HelenM

Are you saying that only knowledge can make people trustworthy?

I don't think being trustworthy is about knowledge; in my opinion it's about character.

Helen

beth

I agree with this.

Ted Hoffman

I dont need to prove that Paul pocketed the money he obtained by false pretences. It is evident that he did.
He claimed that he was going to take the money to other communities.
We have evidence that he took money from poor people. There is no evidence that he gave it away.
We dont even have Paul claiming anywhere that he took the moneyto such and such a community.

Eusebius was also believed by early christians who valued honesty a lot. Their trust can only be compared to the trust of a child: the fact that they trusted ANYONE cannot be used as evidence that that person was honest: it only proves they trusted him - because they were TRUSTING people.

If they could die for lies, they could give money for lies.

They were ignorant and gullible. The saying goes that "those who know the least obey the best". They obeyed like sheep.

My main point was that PAUL did NOT live on weaving tents but he lived by MILKING PEOPLE of the little that they had. And I have shown that Paul did indeed collect money from poor people and is not known to have given that money to ANYONE. What was that he told a poor leper:
Silver and Gold I have none but rise up and go!

Where was the gold and silver then Helen?

About his honesty, I contend that Paul was a liar. Check
this "500 people" thread he made up his own myths without even checking other sources and thats why we have the 40 days contradiction and the 12 disciples post-resurrection contradiction.

We have no reason to believe in Paul on the basis that the early christians believed in him, unless you want us to adopt the same same ignorant, know-nothing outlook that they had.

We might as well also believe that Jesus rose from the dead and more than 500 people saw him as he appeared on earth for 40 days. We might as well believe that insane people are posessed by demons and that the earth is flat etc etc.

Not a chance Helen. Not a slight chance.

Ted Hoffman

You could find more "scholarly" discussions about Paul and his mythmaking in the following thread:

Another way of looking at the fictionality in acts

About the mercantile greed and motivation of the early apostles - who even died for the money they got:
the apostles - all died for their faith?

beth

Looks interesting. Thanks!

HelenM

No, it is not evident that he did unless you have evidence that he did. You do not.

You have no evidence that he kept it.

He said he was going to. We have very little about his life. He could easily have done it in one of the large portions of his life about which we know nothing.

You have no evidence that their trust was based on nothing.

Do you trust anyone? Is your trust based on no evidence about them or is it based on evidence.

Trust may be based on no evidence, but it may also be based on evidence about whether a person is trustworthy.

You have no evidence about the people who trusted Paul that their trust was based on nothing about him.

Oh, I do agree with that.

You don't know that. You only say that because they believed in God and you think that shows ignorance and gullibility.

You do not know that. Anyway it was their idea to give money, so they were obeying no-one. They were simply doing what they wanted to do.

I know and so far you've given no evidence.

How have you shown it? Why would you trust the record that he collected money and not his words about who he was collecting it for? So you only believe the verses you want to, in other words. You trust verses that supports your speculation and dismiss those that don't. And you give no reason why you'd trust some verses and not others.

That wasn't Paul! He wasn't even a Christian when that happened and it wasn't said by him.

For someone who calls others ignorant and gullible you aren't showing very good knowledge yourself, to say Paul said that. It's easy to check in the Bible that it was not Paul.

I suggest you go reread that passage and see who actually said it.

I already figured that yout.

You have no evidence he made up the part about 500 people. Nor is there any on that thread you linked to. I think it's reasonable to suppose he was told about it by other people.

Yours is the ignorant know-nothing position until you give some evidence for it.

You are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you like, IM, but if you want what you believe to be respected, I suggest you provide some evidence for it. Otherwise you are the one who comes across as just making things up.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

Yep, it was Peter. Thats a trivial issue however. I see no reason to descend to ad-hominems.
As it is, I have said all I have to say about this. I believe you have also made your point.
I am content to leave it at that.

pz

If somebody says X about a subject on which he can know nothing, I don't trust his word on the subject no matter how sincere he may be, or how earnest and certain he is in his belief. Character means nothing.

If priests really had trustworthy characters, when asked about the afterlife, god, salvation, creation, etc., they would just say "I don't know." Of course, then they couldn't be priests.

keyser_soze

Neither, what was it to him? It just struck me as odd at the time. Of course, there have been a thousand swaggart and bakkers since, filling out my perception of the leadership. Then again, being the son of a methodist minister, at one time I knew everyone from Bishop Knox, to the far sprung travel preachers. And having endured endless services at dozens of denominations, possibly thousands of sermons in all, met an unending number of the sheeple, I mean people....involved in the religious sector....I can truly say, unequivocably, and without doubt--I WOULDN'T TRUST ONE IF HE TOLD ME THE SKY WAS BLUE. Now, add that extremely wide range of interaction with christians, with an enormous appetite for reading history and religion, and you have a person who KNOWS not to trust the christian populace(majority), to a person who has read the bible multiple times, in various languages, read a mass of the books and articles pertaining to the bible...and what do you get? You get someone with a really big picture of an obviously flawed and bankrupt institution. I don't hate christians....I hate organized religion of any type. And if there were gods, I'm sure I would hate them as well. Any 5 year old could do a better job of creation and governance than the god you would follow. But what is that view to you? Nothing, because I am a single person. And you would discount it, I'm sure. But what of the billions who don't follow lockstep in the jackboots of christianity? Are they all wrong. Is everyone wrong, and your bi-polar, deranged deity with impulse control and anger management issues truly is good? Then damn good, because it is ill defined. Read the bible, see the god, hate the god. It really is that simple.

HelenM

I just thought he might have had an opinion, that's all.

I think I'm getting the picture...

It's best not to be too sure about what other people think. Especially when you don't even know them.

I understand 'bi-polar'

To you, it is, evidently.

Thanks for the response

Helen