References to eureka moments would not be of use to that audience.

Speculating about first-century psychology can’t override the concrete evidence. We know Paul’s letters circulated, were edited, and canonized by human communities. No amount of conjecture about his motives explains why we have thousands of variant readings, scribal insertions, and editorial harmonizations. If Paul really meant “divine origin” as a context clue for novices, he still left behind a textual record riddled with human fingerprints.

In addition to an emphasis on human reasoning, the writings attributed to Paul also emphasize love. Paul's most explicit love emphasis tends to be largely apophatic but, even in that way, provides additional detail to the way love is characterized in the Jesus stories. But all of this actually fits with Jesus' and the second is like unto it remark in the Matthew gospel which is well taken as indicating that the development of individual understandings about God is wholly dependent on the development of response-ability to love other persons. (Whether understanding is to be identified with verbal express-ability (it is not to be so identified) is an adjunct issue.)

Championing love as a virtue doesn’t prove divine authorship or inspiration—it’s a common moral theme across cultures and philosophies. Plato, Cicero, and countless others extolled love and virtue centuries before Paul. His ethics read like a syncretic blend of Jewish teaching and Hellenistic moral philosophy, not a unique divine revelation.

All of which is to say that if God is, then even from God's perspective, the prime human issue is the matter of how human being develops. And that is an issue which is not restricted to - and which goes far beyond - merely empirical evidence.

Invoking God’s hypothetical concerns adds nothing to the historical case. Whether or not God exists, our only reliable window into the past is human testimony, artifacts, and texts—and those texts betray fallible human creation at every turn. Abstract appeals to trans-empirical development cannot erase the documentary proof that the New Testament emerged from human hands, minds, debates, and edits. There simply is no non-circular way to leap from “Paul cared about love and growth” to “therefore his words sprang from supernatural insight.”

NHC