Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

I've been teasing you, but I do have a serious point. You seem so dead-set *against* the possibility of Christ's existence that you're unwilling to consider (even very good) evidence contrary to your position. That's fine, I suppose, but it strikes one more as evidence of desperation and less of one who's interested in truth (although that's probably not the case at all.) I'm interested to know: what do you lose by moving to the mainstream position that Jesus existed, and was a real guy? It's neither a stretch of the imagination nor an "odd" position to take, plenty of smart people hold to it, and there's plenty of evidence for it.

I doubt you had any choice but to "tease". There doesn't appear to be a genuine rebuttal available (not one that is coherent and doesn't use massive amounts of bias and special pleading).

If something turned up to show that a person named Jesus existed, preached, had a following and became the seed of the myth that would later become christianity it would hardly be earth shattering (to non christians). For many of us who have looked, it is actually quite surprising that there is nothing, until it becomes obvious as to why. It would be like..."well look at that, they were right (against all the odds), what are we having for dinner"?

While no fan of organised religion, a historical Jesus would make no difference to how I view that. On the other hand, a mythical Jesus would absolutely shatter the world view of the vast majority of so called "religious scholars" and cause such personal crisis of faith, it won't be allowed to happen.

What I am against and always have been, is the disregard with which certain sections of academia hold titles such as Doctor Philosophiae and basically use it to sanction apologists under the guise of being scholars. It's worth looking into the history of this also.

You overlook that no one can reference anything about jesus from the time, one of the best recorded times in ancient history, with sources even from Jerusalem who documented religion. No mentions we can cross reference even to something non extant. Nothing. You also overlook the references you do credit, are in no way contemporary and don't necessitate an earthly jesus, also the many ways they fail the "sniff test".

A better Jesus comparison is not with the well known figures of history, but with John Frum. A very similar belief system about a saviour of an oppressed cultural group. It is very likely Frum was a real person. Everything about his story is historically plausible. A westerner who advised the natives to give their oppressors (christians, ironically) the middle finger and go back to their traditional ways. Running foul of authorities because of it, but promising to return and promising that "cargo" would soon arrive (and arrive it did shortly after - WW2). It is only in recent times that he becomes a deity living in the volcano. Yet the central story of Frum the person, hasn't really changed in 70-80yrs.

Yet with Jesus the first mentions are "other worldly", not of a historical person. When he becomes "historical" (some time after the Romans ransack the place), he walks on water, magically makes food appear, changes the molecular/chemical make up of water (to wine) on a whim, resurrects, we have zombie saints running the streets etc. (nothing that would indicate "myth" there lol). When we remove this what little we have makes no sense, is contradictory and has no historical plausibility.

When cultural Anthropology is also considered, the contradictions, magic, lack of plausibility and paucity of evidence for the entire story of Jesus becomes far more understandable.

Which version of jesus do you support?

Or this one which "scolars don't really seem able to answer without giving in to fairy tale. How do you explain his execution under Pilate in a historically plausible and supportable way? (the Monty Python version makes more sense than the literal version).

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

I doubt you had any choice but to "tease".

Welp, I could have done extensive research, but I didn't really have the time (or desire, frankly) to rebut you point by point with more weighty arguments, so I chose to illuminate what I viewed as holes in your arguments. Forgive me if it was annoying. My main point in coming on here was to point out that what we know from new research makes it seem likely (not necessarily certain) that the Gospels had been written close to the lifetime of Jesus, and you appear to have conceded the point.

If something turned up to show that a person named Jesus existed, preached, had a following and became the seed of the myth that would later become christianity it would hardly be earth shattering (to non christians). For many of us who have looked, it is actually quite surprising that there is nothing, until it becomes obvious as to why. It would be like..."well look at that, they were right (against all the odds), what are we having for dinner"?

Makes sense

While no fan of organised religion, a historical Jesus would make no difference to how I view that. On the other hand, a mythical Jesus would absolutely shatter the world view of the vast majority of so called "religious scholars" and cause such personal crisis of faith, it won't be allowed to happen.

