Steven Carr

As already pointed out, Paul simply imported whatever human qualities he needed to his Saviour.

Just like he claimed there was a Jerusalem above us.

And just like the author of Hebrews had Jesus blood used in Heaven.

Hebrews 9
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.

What bit of 'not a part of this creation' leads you to think Jesus sacrificed himself on Earth?

MCalavera

Best explanation of the evidence is always founded on something sufficient enough for it to be beyond "unfounded speculation". Assumptions may be assumptions, but they can still be reliable at times. The more reasonable and "common sense" the assumption is, the more reliable it is ... until someone comes along and conclusively shows it to be wrong.

Paul was an Apostle. And I call bullshit on the idea that Doherty found this belief in some other early Christian writings.

If I'm wrong, link me to the references.

I read Richard Carrier's review of Doherty's work before you mentioned. Richard Carrier wasn't convinced enough. It seems he was more trying to be diplomatic than to be as straightforward as possible. I do have much respect for the guy, though.

MCalavera

Hebrews? Now we moved on to Hebrews, eh?

Wanna read out, let's say, Hebrews 2 to me?

Step by step.

archibald

Why would you want to do steps, when you can just snip out the relevant line?

archibald

Or as I would put it,

1. Parsimony
2. Consistency (in applying historical methodology)
3. Coherence (of the overall explanation)

HJ wins on all three, IMO.

Not conclusively, obviously, but I can't see a good case for not thinking MJ the more likely explanation.

avi

I hold your position on this issue to be fatally flawed.

Aristarchus (versus Plato, Aristotle, and the entire scholarly community, including, much later of course, Ptolemy, source for the biblical nonsense supporting geocentrism)

Famous 17th, 18th and 19th century scientists who did not propose natural selection i.e. "evolution", as defined by two amateurs, independently, Darwin and Wallace--the latter having almost, but not quite, completed, a grammar school education:

Cuvier, Linnaeus, Boyle, Blumenbach, LeClerc, Meiners, Jefferson, Rush, Hooke.

1905 was not only the year of the famous first Russian revolution, it was also the year that Einstein received his Ph.D.

What is relevent to this thread is that a guy who did NOT YET have his doctorate, published four earthshaking papers, in that same year:

photoelectric effect;
Brownian motion;
special relativity;
equivalence of matter and energy.

ANY ONE of those papers would have established him as a prodigous talent. Point is, he provided answers, not as acknowledged expert, not as distinguished academic, not as scholar with well earned notoriety. No.
He published those four papers while in the process of completing his doctorate. He was, in 1905, an amateur.

Your persona, here on the forum, appears rather abrasive, for one who, himself, has offered so little. You demand to learn the IQ, whatever that may be, of one or more of the forum members, as if the score attained on such a miserable examination, could shed some light, or alternatively, cast darkness upon, the ideas of one or more forum members, members whose ideas you find disagreeable.

Evidence trumps ideas, on this forum. Find some evidence, and forum members will tune you in. Slogans, epithets, and insults, hurled alone, by themselves, will not suffice.

avi

archibald

Yes, I agree. It is a flawed position, in some ways. And I wouldn't say it myself.

Especially if one is saying something is correct simply because it is held by experts.

OTOH, if one is only saying 'most likely' then listing exceptions to counter this is not much use. One would need to show that amateurs are more often right than bodies of experts. :]

[/cheeky intermission]

MCalavera

Because I'm a lazy bum.

But here's what I meant:

Also, in the chapter Steve mentioned, it says Jesus ENTERED heaven. What does "enter" imply? That he was outside of heaven for a while? Maybe ...

Hebrews 9:24

MCalavera

Sounds like one of those comparing apples to oranges thingy.

Have we seen a creationist amateur "scientist" who has successfully owned the asses of all the "evolutionist" scientists out there and showed how wrong their theory of evolution is? Will we ever see it happening?

So out of all the members who were abrasive (especially from the other side), you choose me to point out my own abrasiveness. Why don't you address the others also?

Yeah, I sarcastically asked for one of the poster's IQ because he thought he was showing the whole world how I contradicted myself concerning Paul's belief about the being of Jesus.

Didn't you notice how he remarked that I had bad memory before I started with the IQ remarks?

Alright, now that you're done judging me, let me repeat once again that the evidence (whether weak or strong) has already been posted even way before I ever got here.

The question is whether you accept the basic assumptions that one must make by default upon viewing the evidence or you'd rather add your own unnecessary speculations to what the evidence shows.

MCalavera

Yep, I did say "most likely". I forgot I actually said that.