Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-09-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am referring to the sources for Mark.

You don't see these sources as evidence that Mark was not writing history?

I just told you that I don't know what you're referring to and I'd need more details to judge. You haven't given any more details, so I still can't judge.

Do you recognize any dependence of Mark on the LXX?

Re: Josephus. Considering John the Baptist, the story of the 3 crucified individuals with one surviving, the story of the "woe to Jerusalem" Jesus, etc...

These types of sources.

J-D · 10-09-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I just told you that I don't know what you're referring to and I'd need more details to judge. You haven't given any more details, so I still can't judge.

Do you recognize any dependence of Mark on the LXX?

Re: Josephus. Considering John the Baptist, the story of the 3 crucified individuals with one surviving, the story of the "woe to Jerusalem" Jesus, etc...

These types of sources.

I don't know anything about them and am therefore not in a position to judge.

dog-on · 10-09-2009, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you recognize any dependence of Mark on the LXX?

Re: Josephus. Considering John the Baptist, the story of the 3 crucified individuals with one surviving, the story of the "woe to Jerusalem" Jesus, etc...

These types of sources.

I don't know anything about them and am therefore not in a position to judge.

Understood.

aa5874 · 10-09-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well the Pauline author gave reasons for the resurrection of Jesus in the text. According to the Pauline writer Jesus resurrected to save mankind from sin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, that's the answer to the in-story question. But it isn't the answer to the real-world question of what inspired the authors to write what they did.

ONLY the author can TRULY tell what inspired him. ALL THE ANSWERS about the reason for the text MUST come from the author, unless of course the author was a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Paul is the supposed writer in the Epistles, he is the one who wrote about the resurrection. He claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I know. So what?

So what you ask! PAUL WAS LYING. The writer called PAUL did not even live in the 1st century and would not be able to recognize Jesus since Jesus did not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paul must have been lying

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't see how you can know that he must have been lying. When people write things that are false, it is sometimes because they're lying, but it's sometimes because they're sincerely mistaken, and it's also sometimes because they write with the intention that what they write not be taken as fact. You haven't given any reason I can see for the conclusion that Paul must have been lying.

You have not shown that I am wrong. Saying I am wrong is just useless rhetoric for discussion purposes.

Paul claimed he saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that Jesus revealed information to him. Jesus did not exist. The writer called Paul did even exist in the first century. Paul must have been lying when Acts of the Apostles and the other Epistles are examined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

but he did give a reason for the resurrection in the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, the in-story reason. But that doesn't tell us why he wrote what he wrote. Even if you're right that he was lying, that doesn't tell us why he was lying.

Why do you think people lie? It is already known people lie to deceive unless you know of some other reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The reason must come from the author, he wrote the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In-story reasons for in-story actions can only come from authors, but the same is not true of reasons for authors' own real-world actions.

So, is it not THE AUTHOR himself that must give the reasons for his OWN REAL WORLD actions unless he was liar?

You can only speculate ad nauseam about the reasons for the text, but it MUST be the author who ultimately has the answers to the text unless he was a liar.

J-D · 10-09-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well the Pauline author gave reasons for the resurrection of Jesus in the text. According to the Pauline writer Jesus resurrected to save mankind from sin.

ONLY the author can TRULY tell what inspired him. ALL THE ANSWERS about the reason for the text MUST come from the author, unless of course the author was a liar.

In this case, none of the authors have told us truly what inspired them, so if the answer can only come from the authors then none of us know the answer--which is what I've been saying all along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So what you ask! PAUL WAS LYING.

As I said before, what he said was not true, but that does not necessarily mean he was lying. In some cases when people say what is not true they are lying and in other cases when people say what is not true they are sincerely mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The writer called PAUL did not even live in the 1st century and would not be able to recognize Jesus since Jesus did not exist.

I don't see how you can know that. You have not given any reasons for those conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have not shown that I am wrong. Saying I am wrong is just useless rhetoric for discussion purposes.