Well, it *is* hard to prove a negative.

What I am against and always have been, is the disregard with which certain sections of academia hold titles such as Doctor Philosophiae and basically use it to sanction apologists under the guise of being scholars. It's worth looking into the history of this also.

Don't all PhD's do that? Some of them are religious apologists, and some of them aren't...

You overlook that no one can reference anything about jesus from the time, one of the best recorded times in ancient history, with sources even from Jerusalem who documented religion. No mentions we can cross reference even to something non extant. Nothing. You also overlook the references you do credit, are in no way contemporary and don't necessitate an earthly jesus, also the many ways they fail the "sniff test".

I still fail to comprehend why we'd expect to get references to a guy who appeared to be one of many random cult leaders at the time from day one.

A better Jesus comparison is not with the well known figures of history, but with John Frum. A very similar belief system about a saviour of an oppressed cultural group. It is very likely Frum was a real person. Everything about his story is historically plausible. A westerner who advised the natives to give their oppressors (christians, ironically) the middle finger and go back to their traditional ways. Running foul of authorities because of it, but promising to return and promising that "cargo" would soon arrive (and arrive it did shortly after - WW2). It is only in recent times that he becomes a deity living in the volcano. Yet the central story of Frum the person, hasn't really changed in 70-80yrs.

He was a pretty interesting character.

Yet with Jesus the first mentions are "other worldly", not of a historical person. When he becomes "historical" (some time after the Romans ransack the place), he walks on water, magically makes food appear, changes the molecular/chemical make up of water (to wine) on a whim, resurrects, we have zombie saints running the streets etc. (nothing that would indicate "myth" there lol). When we remove this what little we have makes no sense, is contradictory and has no historical plausibility.

But you're assuming that ought to be removed. That's just an a priori assumption you're making, which I find interesting.

When cultural Anthropology is also considered, the contradictions, magic, lack of plausibility and paucity of evidence for the entire story of Jesus becomes far more understandable.

Which version of jesus do you support?

Or this one which "scolars don't really seem able to answer without giving in to fairy tale. How do you explain his execution under Pilate in a historically plausible and supportable way? (the Monty Python version makes more sense than the literal version).

Heh heh. I liked that version.
I've always figured that maybe people that were writing 40 years after an event *might* know more about what happened in that time period than we do now. But hey, don't listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Which version of jesus are you backing (there are plenty to choose)? Can you explain which one and why?

The better question is...what other Jesus Christ that was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers and religion were named after him are you referring to.

That's not an answer, it's an evasion.

What other Romulus was suckled by a she-wolf, founded both a city and the greatest empire in our history? (an empire responsible for Christianity as we know it, ironically enough...Romulus, the true founder of Christianity! lol)

Again, which historical version of Jesus do you support? Paint us a picture of him and we'll see how it goes under a little scrutiny.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

So what was the actual, correct name from hebrew ?

The Romans were NOTORIOUS record keepers, and there is NO record of Jesus being tried, judged, or crucified.

Romans kept records of every little thing, and something of this importance would have been a major event.

There is also NO evidence of the holes that would have been required for crucifixion crosses on the mount, and until the first century, no accounting.

There are also NO records of Jesus being anywhere in between his early life and his late 20's, no record at all of where he was educated.

Indians, Chinese, and Persians were also all notorious record keepers and you can guarantee that someone claiming to be the Son of God would have been a pretty big event for any of them if he was attending one of their monastaries or schools.

Nope, not buying any part of the Jesus story.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Well, it *is* hard to prove a negative.

Yet they have no real problems doing that with Romulus, Robin Hood and his merry band of men, Osiris etc.

Don't all PhD's do that? Some of them are religious apologists, and some of them aren't...

No, they don't actually.

I still fail to comprehend why we'd expect to get references to a guy who appeared to be one of many random cult leaders at the time from day one.

You're mixing up your different Jesus's again. Also a common malaise in this area of scholarship. Obscure prophet? Rabble rousing 1st century Che Guevara? Apocalyptic cultist? Or 1st century Gandhi type passive resistance leader? Or one of countless other notions?

