Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 09-01-2010, 08:22 AM

Kapyond:

Yes, aren't you?

Steve

yin_sage · 09-01-2010, 08:42 AM

"-denier" implies that what is being denied is only denied by fringe elements. Contrast "holocaust-denier".

This is why it annoys people. Case closed.

(And, yes, I apologise for the Godwin.)

Juststeve · 09-01-2010, 08:55 AM

Vin Sage:

What is the Godwin for which you apologise?

Steve

yin_sage · 09-01-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

What is the Godwin for which you apologise?

Godwin's law.

Kapyong · 09-01-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Kapyond:
Yes
Steve

Ah, so you admit you simply refuse to accept the reality of fairies.

KapyonG

Juststeve · 09-01-2010, 03:57 PM

Kapyong:

No, I mean I deny the existence of fairies. I think I have good reason for doing so but you might disagree. It wouldn't offend me in the least if someone called me a fairy denier. Sticks and stones and all that.

Steve

aa5874 · 09-01-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

We ought not overstate the case by saying Paul knew nothing of an earthly Jesus. He might not have known much but he did know that:

Jesus was a Jew descended from David. Romans 1

Jesus had a brother named James who Paul met. Galatians 1

Jesus was betrayed and instituted the Last Supper. 1 Corinthians 11

Jesus case crucified. 1Corinthians 2

Jesus existed in Human form. Phillipians 2

Not much but strong indication that Paul thought Jesus had been around, on earth, in the recent past.

Steve

But the fundamental problem for "Paul" is that he NEVER wrote that he SAW Jesus alive BEFORE he DIED. NEVER.

"Paul" wrote that he SAW Jesus when he could NOT.

"Paul" is likely to be Lying.

"Paul" SAW JESUS AFTER he was RAISED from the dead.

This is likely to be FICTION.

"Paul" was supposed to be a contemporary of Jesus and the apostles and claimed he SAW Peter, James the supposed brother of the Lord in Jerusalem, and persecuted Jesus believers, but he CANNOT corroborate the ACTUAL real life existence of Jesus.

"Paul" can CONFIRM that Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

"Paul" can CONFIRM the IMPROBABLE.

"Paul" claimed he received historical details about the betrayal from the resurrected Jesus.

"Paul" was a LIAR.

Nothing that "Paul" wrote about the Messiah called Jesus can be CONFIRMED or corroborated externally.

The Pauline writings are non-historical and deals with a non-historical event the resurrection of a Messiah called Jesus.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.....

"Paul" is an apostle of FICTION and it is from fiction that he got his gospel, from the resurrected dead.

If Jesus was just a preacher then it is OBVIOUS that "PAUL" was a LIAR.

spamandham · 09-03-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 12
But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.

Paul, of course, never dreams of comparing his preaching to that of Jesus, explaining how Jesus was a much superior preacher to him.

This seems to me a novel and significant observation. Well done.

spamandham · 09-03-2010, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

We ought not overstate the case by saying Paul knew nothing of an earthly Jesus. He might not have known much but he did know that:

Jesus was a Jew descended from David. Romans 1

Jesus had a brother named James who Paul met. Galatians 1

Jesus was betrayed and instituted the Last Supper. 1 Corinthians 11

Jesus case crucified. 1Corinthians 2

Jesus existed in Human form. Phillipians 2

Not much but strong indication that Paul thought Jesus had been around, on earth, in the recent past.

Steve

It's not all that strong when combined with the strong evidence that Paul as we know him, consists of several layers of writers. There is just no way of knowing what is really authentically Paul, and what is the handiwork of a later writer. That said, I think these texts nonetheless tell us what at least some early Christians were thinking.

aa5874 · 09-04-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...It's not all that strong when combined with the strong evidence that Paul as we know him, consists of several layers of writers. There is just no way of knowing what is really authentically Paul, and what is the handiwork of a later writer. That said, I think these texts nonetheless tell us what at least some early Christians were thinking.

But, how do you know the texts tells us what some early Christians were thinking when you just ADMITTED there is NO way of knowing what is really authentically Paul?

You must be at least consistent.

You REALLY don't know what early Christians were thinking because you really don't know what in the Pauline writings are early.

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

09-01-2010, 08:22 AM	#21
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Kapyond: Yes, aren't you? Steve

09-01-2010, 08:42 AM	#22
yin_sage Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Adelaide Posts: 45	"-denier" implies that what is being denied is only denied by fringe elements. Contrast "holocaust-denier". This is why it annoys people. Case closed. (And, yes, I apologise for the Godwin.)

09-01-2010, 08:55 AM	#23
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Vin Sage: What is the Godwin for which you apologise? Steve

09-01-2010, 03:57 PM	#26
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Kapyong: No, I mean I deny the existence of fairies. I think I have good reason for doing so but you might disagree. It wouldn't offend me in the least if someone called me a fairy denier. Sticks and stones and all that. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.