razlyubleno

Obviously I'd never claim anything but my own impression. Paul very clearly considers himself to be an apostle, in my very own humble opinion. And also in my very own humble opinion, Paul considers Peter to be the same kind of apostle that he (Paul) is. Which is to say, Paul (in my very own humble opinion) doesn't think of Peter as being one of the twelve disciples that Jesus chose in the gospel accounts. Peter the Apostle, is not Peter the disciple of Jesus to whom Jesus told parables and who denied Jesus 3 times. To Paul, he is just "Peter, an apostle, just like me."

What you mean by "apostle" is not what Paul meant by "apostle." This much is quite obvious, since Paul considered himself an apostle, whereas you don't think so at all. We are not talking about what your own personal definition of "apostle" is. We are talking here about what Paul's definition was.

razly

aa5874

So, what makes your humble opinion of value without any supporting information. I do not deal with humble opinions unless you can provide proof or supporting information.

I would be not on this board if all I had was humble opinions.


But I just showed you "Church History"1.22.2, the passage is from Eusebius not from me. I did not personally define anything in the passage.

Look at Church History 1.12.22.
It is clear that Cephas is one of the seventy disciple and another person called the apostle Peter, unless you have another humble opinion.

razlyubleno

You misrepresent me. My humble opinion is based on the supporting evidence. It is humble, because I am a skeptical empiricist and I don't believe that very much is as certain as you think it is. And it is my opinion because it is one of many interpretations, but one that I happen to agree with.

All you have are opinions and a deluge of data that fail to support those opinions. But you're right... there's nothing humble about them; they are stated with the utmost confidence, even though you are basically just stealing the word "apostle," redefining it, and inserting that newly-invented word into Paul's mouth as if he would have cared about your definition of "apostle."

razly

aa5874

You have just given your unsupported humble opinion again.

You claim I am stealing the word "apostle" when I have quoted the pasage directly from "Church History" by Eusebius.

And you make this ridiculous claim even though this is the second time I have quoted the passage.

Look at the passage again, where did I steal the word apostle?


Church History 1.12.22.

Jeremy D

Well, uhhh... regardless of each of your respective levels of humility, am I reading you right that both of your versions support the view that Jesus was not a historical person?

aa5874

And not only Jesus, but also his twelve disciples were fiction. Plus "Paul" was a fiction writer who lived long after the death of Nero, even past the writings of Justin Martyr.

There are no historical non-apologetic records of these characters before the death of Nero.

Doug Shaver

I agree with Richard Carrier that the movie has more value as entertainment than as scholarship.

As for the point Flemming made about Paul vs the gospels, the answers are all over the place because it really is anomalous from the conventional viewpoint. I've read stuff by heavy-duty scholars who don't begin to question Jesus' historicity but admit flat-out that Paul's silence about his earthly existence is well-nigh inexplicable.

aa5874

The writer Paul exhibits major problems both of history and veracity.

The writer's claim of revelations from Jesus in a resurrected state can hardly be true, but what was revealed is also incredible.

The writer propagated that Jesus was raised from dead after the third day and without this resurrection the whole world would not be saved but still remain in their sins.

Now, if Jesus did live he could have only been human and, based on the NT, he was executed for blasphemy.

How did a blasphemer become the Saviour of the whole world within a very short time after his execurion?

Only by revelation. Never by reality in any century.