Once again you are not responding to what I said, but to something else. I did not say that you were wrong. I said that I did not see how you could know (which is true, because I don't) and that you had not given any reasons for your conclusions (which is true, because you haven't).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why do you think people lie? It is already known people lie to deceive unless you know of some other reason.

That's true enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. In this case, if the authors wanted to deceive people into believing that Jesus died and came back to life, the obvious question is 'Why did the authors want to deceive people into believing that Jesus died and came back to life?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In-story reasons for in-story actions can only come from authors, but the same is not true of reasons for authors' own real-world actions.

So, is it not THE AUTHOR himself that must give the reasons for his OWN REAL WORLD actions unless he was liar?

You can only speculate ad nauseam about the reasons for the text, but it MUST be the author who ultimately has the answers to the text unless he was a liar.

Yes, but in this instance the authors have not given us the reasons for their own real-world actions, and we don't know those reasons.

aa5874 · 10-09-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

ONLY the author can TRULY tell what inspired him. ALL THE ANSWERS about the reason for the text MUST come from the author, unless of course the author was a liar.

In this case, none of the authors have told us truly what inspired them, so if the answer can only come from the authors then none of us know the answer--which is what I've been saying all along.

No, not at all. You have not been saying what I said . You have said all along that you DON'T know the answer.

I AM TELLING YOU THAT the answer or explanation of the text MUST come from the author of the text unless the AUTHOR is a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

As I said before, what he said was not true, but that does not necessarily mean he was lying. In some cases when people say what is not true they are lying and in other cases when people say what is not true they are sincerely mistaken.

Once you read the Pauline Epistles, the Gospels, the Church writings, Josephus, Philo and Acts of the Apostles it will be easily noticed that the Pauline writer wrote back-dated fiction and was a liar.

The Pauline writer THAT claimed he saw Peter, James, and Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead, must be a liar. Peter, James and Jesus are all fictitious characters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't see how you can know that. You have not given any reasons for those conclusions.

What can you really see?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Once again you are not responding to what I said, but to something else. I did not say that you were wrong. I said that I did not see how you could know (which is true, because I don't) and that you had not given any reasons for your conclusions (which is true, because you haven't).

As I said before this is just useless rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That's true enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. In this case, if the authors wanted to deceive people into believing that Jesus died and came back to life, the obvious question is 'Why did the authors want to deceive people into believing that Jesus died and came back to life?'

What is this? Are you claiming that you don't know why people lie? This is extremely naive.

Do you think that the Pauline writer would write an Epistle which was canonised in which he confessed that he lied or attemtped to deceive people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, is it not THE AUTHOR himself that must give the reasons for his OWN REAL WORLD actions unless he was liar?

You can only speculate ad nauseam about the reasons for the text, but it MUST be the author who ultimately has the answers to the text unless he was a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, but in this instance the authors have not given us the reasons for their own real-world actions, and we don't know those reasons.

NO, it is not "WE", it is YOU that don't know the reasons.

In the case of Paul, I have deduced that he was a liar and that he wrote the text about the resurrection to deceive.

TimBowe · 10-13-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

In the case of Paul, I have deduced that he was a liar and that he wrote the text about the resurrection to deceive.

Yea, I think so to.

Doug Shaver · 10-14-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the case of Paul, I have deduced that he was a liar

I have often seen you assert that he was a liar. I have never seen you deduce it.

aa5874 · 10-14-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the case of Paul, I have deduced that he was a liar

I have often seen you assert that he was a liar. I have never seen you deduce it.

It is possible that you are wrong.

Perhaps you don't know what are "deductions" and therefore cannot see them

What can you see or remember?

Rick Sumner · 10-14-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Not really. Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier are big names I can think of that support, to some extent, the a-historicity of Jesus.

Well, to be fair that isn't quite what Price says, and Carrier isn't exactly a "big name" just yet, though I'm sure he has a bright future.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.