HelenM

IM, I don't see there's anything left to discuss with you regarding whether Paul lied. It's a foregone conclusion to you that he did and I've already presented my reasons to you why I disagree. What's left to say?

I could study those other threads but it's not going to change your mind so I may as well use my time in other ways.

Helen

keyser_soze

I think if looked at the mentioned threads, and then found and displayed a flaw in the reasoning, he would discuss it. It's not his mind that you should be seeking to change, but rather those who read. Both parties of a discussion already have decided their stance, it's those viewing the debate to whom you are speaking...Otherwise, there is no point in debate in the first place. His points have been backed up to date(although not as solidly as he would like I'm sure). It is up to you whether you wish to put a foundation under your argument, he is offering you the key to his argument, and you should at least read the resources and decide whether you wish to pursue it or not.

Vorkosigan

Please supply the passages in the New Testament which led you to conclude that the authors didn't believe what they wrote was literally true.

Helen,

Have you read Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms? See the recommended reading list.

In it Helms provides mountains of evidence carefully showing how the NT narratives are built out of OT examples. This habit is well known to NT scholars, and numerous writers have commented on it, from Goulder to Crossan. Indeed, the Passion Narrative is built entirely out of the OT, there is apparently no history in it at all, save for the brute fact of Crucifixion.

In Mark's resurrection story, the women arrive and the stone was removed from the tomb already. In Matthew's, the women arrive, and an angel removes the stone. The tomb is empty; Jesus has passed through solid rock (that ought to be a point in favor of the spiritual Jesus theory, but we'll let that pass).

Now, we know Matthew was familiar with Mark and copied much of it. What do you think Matthew was thinking when he changed Mark's story, an earlier report than his? He knowingly created a fiction. How do you think he viewed that act?

Vorkosigan

HelenM

See, I don't believe he did knowingly create a fiction, so what is there to discuss, when we disagree on the motives of the authors?

Thanks to you and others for the recommendations but...I don't think I have time to do further reading about the gospel narratives at present, since I can't justify using my time that way.

Helen

Vorkosigan

I'm sorry Helen. I'll go back to lurking on this thread. It is difficult for anyone to respond to you, since you have announced that you will not believe any evidence to the contrary (despite it being a commonplace of modern scholarship) and that you will not read the relevant texts.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

I would appreciate any argument that supports this idea. Assuming you actually mean "...save for the brute fact that the Crucifixion of Jesus took place". If you mean exactly what you wrote, no need for proof.

Helen,

You started this thread. You thought it was worth your while. We have shared our views. Our views are based on studies you have admitted you are ignorant about. Don't you think its sensible to understand them before you can meaningfully address our arguments? Or have you suddenly lost interest in this subject?

And we have something to discuss EXACTLY because we disagree on the motives of the authors - your OP is evidence of that - its about motive when you state "was Paul (deliberatley) lying?" (in fact, your statement assumes Paul was lying - what you want to know is whether it was deliberate or inadvertent).
So, contrary to your recent claim, the disagreement about motive is exactly why this thread has reached here.

We have argued for the fabrication of the story - but, by your own admission, you are not equiped to competently address our arguments. I have provided you with links that detail what we are arguing about so as to equip you with the knowledge you so ardently require in order to refute our arguments. You have pleaded (a) "lack of time", (b)"different priorities" and (c) lack of a starting point for engaging in this discussion (the disagreement about the motives) and (d) you cant change my mind.

And these excuses are questionable. I have addressed (c). And (a) and (b) are meaningless considering you started this thread. (d) is irrelevant unless that was your objective for starting this thread. And it cant have been your objective in starting this thread. Because you know better than that.

HelenM

So you say. But then you didn't believe Paul either

I began the thread:

My curiosity is satisfied. Capiche?

Helen

keyser_soze

But how can your curiosity be satisfied unless you have exhausted the available information? Perhaps this is the problem of all atheists, the dissatisfaction with the company line, the plea from authority. [ponders new thought] Perhaps that is the sum total of it all.[/ends ponderous thought].Hmmmm. I think I know our motivational force. That's exactly it, our common denominator, our inability to swallow the pretty hook, despite it's sparkle! Hey guys, did you know this? Why the hell didn't someone mention this earlier. That would have saved me three years at least!

HelenM

Because my original question was simply: do you believe Paul was deliberately lying?

I didn't ask for every reason why and I don't need to read every book that led to every opinion on it

That's what I call...freedom!

Exactly my point!

Seriously though, what you present is the false dichotomy of a) believe irrationally or b) study everything there is to know on a topic.

I'm opting for c) - live my life and sometimes read and sometimes debate.

And in some strangely ironic way, it is precisely my tendency to question (that you just ascribed only to atheists - mistakenly, in my opinion) that leads me to question whether I really need to exhaust all the available information. I mean, who cares? I asked my question, I got some answers...now I've got places to go and things to see...

Helen

keyser_soze

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply it as an atheist only position. In fact, the idea occurs to me that this may be the driving force behind those who are always searching for something, always the next thrill, or the next conquest...This is an interesting twist, it seems so obvious, I know I must have thought it before, but for some reason it has a shine of newness on it for me. I'll have to consider this a while. Anyway, good luck, you'll never find me discouraging LIVING for anyone. Have fun!