Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chrisengland · 02-15-2008, 01:29 PM

Isn't it very likely he was refering to the diciples?

Toto · 02-15-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Isn't it very likely he was refering to the diciples?

No. That is assuming what you are trying to prove.

If they were really disciples who knew Jesus or were even related to Jesus, Paul should have been hanging on their every word and trying to learn from them. Instead, he treats them with barely disguised contempt and stays as far away as possible for most of his ministry.

Amaleq13 · 02-15-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Isn't it very likely he was refering to the diciples?

Only if you think it is legitimate to take what the Gospels claim and retroject it into what Paul wrote.

Sheshbazzar · 02-15-2008, 02:20 PM

Of course it is always the writer(s) with their own agendas that write and say that Paul "did" this, or Paul "said" that, when it is far more likely that the narrative is more of a posed literary fiction, than any accurate account of anything that was actually "did" or "said" by any of the narratives various characters.
["Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,... Scarecrow!"]

How often we get so caught up in the story of what Paul "did" or "said", that we quite forget about who is backstage speaking through these characters lips, pulling the strings, and pushing our levers.

spamandham · 02-15-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, if something cannot be demonstrated it can be shelved until such times as a demonstration can be mounted. The agnostic position here is more rational than the committed position.

...well sure, if it can't be adequately demonstrated. I think it is possible to adequately demonstrate, and if not for the vast popularity of Christianity, there would be no debate about a historical Jesus at all.

After all, how many debates rage about a Historical Hercules?

wavy_wonder1 · 02-15-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

eric,

This looks like an outline of Holding v Holding's favorite straw man.

Most atheists support the Jesus Myth position. Either you ignored the Jesus Myth position or you don't understand it.

see http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

This is my take on it, but there are other views:

-Mark was fiction and so are the other gospels.

-There was no Joshua of Nazareth and there were no apostles.

-Either Paul never existed and/or all his letters are forgeries and/or Paul was a Gnostic or a pagan who never heard of Joshua of Nazareth and worshiped some other Gnostic or pagan God named Jesus Christ.

-There were no followers of the mythical Joshua of Nazareth until after the middle of the 2nd century - perhaps not until the 4th century depending on how much forgery has occurred.

- References to Christians are not to followers of Joshua of Nazareth unless they are specific; and references to Jesus and/or Christ are not references to Joshua of Nazareth unless they are specific; and such references are likely to be forgeries anyway.

i don't dispute anyone's take on the issue. i was just outlining common arguments between those who believe jesus existed, the jesus myth not withstanding. perhaps i should have made that clearer.

kind regards,
~eric

wavy_wonder1 · 02-15-2008, 02:34 PM

i hope i didn't confuse anybody. i don't believe in the resurrection. it seems some people may have thought that i was making my own personal arguments for it, but i wasn't, nor was i making personal arguments against it (both sides of the issue being written in my own words, however).

so i guess i agree with spin. there really is no true compelling reason to make it a big deal for the skeptic unless you just want to, but i wanted to hear a few responses from you guys, as it's something i've been looking into (amongst other things).

arguments in the resurrection's favor use to intimidate me, but i don't take them seriously anymore.

kind regards,
~eric

Toto · 02-15-2008, 02:44 PM

Did you mean to post this in the peanut gallery for the Formal Debate on whether the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced, featuring punkforchrist vs. Sean McHugh?

spin · 02-15-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The best you can do is say that you haven't observed the phenomenon and that it doesn't fit into our knowledge of the way life and the world function.

Agreed but,

It seems to me that the but seems to lead to an elaboration on the second part of my statement with more hype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

unless you are referring to the apparent certainty with which the conclusion was proffered, it seems misleading to refer to a conclusion based on that as a "belief" in the sense that it requires faith to be accepted.

Following the very clear and unambiguous evidence of biology and physics to the conclusion that there is no reason to think anyone could ever recover from being "really, most sincerely dead" is simply rational thought at work.

It takes less effort to put the ball into the hands of the one who wishes to claim the substantive case for resurrection. "If you want to show that resurrection is anything more than ancient hooey, please do. Till then, I'll leave it on the shelf with flying saucers and pyramid power." That way you can avoid all the maudlin metaphysics.

spin

wavy_wonder1 · 02-15-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did you mean to post this in the peanut gallery for the Formal Debate on whether the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced, featuring punkforchrist vs. Sean McHugh?

kind regards,
~eric

02-15-2008, 02:34 PM	#37
wavy_wonder1 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 88	anyway... i hope i didn't confuse anybody. i don't believe in the resurrection. it seems some people may have thought that i was making my own personal arguments for it, but i wasn't, nor was i making personal arguments against it (both sides of the issue being written in my own words, however). so i guess i agree with spin. there really is no true compelling reason to make it a big deal for the skeptic unless you just want to, but i wanted to hear a few responses from you guys, as it's something i've been looking into (amongst other things). arguments in the resurrection's favor use to intimidate me, but i don't take them seriously anymore. kind regards, ~eric

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

02-15-2008, 01:29 PM	#31
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	Isn't it very likely he was refering to the diciples?

02-15-2008, 02:20 PM	#34
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Of course it is always the writer(s) with their own agendas that write and say that Paul "did" this, or Paul "said" that, when it is far more likely that the narrative is more of a posed literary fiction, than any accurate account of anything that was actually "did" or "said" by any of the narratives various characters. ["Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,... Scarecrow!"] How often we get so caught up in the story of what Paul "did" or "said", that we quite forget about who is backstage speaking through these characters lips, pulling the strings, and pushing our levers.

02-15-2008, 02:44 PM	#38
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Did you mean to post this in the peanut gallery for the Formal Debate on whether the Resurrection is Sufficiently Evidenced, featuring punkforchrist vs. Sean McHugh?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.