What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
146 Comments
- Indyanna, on 06/29/2009, -24/+54fta: "St Paul was a Roman Jew, born in Tarsus in modern-day Turkey, who started out persecuting Christians but later became one of the greatest influences in the Church."
Wrong. He did not later become one of the greatest influences in the "Church."
In situations like these, the meaning of "Church" (when capitalized) refers to the Roman Catholic Church. Paul was not a Roman Catholic. There was no "Catholic Church" Roman or otherwise for at least 400 years after he died.
The Roman Catholic Church is the original inventor of historical revisionism, claiming for itself Peter and Paul as its founders in order to legitimize its many non-biblical teachings and (just as importantly) its influence/power in the world.
If Peter or Paul had known that their names would be tied to false teachings regarding such as the sacraments (esp. transubstantiation), the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary (that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit just as Jesus was), the need for a priest for the forgiveness of sins, infant baptism, the office of pope and a church hierarchy, papal infallibility....it's a long list...anyway, they would NOT have been happy campers.
How do I know? It is evident from Paul's and Peter's writings: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and 1 & 2 Peter.
Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church know this? They do, which is why they put as much or more emphasis on what they call "Church tradition" as they do on Scripture. If they based their teachings only on Scripture, there would be no Roman Catholic Church.
BTW, I say this as a born-and-raised, church-going Catholic for the first 25 years of my life - including parochial school and a bachelor's degree from a Catholic college. - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+24Wow, okay really?
I get it, you don't follow Christian beliefs. But you can't deny Paul was a person. There is tax record from Damascus, he was a historical figure.
You can deny that he was right, or contend that he was just crazy. That's a more plausible argument.
Now, for the fresco... did you read the article? It was in the catacomb of a follower of Paul. It follows all the other fresco styles of Paul from the period. Artists and historians alike would think you an uneducated oaf for making such quick and harsh judgements. Go read a book, then come back to the discussion and contribute more than harsh snaps and unthought criticisms. - rocknog, on 06/29/2009, -3/+21When talking about Christianity before the establishment of organized denominations, the Church is used to refer to early Christianity on the whole, not the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
- serif69, on 06/29/2009, -4/+21St. Paul is, in my estimation, the single most influential author in human history. Whether or not you believe in Christianity, there is no denying his influence on untold millions of people.
- highwebl, on 06/29/2009, -1/+14They were probably working from a photograph.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+14It depends. Certainly, Paul was instrumental in the development of Christianity, even world history, and was probably more influential than Jesus. Why? Because he took a Jewish, heretical sect and realised that it's message of salvation could be applied to more than just the Jewish people. By preaching his message to Romans, Christianity ceased to be a variant of Judaism.
- Lucas123, on 06/29/2009, -7/+17"He did not know Jesus in life but converted to Christianity after seeing a light on the road to Damascus and spent much of his life travelling and preaching."
errr ... the light on the road to Damascus was Jesus as clearly stated in the book of Acts. And in Paul's letter to the church at Galatia in Turkey, Jesus revealed the gospel to him.
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". (Galatians 1:11,12) - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -2/+12this thing was created 400 years after his death. How accurate do you think it could possibly be?
- Moisgreat, on 06/29/2009, -6/+16That is a picture of his brother Carl.
- JGuest, on 06/29/2009, -4/+12"In situations like these, the meaning of "Church" (when capitalized) refers to the Roman Catholic Church."
Semantics.... How do you know what they were referring to? If they were just referring to the church in general then the article would be right wouldn't it? Either way the article is right since both Roman Catholics and other churches use the Bible as a primary source, and since Paul wrote about half the new testament I'd say that's a pretty great influence.... - IMTheSupervisor, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9As a Minnesota resident, I approve of this story on Digg.
- SolitaireRose, on 06/29/2009, -4/+12Where's the earliest image of Minneapolis?
- mysticalone, on 06/29/2009, -8/+16Are you sure? I could have sworn the disciples were white american citizens, but the "painting" shows he's a middle eastern terrorist which makes me believe it is fake.
Btw for all you asians. Santa Claus is white.
/s - appleofdischord, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9Santa Claus is actually Turkish. (I noted the sarcasm, but I still think it's an interesting tidbit.)
- NMRgentleman, on 06/29/2009, -2/+10You know, given the influence Paul has had on Western civilization, you should probably know about the guy no matter who you are.
- halfabean, on 06/29/2009, -7/+14yes it is.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8You cared enough to post a comment about how you don't care?
Lose your job lately? - nullvector, on 06/29/2009, -1/+7And his son was the long lost founder of Carl's Jr.
- Smokeydabear, on 06/29/2009, -2/+8I wish I could grow a beard like that.
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6The word "church" has several meanings, including a) the corporate body of believers (all Christians), b) a specific building used by Christians, or c) the members of a local congregation.
Rocknog's use is correct. - kittymeow, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6Actually, the Codex Sinaiticus was the oldest assembled copy of the New Testament. Seperate books were written earlier and not assembled as a whole until later. Coincidentally, the earliest work in the New Testament was written by Paul dated some 60-100 years after Jesus.
- macmcraeart, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6on top of that - artists weren't at all concerned with recreating images from life back then.
- l034me, on 06/29/2009, -3/+9Here is the earliest photo I can find of St. Paul.
http://www.artsconnected.org/media/f3/3b/8549f6582 ... - kittymeow, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5Not as badass as Peter who was crucified upside down. Now that is metal.
- psychomichael, on 06/29/2009, -0/+5No job ... summer break from the sixth grade.