A random cult leader who managed an unprecedented Sanhedrin meeting, a dramatic trial with Pilate (a high ranking legate of Rome with full vested powers from SPQR), that was missed by every relevant person. Those two notions divorced long ago, citing irreconcilable differences. Unless you believe he really was "the son of god" which, whether true or not, is not a historically supportable position.

But you're assuming that ought to be removed. That's just an a priori assumption you're making, which I find interesting.

You misrepresent this as idle, or unverified assumption. It is not. It's the same assumption every (genuine) academic makes. There probably wasn't a mystical piper urging Caesar across the Rubicon, Romulus didn't disappear in a whirlwind, Ra doesn't force the sun across the sky.

Genuine historians reject magic. Neither do historians exist in a scholarly vacuum (although it seems many of them think they do). They refer to the relevant fields of science. Otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages. If you could show that every relevant scientific observation ever made (in areas such as physics, biology, chemistry etc) was wrong, you might have a point. Then there would be no end end of mythical, magical figures that we would need to consider every bit as real.

Heh heh. I liked that version.
I've always figured that maybe people that were writing 40 years after an event *might* know more about what happened in that time period than we do now. But hey, don't listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about

Speaking of unverified assumptions...

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Well, it *is* hard to prove a negative.

Yet they have no real problems doing that with Romulus, Robin Hood and his merry band of men, Osiris etc.

Don't all PhD's do that? Some of them are religious apologists, and some of them aren't...

No, they don't actually.

I still fail to comprehend why we'd expect to get references to a guy who appeared to be one of many random cult leaders at the time from day one.

You're mixing up your different Jesus's again. Also a common malaise in this area of scholarship. Obscure prophet? Rabble rousing 1st century Che Guevara? Apocalyptic cultist? Or 1st century Gandhi type passive resistance leader? Or one of countless other notions?

A random cult leader who managed an unprecedented Sanhedrin meeting, a dramatic trial with Pilate (a high ranking legate of Rome with full vested powers from SPQR), that was missed by every relevant person. Those two notions divorced long ago, citing irreconcilable differences. Unless you believe he really was "the son of god" which, whether true or not, is not a historically supportable position.

But you're assuming that ought to be removed. That's just an a priori assumption you're making, which I find interesting.

You misrepresent this as idle, or unverified assumption. It is not. It's the same assumption every (genuine) academic makes. There probably wasn't a mystical piper urging Caesar across the Rubicon, Romulus didn't disappear in a whirlwind, Ra doesn't force the sun across the sky.

Genuine historians reject magic. Neither do historians exist in a scholarly vacuum (although it seems many of them think they do). They refer to the relevant fields of science. Otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages. If you could show that every relevant scientific observation ever made (in areas such as physics, biology, chemistry etc) was wrong, you might have a point. Then there would be no end end of mythical, magical figures that we would need to consider every bit as real.

Heh heh. I liked that version.
I've always figured that maybe people that were writing 40 years after an event *might* know more about what happened in that time period than we do now. But hey, don't listen to me, I don't know what I'm talking about

Speaking of unverified assumptions...

Everything you have "contributed" to this thread thus far, is a complete farce. "Which Jesus?" REALLY?

Listen. You lambast young earth creationists on this forum consistently. You tell them to present their own evidence that is stronger than the evidence for biological evolution, and then you belittle them when their evidence doesn't meet academic standards.

Yet here you are, ignoring evidence, and producing what is the equivalency of young earth creationism in this debate, and expecting to be taken seriously, as if you have a clue (or Richard Carrier has a clue).

Pot, meet kettle. It's hilarious watching you all grasp for straws and propping each other up page after page after page. Every once and awhile I pop in to see how you are all doing, just to see if you've actually offered any new ground breaking theories, but it's always the same tired old crap.

How does it feel to rail against academia because of your own personal faith? Does it remind you of anyone you know? Perhaps those you love to criticize the most?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


Everything you have "contributed" to this thread thus far, is a complete farce. "Which Jesus?" REALLY?

