Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lmbarre · 02-11-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

As I stated, I find gMark to be a mixture of historical fact (Jesus was crucified as a messianc pretender)

The beginning of your problems.

There is no solid evidence by which anyone could ever reach this position as being a statement of a historical fact.
It is a position arrived at, and held only by persuasions of faith.

It sounds like you are saying that it is impossible to reach a conclusion that something is a historical fact or more specifically, that regarding Jesus' crucifixion, it is impossible to make a historical judgment regarding this alleged event.

Solo · 02-11-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

1.18 to 2.1 -- the verses that refer to the first trip of Paul. The THEM in 2.2 can only refer back to 1.17.

Vorkosigan

Thank you for the clarification. So here is the text with the alleged interpolation.

1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life26 in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it. 1:14 I27 was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation,28 and was29 extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.30 1:15 But when the one31 who set me apart from birth32 and called me by his grace was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son in33 me so that I could preach him34 among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from35 any human being,36 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem37 to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia,38 and then returned to Damascus.

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem39 to visit Cephas40 and get information from him,41 and I stayed with him fifteen days. 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles42 except James the Lord’s brother. 1:20 I assure you43 that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you!44 1:21 Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 1:22 But I was personally45 unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 1:23 They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news46 of the faith he once tried to destroy.” 1:24 So47 they glorified God because of me.48 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem1 again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too.

2:2 I went there2 because of3 a revelation and presented4 to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so5 only in a private meeting with the influential people,6 to make sure that I was not running – or had not run7 – in vain. 2:3 Yet8 not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 2:4 Now this matter arose9 because of the false brothers with false pretenses10 who slipped in unnoticed to spy on11 our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves.12 2:5 But13 we did not surrender to them14 even for a moment,15 in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.16

I note that the theme of Paul's persecution mentioned in the insertion (1:23) is also found in the preceding context (1:13-14), thereby indicating that there is not an interpolation present.

You might find it useful to consult Detering directly than going at it bit by bit. Here is the analysis of Galatians that Vorkosigan refers to:

http://www.hermann-detering.de/DetGalExpl.pdf

Detering believes (with a good reason) that 1:13-14 was written into Galatians later also.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 02-11-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

I am not arguing for historicity of Paul, but rather am asking for a clarification of what the author (whoever that was) meant by the reference to the "pillars."

It MUST first be ascertained when Paul of the Canon met those "pillars". Did he LIVE in the third century and falsely claim he was living in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

The characters called Paul, the Apostles and Jesus of Nazareth are NOT known outside the Bible and were NOT mentioned by any non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

You seem to FORGET that the NT is an unreliable source and WITHOUT corroboration by non-apologetic sources.

I PRESUME NOTHING in the Canon is historical unless there is corroborative evidence.

I have found corroborative evidence for Pontius Pilate, King Herod, and Tiberius but NOTHING for Paul, Jesus and the Apostles.

aa5874 · 02-11-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

How do folks explain the reputation of John, Peter and James as "pillars?" What did this mean and how did these men gain their status?

2:9 and when James, Cephas,29 and John, who had a reputation as30 pillars,31 recognized32 the grace that had been given to me . . .

Why do you CONSTANTLY presume the Pauline writings are historically reliable? I make ZERO presumptions about the historical credibility of the Pauline writer.

Please, please, please!!! You MUST first establish the ACTUAL historicity of the Pauline writer. Can you do that??

Just do it.

There is ZERO corroboration for the historicity of Paul in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

You can't do it.

What do you mean by "corroboration?"

Once you INTRODUCE the Pauline writer as evidence then I am OBLIGATED to cross-exam the evidence for credibility, historical reliability, and veracity.

Your Evidence under the name of Paul is WORTHLESS.

No credible source of antiquity EYE-BALLED Paul and NO author of the Entire Canon used his Revealed Teachings from the resurrected Jesus.

Paul appears to be a fraud.

He MUST have lived in another century and under a different name.

Even the Church claimed he was ALIVE when gLuke was ALREADY written but he was supposed to be ALREADY dead since c 64 CE.

Please don't tell me anything about Paul from the 1st century unless you have corroborative evidence.

Sheshbazzar · 02-11-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

As I stated, I find gMark to be a mixture of historical fact (Jesus was crucified as a messianc pretender)

The beginning of your problems.

There is no solid evidence by which anyone could ever reach this position as being a statement of a historical fact.
It is a position arrived at, and held only by persuasions of faith.

It sounds like you are saying that it is impossible to reach a conclusion that something is a historical fact or more specifically, that regarding Jesus' crucifixion, it is impossible to make a historical judgment regarding this alleged event.

There are hundreds of thousands of things that are evidenced and corroborated verifiable historical facts.
The tall-tale of the alleged birth, life, death, and alleged resurrection of zombie Jeebus is not one of them.

Religious men are prone to offer their bull-shit pronouncements and 'judgments' about a lot of things, and prove themselves to be both ignorant and wrong more often and not.

You will find that few here will be impressed with the claims of religionists making these so called 'historical judgments'.
The Pope also offers his 'historical judgment' Do you submit yourself to his judgment?
Mohammad and Islam also offer their 'historical judgment' Do you submit yourself to their 'historical judgments' and claims? We simply find yours to be just as asinine.

