Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-10-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

..

As to when Paul thinks Jesus was crucified, well it would have to have been in the life times of the apostles since Paul thinks they saw Jesus three days after the resurrection.

He does?

1 Cor 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,

Paul (or the interpolator) recites this as a creed. It's not that clear that the appearances were close in time after the raising. Nothing else locates Jesus in the recent past.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-10-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You didn't answer my question regarding when Paul said Jesus was crucified. Until you do, all claims of anachronism are mute.

I did answer the question. He said it happened in the lifetime of the Apostles, and it had to have happened when those apostles were adults (presumably, they were not infants when they saw Jesus three days after the crucifixion).

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-10-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

..

As to when Paul thinks Jesus was crucified, well it would have to have been in the life times of the apostles since Paul thinks they saw Jesus three days after the resurrection.

He does?

1 Cor 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,

Paul (or the interpolator) recites this as a creed. It's not that clear that the appearances were close in time after the raising. Nothing else locates Jesus in the recent past.

Except that he had living brothers.

aa5874 · 06-10-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Except that he had living brothers.

Except that you have NOT established the veracity, historical accuracy and date of authorship of the Pauline writings.

You very well know that you if the Pauline writings cannot be corroborated that they are WORTHLESS.

I do NOT accept that the Pauline writings were composed before the 1st century and you have ZERO evidence for the Paul.

Your Presumptions DON'T make much sense.

All the NT Manuscripts that have been dated suggest that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the 1st century.

The Pauline writings are sources of Fiction.

Toto · 06-10-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He does?

1 Cor 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,

Paul (or the interpolator) recites this as a creed. It's not that clear that the appearances were close in time after the raising. Nothing else locates Jesus in the recent past.

Except that he had living brothers.

Based on a dubious reading of an ambiguous phrase.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-10-2012, 08:08 PM

It's actually a plain reading. There's no reason to read those references as non-literal except to support an a priori assumption that Jesus couldn't have been a real person.

Toto · 06-10-2012, 08:16 PM

Don't impugn others' motives.

Brother of Jesus in the flesh would be relatively unambiguous. Brother of the Lord is ambiguous.

In any case, a very thin thread to rest your case on.

Grog · 06-10-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

As a matter of fact, you can find stuff online blaming Israel for the invasion of Iraq, or for any number of other things that even those kinds of websites do not intend to be taken in the most literal way.

Your analogy doesn't quite work because, in fact, those websites don't says that "Israel invaded Iraq" or that the "Jews invaded Iraq." They might say Israel caused the war to happen, or engineered it, but they don't actually say literally that "Israel invaded Iraq." So your analogy doesn't quite work.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-10-2012, 08:30 PM

I bet I could find some place on the net saying Israel or the Jews invaded Iraq, but I'd have to wear a HAZMAT suit to look for it.

spin · 06-10-2012, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You didn't answer my question regarding when Paul said Jesus was crucified. Until you do, all claims of anachronism are mute.

I did answer the question. He said it happened in the lifetime of the Apostles, and it had to have happened when those apostles were adults (presumably, they were not infants when they saw Jesus three days after the crucifixion).

Do I need to guess what you are referring to? I really don't feel we need to re-invent the wheel.

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

06-10-2012, 08:08 PM	#56
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It's actually a plain reading. There's no reason to read those references as non-literal except to support an a priori assumption that Jesus couldn't have been a real person.

06-10-2012, 08:16 PM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Don't impugn others' motives. Brother of Jesus in the flesh would be relatively unambiguous. Brother of the Lord is ambiguous. In any case, a very thin thread to rest your case on.

06-10-2012, 08:30 PM	#59
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I bet I could find some place on the net saying Israel or the Jews invaded Iraq, but I'd have to wear a HAZMAT suit to look for it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.