Listen. You lambast young earth creationists on this forum consistently. You tell them to present their own evidence that is stronger than the evidence for biological evolution, and then you belittle them when their evidence doesn't meet academic standards.

As it should be. If someone wants to be taken seriously, concepts like due diligence need to supersede copy and paste from sites like AIG which is the "evidence" typically presented by YEC proponents. Yu can't argue from authority on a topic you're not versed in which is exactly what the YEC crowd does nearly every time they attack science. Its no different when arguing in favor of a historical Jesus based on documents that aren't even from the same century Christ was alleged to have proselytized in. There's not a single contemporary source and all that is offered as response are rationalizations, what ifs and hypotheticals. Not any actual hard evidence though.

Yet here you are, ignoring evidence, and producing what is the equivalency of young earth creationism in this debate, and expecting to be taken seriously, as if you have a clue (or Richard Carrier has a clue).

Wait... Who exactly is ignoring evidence? The "evidence" is circumstantial at the very best and that's stretching things. As for Carrier, why even go there when he states that, and I'm paraphrasing... The myth of a historical Jesus is only a hypothesis and has yet to pass peer review. But hey, go ahead and take a dump in the lap of a guy who is far more well versed than you or I on this topic if it makes you feel better. The bottom line at the end of the day is that there are no contemporary sources, all sources are from long after his alleged death and written down based primarily on an at best, decades running game of telephone as a mostly illiterate group orally retold the tale prior to it being written by later Greeks and Romans. Even the earliest manuscripts can't be physically traced to anywhere near the time of Christ so when you mock someone and claim they are railing against the academic system it co,es off as rather plastic and disingenuous considering its a hypocritical statement.

Pot, meet kettle. It's hilarious watching you all grasp for straws and propping each other up page after page after page. Every once and awhile I pop in to see how you are all doing, just to see if you've actually offered any new ground breaking theories, but it's always the same tired old crap.

You mean like all the bull s# rationalizations and ad hoc arguments cobbled together and applied by proponents of god dropping his magic son off at daycare with Mary and Joseph for 30 or so years? The multitude of contradictions just in the 4 Gospels alone is astounding and takes a serious amount of mental hoop jumping to accept and then toss in the Pauline doctrines which differ so greatly from the gospels almost as if being perpetuated by someone that didnt really know the message attributed to Christ. Its insane. But hey... To each their own.

How does it feel to rail against academia because of your own personal faith? Does it remind you of anyone you know? Perhaps those you love to criticize the most?

There's nothing even remotely similar to what you insinuate occurring. Its delusional to think such on a serious note. Only someone who doesn't actually understand how academia works would make such a silly statement.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Yet they have no real problems doing that with Romulus, Robin Hood and his merry band of men, Osiris etc.

I was under the impression that they regarded them as lacking in evidence of existence, not disproven.

You're mixing up your different Jesus's again. Also a common malaise in this area of scholarship. Obscure prophet? Rabble rousing 1st century Che Guevara? Apocalyptic cultist? Or 1st century Gandhi type passive resistance leader? Or one of countless other notions?

A random cult leader who managed an unprecedented Sanhedrin meeting, a dramatic trial with Pilate (a high ranking legate of Rome with full vested powers from SPQR), that was missed by every relevant person. Those two notions divorced long ago, citing irreconcilable differences. Unless you believe he really was "the son of god" which, whether true or not, is not a historically supportable position.

Wait, wait wait wait. You don't think that history can arrive at truth? Obviously historians aren't omniscient, but you're saying "history just can't come to some conclusions." Then what's the point?

You misrepresent this as idle, or unverified assumption. It is not. It's the same assumption every (genuine) academic makes. There probably wasn't a mystical piper urging Caesar across the Rubicon, Romulus didn't disappear in a whirlwind, Ra doesn't force the sun across the sky.

Glad to know you're the arbiter of genuine academia

Genuine historians reject magic.

Why? Isn't the historian's job to arrive at truth? Shouldn't the historian follow the evidence wherever it leads?