.

lmbarre · 02-11-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

As I stated, I find gMark to be a mixture of historical fact (Jesus was crucified as a messianc pretender)

The beginning of your problems.

There is no solid evidence by which anyone could ever reach this position as being a statement of a historical fact.
It is a position arrived at, and held only by persuasions of faith.

It sounds like you are saying that it is impossible to reach a conclusion that something is a historical fact or more specifically, that regarding Jesus' crucifixion, it is impossible to make a historical judgment regarding this alleged event.

There are hundreds of thousands of things that are evidenced and corroborated verifiable historical facts.
The tall-tale of the alleged birth, life, death, and alleged resurrection of zombie Jeebus is not one of them.

Religious men are prone to offer their bull-shit pronouncements and 'judgments' about a lot of things, and prove themselves to be both ignorant and wrong more often and not.

You will find that few here will be impressed with the claims of religionists making these so called 'historical judgments'.
The Pope also offers his 'historical judgment' Do you submit yourself to his judgment?
Mohammad and Islam also offer their 'historical judgment' Do you submit yourself to their 'historical judgments' and claims? We simply find yours to be just as asinine.

.

Are you thinking that I am religious? I am not. I am not "submitting" to any sort of religious "authority."

To what historical judgments or claims are you referring?

aa5874 · 02-11-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

Are you thinking that I am religious? I am not. I am not "submitting" to any sort of religious "authority."

To what historical judgments or claims are you referring?

You are submitting to the Word of God--the Bible--the "Most Holy" authoritative source for the Church when you KNOW and can show that the Bible is NOT historically reliable.

Why???? Why???? Do you want people, just like the Pope, to ACCEPT what you say WITHOUT a shred of evidence???

You are OBLIGATED, unllike the Pope, to PROVIDE EVIDENCE and corroboration for Jesus, Paul and the Apostles.

The days of PRESUMPTIONS are OVER.

This is the 21 st century.

The author of gMark NEVER claimed he was writing historical accounts of Jesus and the Apostles and NOT one author in the NT Canon ever claimed or corroborated that Paul wrote a single letter to a Church.

Why do you PRESUME Paul wrote letters when NOT even his supposed contemporary, the author of Acts, ever made such a claim?

You seem to BELIEVE the Bible is an authoritative source for Paul and Jesus.

It is most fascinating that Non-Christians now BELIEVE parts of the BIBLE and do so WITHOUT a shred of evidence while simultaneously admit the Bible is NOT historically reliable.

lmbarre · 02-11-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[/QUOTE=barre;7068511]
Are you thinking that I am religious? I am not. I am not "submitting" to any sort of religious "authority."

To what historical judgments or claims are you referring?

Quote:

You are submitting to the Word of God--the Bible--the "Most Holy" authoritative source for the Church when you KNOW and can show that the Bible is NOT historically reliable.

But I do not think that the Bible is "Holy." I seek to interpret these writings as I would any ancient document whether they be Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian Assyrian, Hittite, Israelite, Greek, Latin and so on.

I am uncomfortable when people talk of the Bible as some sort of unified body of work. The Bible is actually a collection of several writings. which should be critically researched individually. So I become uncomfortable when people make blanket statements about the Bible like, "the Bible is or is not historically reliable, that the Bible is "Holy, inerrant or whatever.

aa5874 · 02-11-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

But I do not think that the Bible is "Holy." I seek to interpret these writings as I would any ancient document whether they be Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian Assyrian, Hittite, Israelite, Greek, Latin and so on.

I am uncomfortable when people talk of the Bible as some sort of unified body of work. The Bible is actually a collection of several writings. which should be critically researched individually. So I become uncomfortable when people make blanket statements about the Bible like, "the Bible is or is not historically reliable, that the Bible is "Holy, inerrant or whatever.

You appear to be completely naive. I am uncomfortable when people appear to be naive and are arguing that gMark and the Pauline writings are historically accurate WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Scholars will tell you that the Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are historically unreliable.

It is the CONSENSUS among Scholars, MJers, HJers and Agnostics that the NT is historically Unreliable.

This is Bart Ehrman in a debate on the Resurrection with William Craig

Quote:

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.

These are not historically reliable accounts.

The authors were not eyewitnesses; they're Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate.

The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades.

Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead.

These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years.

Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed.

For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes.

They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent.

See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

lmbarre · 02-11-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[/QUOTE=barre;7068545]
But I do not think that the Bible is "Holy." I seek to interpret these writings as I would any ancient document whether they be Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian Assyrian, Hittite, Israelite, Greek, Latin and so on.

I am uncomfortable when people talk of the Bible as some sort of unified body of work. The Bible is actually a collection of several writings. which should be critically researched individually. So I become uncomfortable when people make blanket statements about the Bible like, "the Bible is or is not historically reliable, that the Bible is "Holy, inerrant or whatever.

You appear to be completely naive. I am uncomfortable when people appear to be naive and are arguing that gMark and the Pauline writings are historically accurate WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Scholars will tell you that the Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are historically unreliable.

It is the CONSENSUS among Scholars, MJers, HJers and Agnostics that the NT is historically Unreliable.

This is Bart Ehrman in a debate on the Resurrection with William Craig

Quote:

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.

These are not historically reliable accounts.

The authors were not eyewitnesses; they're Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate.

The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades.

Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead.

These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years.

Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed.

For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes.

They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent.

Agreed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.