LeonMire

Take a chill pill, dude. The two of you are in almost perfect agreement about the (un)reliability of the Scriptures, yet you keep attacking Rick like he was a Bible thumper. All he's saying is that Acts and the Pauline Epistles preserve SOME history. He uses Acts and the Pauline writings as his source for the history of Paul because that's all we have. Yes, it passed through the hands of the Church, but that doesn't necessarily mean they mutilated it or turned it into pure fiction. And yes, there probably was some legendary material added by the Church, but there's probably also a good deal of history there. Don't ask me to substantiate that claim unless you're going to substantiate your claim that they're pure fiction. Any critical historian knows that you don't have to choose between pure history or pure legend.

Besides, it doesn't seem like you've answered his Rick's original explanation: that when Paul said he "saw" Jesus, he meant he saw him in a vision (that is, he had a hallucination). And according to Richard Carrier in The Empty Tomb ("The Spiritual Body of Christ"), the Greek verb Paul uses for "saw" can mean either literal, physical vision, or having a religious vision (read: hallucination). It seems likely enough that the post-Resurrection "appearances" of the disciples were also hallucinations, since Paul does not indicate that his vision of Christ was any different from theirs. This is strong evidence that originally, the Christian story did not contain physical appearances, but rather "visions" of the resurrected Christ.

I think that's a much more interesting conclusion to draw from the text, and one much more damaging to Christianity, than the one you draw: Paul lied! You paint an implausible picture of Paul as a nefarious trickster, who intentionally deceived other Christians. And your only proof hinges on wordplay: You can't see what's not actually there! Paul said he saw Christ, so he lied! That's like calling me a liar for saying I talked to my brother today, simply because I did it through e-mail. (Because you can't talk without speaking out loud!)

YAWN. Come on, you're obviously intelligent, and well-versed in Biblical and patristic literature; you can come up with a better argument than that. And while you're at it, calm down. All us nontheists are basically on the same page here. There's no need to provoke Rick or anyone else into verbal combat.

aa5874

Rick seems to think that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are RELIABLE as historical sources for the actual life of Paul.

I certainly do not agree with such an idea at all.

But, there is no corroborative source external of the HANDS of the Church for Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul's conversion or blinding bright light story is just fiction and it is the same character whom the Church claimed wrote all the Epistles. It is also most likely that Jesus of the NT Canon did not exist.

The authors of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers wrote about Jesus as if he did exist and had apostles. The Pauline writers mentioned Jesus over 200 times and that he was betrayed in the night after he had supped, was crucified, died, resurrected, ascended to heaven and was expected to COME BACK A SECOND TIME.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are TOTAL FICTION whenever they mentioned any activities of JESUS, the disciples/apostles and Saul/Paul, the author of all the Pauline writings.


You cannot substantiate your claims. You cannot show what is true in Acts or the Pauline writings with respect to Jesus, the disciples/apostles or Saul/Paul.

I can substantiate my claim that all activities with respect to Jesus of the NT Canon is fiction because I can show you Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.35, John 1, Acts 1.9, Mark 16.6, Mark 9.2 and many more passages which clearly show that Jesus was most likely a fictitious entity.

But, how could Paul claim to have SEEN someone who did not exist?

I cannot have hallucinations about you and claimed that I SAW YOU when I cannot even recognise you.

How could I just claim "LeonMire" was betrayed after he had supped, that he was crucified, died, resurrected, ascended to heaven and is expected to return a SECOND TIME.

How would I recognise "LeonMire" when "LeonMire" is just a user name?

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are just fiction-based material written to produce a fraudulent history of Jesus believers.

But, why can't you discuss your "interesting conclusion"?

Now, I do not paint an implausible picture of Paul, I do not play with words, it is the Pauline writer who provided his own implausible picture.

Look at part of the implausible picture of Paul in Galatians 1.1 And look at another implausible part of the picture.

1 Corinthians 15.3-11 The Pauline writer has presented his own implausible picture and there is more.

Now, once you admit I am intelligent and well-versed in Biblical and patristic literature then it may have dawned upon you that my argument may be a very intelligent and SOLIDLY SUPPORTED by sources of antiquity.

Just imagine what would happen to Christianity if my argument was accepted as true that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were part of the scheme to present fraudulent information about the history of Jesus believers.

This is the IMPLAUSIBLE conception of Jesus.

Mathew 1.18 JESUS of the NT Canon did not EXIST.

1.In Acts, Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven.

2. Pauline writers claimed they persecuted Jesus believers or the FAITH.

BUT JESUS DID NOT EXIST before the Fall of the Temple.

3. In Acts, Saul/Paul met apostles in Jerusalem including Peter.

4. A Pauline writer claimed he met an apostle called Peter.

BUT THERE was NO JESUS and no apostles of Jesus.

5. In Acts, it is claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected, and ascended.

6. The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected and ascended and that he SAW JESUS after he was raised from the dead.

But, JESUS did not exist.

The IMPLAUSIBLE PICTURE was painted by the author of Acts and the Pauline writers themselves.

It is extremely intelligent to argue that the Pauline writers were LIARS.

"PAUL" saw no-one called JESUS CHRIST in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

Solo

For while they all were travelling home,
Cried Betty, "Tell us, Johnny, do,
Where all this long night you have been,
What you have heard, what you have seen:
And, Johnny, mind you tell us true."

Now Johnny all night long had heard
The owls in tuneful concert strive;
No doubt too he the moon had seen;
For in the moonlight he had been
From eight o'clock till five.

And thus, to Betty's question, he
Made answer, like a traveller bold,
(His very words I give to you,)
"The cocks did crow to-whoo, to-whoo,
And the sun did shine so cold!"
--Thus answered Johnny in his glory,
And that was all his travel's story.

William Wordsworth