Neither do historians exist in a scholarly vacuum (although it seems many of them think they do). They refer to the relevant fields of science. Otherwise we would still be living in the dark ages. If you could show that every relevant scientific observation ever made (in areas such as physics, biology, chemistry etc) was wrong, you might have a point. Then there would be no end end of mythical, magical figures that we would need to consider every bit as real.

Why do you need to show that *all* relevant scientific observations are false to entertain miracles? Miracles can't really exist *without* science, because a miracle is something that shouldn't happen according to scientific laws. Remove the scientific laws, and breaking them suddenly is no biggie.

Speaking of unverified assumptions...

a reply to: peter vlar

LMFAO

Your whole post is bull#. Literally bull#. I'm just going to call it like I see it from now on. You can't seperate your head from your ass long enough to consider the argument presented in the OP without bringing your own personal issues with a religion into a discussion of whether or not that religions founder actually existed.

You are comedic relief in how blind your hatred has made you. You are a walking parody of everything you detest.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

This must be like the tenth time you have lost all composure in the thread and lashed out with cheap ad-homs. At least it isn't a selfie middle finger this time.

He made some good points and you addressed none of them if that is representative of your faith then it is no wonder people don't buy into it or its fables.

Keep the faith and show the evidence.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You finally decided to reply to me directly? Too bad you couldn't do so on pages 1-3?

He hasn't made ONE good point because he has completely ignored the body of evidence presented not only in this thread, but elsewhere COMPLETELY. The same as you and your fellows have done throughout this thread. You are a population of bigots that can't see through your own bias long enough to address the actual evidence, and when it is presented in spades, you either ignore it completely, or twist it so as to shift the goal posts of what constitutes historical credibility.

I have had it with you people. You want to accuse me of losing my composure? Go for it. Who could blame me when the lot of you refuse simple facts that are given to you freely and yet you choose to concoct your own narratives simply because of your disdain for a religion?

You are the sorest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Worse even than the so called "Chrestians" you so detest.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are the sorest hypocrites I have ever encountered. Worse even than the so called "Chrestians" you so detest.

Meanwhile, we see amazing examples of repetitive intellectual dishonesty, ala Christian apologists, is still the mainstay in their attempt to prove the existence of their Jesus Christ.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I have responded to you so just stop lying. I stopped responding to you because you were losing your Schnitt. Your evidence is weak and has been called into question many as forgeries, but you and others take it on faith they are genuine.

If others don't take them on faith you resort to calling people bigots and other ad-homs which means your so called evidence is weak to begin with and you know it. The best you guys can produce is simply evidence of how the telephone game works which is pathetic.

You resort to the "woe is me" persecution complex like so many do while at the same time trying to belittle others.

You lost your composure and your credibility at pretty much the same time.

Credibility comes from presenting links to well-sourced information and evidence from sites that are not known for making stuff up.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The only feces I'm seeing or smelling is coming from you. I dont have any issues with Christians or Christianity in general. I simply don't believe in the religion. It's a great message when you clean the cobwebs off but the rest of the hokum is archaic and useless in the modern era. Just one mans opinion.

I have however, serious issues with people pushing an agenda and despite being able I support it beyond the realm of the circumstantial on the best of days because what they consider evidence from a professional point of view just isn't anywhere in the same realm.

I don't hate anyone, I save the hatred, bigotry and ignorance for you. You're much better and have more practice at it than I ever will. The simple fact that you become so hostile when confronted with the mass if inconsistencies and contradictions your precious faith is built upon is very telling in that it demonstrates the massive degree of cognitive disconnect involved in how you view yourself and your faith. Or rather, how lacking your faith is on an unconscious level otherwise you wouldn't become so unhinged when someone else points out the flaws which your unconscious mind seems to recognize despite your outward cognitive dissonance.

Good luck with all that.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What scrutiny? The scrutiny where you simply dismiss all evidence by claiming "it is made up"? Is that the sort of "scrutiny" you are talking about? Because so far that is obviously what you, and other mythicists in here are doing.

I have already shown the evidence that proves he did exist, and in that evidence it clearly shows which "Jesus" historians like Tacitus were talking about.