- zoomaKabu, on 06/29/2009, -5/+10Lighten up Francis
- otterp, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6Right on with the false teachings part. There is no fruit in forcing a specific interpretation of the way in which sacraments work. The capital-C church referring to the Roman Catholic Church however, was probably learned at your parochial school. When you consider the context in which the NT authors are speaking, and that capitalization was often determined by context during translation, the capital-C church usually refers to to universal church of all believers at that time and sometimes going forward.
- covertbadger, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6You haven't proven him wrong, so I don't think it'll make much difference.
- AlexanderCurtis, on 06/29/2009, -5/+10Um guy, Jesus didn't exactly live in the age of twitter and digg. Given that he died as a criminal on a cross it is quite amazing that there is any mention of him at all in history. There is more mentions of him by Jewish, Greek, and Roman sources than some Kings and royalty.
Something tells me you didn't look too much into this at all. - Nice2BHere, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6400 years ago, the Mayflower hadn't even arrived in America. That's how long 400 years is...duh...and that supposed pic of St. Paul was done "only" 400 years after his death? Why do people get excited about how "close" it was to Jesus' time? That makes it accurate?
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5@depro9
A mother joke.? lol. And there I was thinking you were intelligent enough to have had a job in the first place. Silly me. - pinkfish411, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4If there was no "church" for at least 400 hundred years after Paul's death, then how could someone like St. Cyprian write, in the early 200s, that "outside the church there is no salvation"? Why, in Acts and other places in the NT, do we already have a single church, the church at Jerusalem, making decisions (under Paul's influence) that would impact how churches handled the conversion of Gentiles all around the Greco-Roman world? Why do we have ecumenical councils being conducted in the 300s, developing creeds that are still in use by Christians to this day?
Early Christianity was diverse, for sure. You're absolutely right about that. But you're absolutely wrong to suggest that there was no "proto-orthodox" (as the scholars often call it) stream within the early church that won the day and became the Christianity to be carried on through the middle ages to the present. This isn't just Roman Catholicism, but the capital-C "Church" doesn't just refer to Roman Catholicism, anyway. It refers to the "church universal," which is what this proto-orthodox Christianity seems to have thought it was from much earlier back than you suggest. Just because you had some Gnostics and other groups in early Christianity doesn't mean that those in the proto-orthodox stream didn't differentiate themselves from them.
And for the record, Paul probably didn't write half the letters you ascribe to him; they were written by his disciples. - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4This is a pretty amazing find. It's remarkable how much fascinating stuff archaeologists are still turning up.
- gl77, on 06/29/2009, -2/+6only on Digg.
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5stored on some sort of archival DAT tape
- kingofinternet, on 06/29/2009, -6/+10looks nothing like him.
- mksmothers, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5lol Josephus! Like that isn't an obvious forgery!
- schmidt349, on 06/29/2009, -2/+6What I still haven't figured out is why Paul's letters are taken as the word of God in most denominations of Christianity. He wasn't God or an incarnation of God and there are literally dozens of Church Fathers from antiquity whose writings are extant in whole or in part. Why does Paul get to tango but not Clement of Alexandria or Justin Martyr or Augustine or Irenaeus or any of the many, many others?
- Hockey13, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5It is an historical source that suggests he might have existed. The Bible also suggests that Jesus could turn water into wine and that an old Jewish guy parted the Red Sea by channeling God. These claims lead to the dubious status of the Bible as a reliable source. There are other contemporary texts that do suggest that existed as well. In light of these more reputable sources, Jesus probably existed, but it's impossible to tell for sure.
- exscind, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4By Christian belief, the actual selection and canonization of Scriptures was conducted by the apostles under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit.
Biblically, Paul is considered an apostle because, like the 12, he spent time learning directly from Christ. In the book of Acts, he's confronted by God on the Road to Damascus, then spends time with Christ while fasting in the desert. - craigly, on 06/29/2009, -11/+14From: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. - otterp, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5I have seen this exact comment before... Oh, hi foxifiednazi!
- freshyill, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5***** FINALLY. Everybody always comes to me and says "look at how old this image of St. Paul is," and I'm like "***** you, that thing's not old at all. You're not my friend anymore." Now we FINALLY have an actually old image of St. Paul, so I can tell all those ***** with pictures that are only like 1550 years old to go to hell. ***** jerks.
- TheHIV, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5Buried for the polluting of the English language.
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3I don't think you see significant use of shading in art until some time in the late Middle Ages.
- Shadwell, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3For a fascinating take on the man in this photo, read the Man In White. A very well researched book by the late Johnny Cash. It moved me beyond words. It unfortunately is out of print, but easily available used.
- frysun, on 06/29/2009, -4/+7Yep, if you stare hard through the pixelization you can see on the left is his faint autograph. /s
If it were questioned to be authentic, would there not be a better picture than an enlarged thumbnail to share? - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Just curious... are you still a Christian?
I agree with your views of most of those things (save for the Virgin Birth of Christ, which was prophesied in the old testament). I'm curious where you stand today. - covertbadger, on 06/29/2009, -5/+8Unconvincing. The Bible is NOT a trustworthy source, no matter what Christian websites like to claim. Josephus' account is seriously compromised and most believe it to be a fake. The passage is not recognisably his style, the surrounding paragraphs flow better with the paragraph removed (indicating it was probably inserted later), and early references to the work do not mention the passage at all. The Babylonian Talmus was not written down until the 5th Century - until then it was an oral history, a five-hundred year long game of Chinese Whispers. Pliny the Younger and Lucian were discussing Christians and their beliefs, not Jesus himself. The existence of Christians is not in question.
In other words, there is not one single contemporary and trustworthy account of Jesus, though the historical records of other figures of the era are abundant. Believe in him if you must, but don't waste your time brandishing manipulated evidence and oral histories written down after tens of generations. - rkthoadan, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4I think he must have this text on a hotkey or something. Last time I replied, this time I'm just digging him down as a dupe.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 