Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

And I could've sworn I read more than once Paul indicating that the Jews did not believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah.

You can search online texts of the Bible for specific references. Otherwise, it is hard to know what you are talking about - Paul in his relatively authentic letters? Pseudo-Paul in a forged letter? The character Saul in Acts? And what did "the Jews" not believe?

For example, when he says the crucified Christ is a stumbling block for the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1.

What did he mean by "stumbling block"?

MCalavera · 08-31-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Not when combined with the lack of contemporary evidence of the opposing Jews denying the existence of Jesus and many other factors.

Contemporary?
With WHAT?

Not contemporary with Jesus - the JMT says there was not Jesus in history.

Not contemporary with Paul - Paul says nothing clearly historical about a Jesus that could be challenged.

Contemporary with the Gospels? Which DO have historical claims that could be challenged. But they only arose over a CENTURY after the alleged Jesus - after two wars with the Romans had trashed everyone and everything.

Please explain exactly WHO and WHEN could have denied Jesus?
Because no Jew heard the story till long long afterwards.

And HOW?
How could some person living a CENTURY after the alleged Jesus actually know he didn't exist? How? Only by knowing every person and every thing that ever happened in that whole period! Completely impossible.

K.

Your questions are ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as asking how could God have not been supporting me when I passed the final exams and graduated from high school.

You really need to stop following every word Doherty says, Kapyong. <edit>

Steven Carr · 08-31-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

For example, when he says the crucified Christ is a stumbling block for the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1.

What did he mean by "stumbling block"?

Presumably he meant he could say that a crucified criminal was the Son of God and the agent through whom God created the world and not be immediately stoned to death for blasphemy.

Although Paul was persecuted over preaching that circumcision was not necessary, which rather proves how little controversy his Jesus stirred up.

Paul also asks about the Jews.

'How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? '

No wonder there were Christians like Peter and James in Jerusalem. Somebody had to tell the Jews in Jerusalem about this Jesus they had never heard of.

Or how else could Jews be expected to believe in Jesus?

Toto · 09-01-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can search online texts of the Bible for specific references. Otherwise, it is hard to know what you are talking about - Paul in his relatively authentic letters? Pseudo-Paul in a forged letter? The character Saul in Acts? And what did "the Jews" not believe?

For example, when he says the crucified Christ is a stumbling block for the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1.

What did he mean by "stumbling block"?

biblos

Quote:

The word "stumbling-block" (σκάνδαλον skandalon) means properly anything in the way over which one may fall; then anything that gives offence, or that causes one to fall into sin. Here it means that to the Jews, the doctrine that the Messiah was to be crucified gave great offence; excited, irritated, and exasperated them; that they could not endure the doctrine, and treated it with scorn.

It was the idea that a crucified criminal might be the Messaiah that was the offense. Whether Jesus existed would have been irrelevant to the feelings of offense.

spin · 09-01-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

<edit for consistency>.

You are insulting a member of this forum. That is not nice or wise.

aa5874 · 09-01-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

To look at this from another angle, if the ancients thought that their gods walked on earth, we don't take this as evidence that their gods were "historical" in modern terms, or that there were historical people behind the myths. So if the gospel writers thought that Jesus walked on earth, does this have any implications for the historicity of Jesus? Somehow I don't think it means that Jesus was actually historical.

Sorry to butt in, but yes, that's obviously true.

Not sure where it takes us, but it's true, as far as I can see.

Edit: But anyway, isn't Gakuseidon's point that there are no analogies for someone being (or should I say described as or believed to have been) descended from a human and yet being only spiritual?

Exactly so. And I agree with Toto. Hercules and Moses were thought to have been on earth, but we have no problem with the idea that they were mythical. If Paul thought that Jesus lived several hundred years before (as proposed by Wells, for example) then that would be one thing. But the combination of Paul arguably regarding Jesus as someone on earth and in Paul's recent past by itself is powerful evidence towards historicity. Not certainty by any means, but powerful nonetheless.

Well, your claim is POWERFULLY destroyed by the Pauline writings.

"Paul" was preaching the faith since the time of King Aretas and STATED that he was NOT the apostle of a man, and did NOT get his Gospel from man.

This is very POWERFUL evidence against you from "Paul".

"Paul" in the epistles remembered that Jesus had the FORM of God and was EQUAL to God.

Php 2:6 -

Quote:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God..

The most powerful witness for a non-historical Jesus is "Paul".

MCalavera · 09-01-2011, 12:24 AM

Doug Shaver · 09-01-2011, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

For example, Paul describes Christ as 'the seed of David'. Anyone seeing that would take it to mean that Paul believed Christ was born on earth

Yes, they would, in today's intellectual climate.

What do you know about the intellectual climate of the first-century Mideast that would compel Paul's readers to take it that way?

Kapyong · 09-01-2011, 12:38 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,
Contemporary?
With WHAT?
Not contemporary with Jesus - the JMT says there was not Jesus in history.
Not contemporary with Paul - Paul says nothing clearly historical about a Jesus that could be challenged.
Contemporary with the Gospels? Which DO have historical claims that could be challenged. But they only arose over a CENTURY after the alleged Jesus - after two wars with the Romans had trashed everyone and everything.
Please explain exactly WHO and WHEN could have denied Jesus?
Because no Jew heard the story till long long afterwards.
And HOW?
How could some person living a CENTURY after the alleged Jesus actually know he didn't exist? How? Only by knowing every person and every thing that ever happened in that whole period! Completely impossible.

K.

Your questions are ridiculous.

In fact - my questions show your argument is ridiculous - which is why you won't answer them.

You argued that contemporary Jews should have denied Jesus existed.
I asked you WHEN would Jesus be denied ?
I asked you WHO would deny Jesus ?
I asked you HOW could anyone deny Jesus ?

Of course you failed to answer these questions, as usual.
Because you must realise how they demolish your silly argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You really need to stop following every word Doherty says, Kapyong.

What silly nonsense - every post of yours amounts to the same empty rhetoric.

In this case my comments are NOT from Doherty at all - they are based on PAUL !

Paul does NOT say anything that could be denied as not historical - which is why you repeatedly refuse to even face this question.

Historical claims about Jesus did not became known until early-mid 2nd century - which is why you cannot cite any such passage in early writers that would have been challenged.

You're wasting your time and ours - will you ever address the issues? Or is attacking people all you've got to offer ?

It sure looks like it.

K.

Kapyong · 09-01-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are insulting a member of this forum. That is not nice or wise.

Indeed.

Can we have MCalavera suspended please?
It's clear he has nothing but insults to offer.

K.

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

09-01-2011, 12:24 AM	#327
MCalavera Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 314	<removed>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.