You, among some others want to claim that they could be referring to "any other Jesus", but what other "Jesus" was tortured in the manner Jesus Christ was. What other Jesus was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate, and that same Jesus founded the religion known as Christianity which was named after him? You still haven't proved that "any other Jesus" would fulfill those requirements to show which "Jesus" Tacitus, among others, was talking about.

originally posted by: babybunnies
The Romans were NOTORIOUS record keepers, and there is NO record of Jesus being tried, judged, or crucified.

Romans kept records of every little thing, and something of this importance would have been a major event.

Oh really?... Is that why there are barely any records of important Roman historical figures such as Pontius Pilate?...

originally posted by: babybunnies
There is also NO evidence of the holes that would have been required for crucifixion crosses on the mount, and until the first century, no accounting.

Really?... You count that as evidence?... That there was no hole kept open where the cross was planted?... Then show me evidence of ALL the holes of other crucifictions which the Romans were notorious for... Go ahead and show us...

originally posted by: babybunnies
There are also NO records of Jesus being anywhere in between his early life and his late 20's, no record at all of where he was educated.

Show us a record of where Pontius Pilate was educated... in fact, since you claim that "the Romans were notorious record keepers and recorded everything" show us an ancient Roman historical record from the time Pilate was born showing the exact date and time when he was born...

originally posted by: babybunnies
Indians, Chinese, and Persians were also all notorious record keepers and you can guarantee that someone claiming to be the Son of God would have been a pretty big event for any of them if he was attending one of their monastaries or schools.

Nope, not buying any part of the Jesus story.

Err...no, you are wrong yet again... First of all, Jesus Christ wasn't treated as an important person by the Romans, so why would the Chinese, or the Persians even write about him?... He was tortured and crucified as a criminal for crying out loud...

Whats more, let me show you how wrong you are... Show us the Chinese and Persian records that talk about Spartacus, the Thracian that led the slave rebellion.

We barely even have records of Pontius Pilate, an important figure to the pagan Romans, and you think there would be more records about Jesus who was treated as a criminal and crucified?

a reply to: windword

You know, you would think that "mythicists" would understand that Richard Carrier's claims are unfounded and false. The Romans themselves stated that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, was tortured and crucified under orders from Pontius Pilate.

How in the world would a sane person claim that "Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person"? How does any sane person believe such a claim when roman records state he did exist, founded Christianity, was tortured and crucified?

Only the most irrational minds would agree with the claims by "mythicists" like Richard Carrier.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What scrutiny? The scrutiny where you simply dismiss all evidence by claiming "it is made up"? Is that the sort of "scrutiny" you are talking about? Because so far that is obviously what you, and other mythicists in here are doing.

No. The scrutiny that throws a lot of doubt on your sources. With explanation you seem to overlook.

I have already shown the evidence that proves he did exist, and in that evidence it clearly shows which "Jesus" historians like Tacitus were talking about.

...and it is extremely poor (even doubtful) non contemporary evidence. It is "spurious" at best. A testament to pious forgery.

You, among some others want to claim that they could be referring to "any other Jesus", but what other "Jesus" was tortured in the manner Jesus Christ was. What other Jesus was crucified under order of Pontius Pilate, and that same Jesus founded the religion known as Christianity which was named after him? You still haven't proved that "any other Jesus" would fulfill those requirements to show which "Jesus" Tacitus, among others, was talking about.

No. I claim it wasn't originally even there. No early Christian references it, despite many scouring it looking for references to Jesus.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know, you would think that "mythicists" would understand that Richard Carrier's claims are unfounded and false. The Romans themselves stated that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, was tortured and crucified under orders from Pontius Pilate.

Not true. There not one single Roman historian of the time period that mentions Jesus of Nazareth.

How in the world would a sane person claim that "Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person"?

You tell me.

Galation1:11
Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.

..........

15 But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.

The gospel that Paul preached was NOT of HUMAN ORIGIN and he did NOT receive from any human being or any "apostles" that were before him.

Everything that Paul preached and taught came from the voice of an ethereal being, playing in his head, according to him!