Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    Yep. Too many issues so Paul never once bothered to get the facts of Jesus's life. Considering we have also a Lord's Supper tradition from them, I think we can safely say Paul verified the claims that he was preaching and since he received this testimony from the apostles, they would have discussed it to make sure he understood the creed and agreed with it.



    Maybe they spent the two weeks going fishing and never discussing anything. Why should I believe any of this?



    Paul's reputation is on the line with the Galatian church. He's not going to share a story that anybody can say is wrong.



    No. That's your line.



    A seed of doubt is not enough. You need a theory that is in fact plausible and let's also say, let's suppose Paul didn't check the claims. The creed exists and is accurate whether or not Paul verified it.
    You are welcome to respond to my comments as quickly as you like, but be aware that I am adding to each post due to your long first post.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      Yep. Too many issues so Paul never once bothered to get the facts of Jesus's life. Considering we have also a Lord's Supper tradition from them, I think we can safely say Paul verified the claims that he was preaching and since he received this testimony from the apostles, they would have discussed it to make sure he understood the creed and agreed with it.



      Maybe they spent the two weeks going fishing and never discussing anything. Why should I believe any of this?



      Paul's reputation is on the line with the Galatian church. He's not going to share a story that anybody can say is wrong.



      No. That's your line.



      A seed of doubt is not enough. You need a theory that is in fact plausible and let's also say, let's suppose Paul didn't check the claims. The creed exists and is accurate whether or not Paul verified it.
      Nick: "Yep. Too many issues so Paul never once bothered to get the facts of Jesus's life. Considering we have also a Lord's Supper tradition from them, I think we can safely say Paul verified the claims that he was preaching and since he received this testimony from the apostles, they would have discussed it to make sure he understood the creed and agreed with it."

      Gary: There is a big difference between probably and certainty. Paul mentions the Creed from I Corinthians 15 and the Words of Institution for the Eucharist. That's it! Those are the only details about the historical Jesus that Paul ever gives in his letters to his churches. He never once mentions Jesus' birthplace, the wisemen, the star over Bethlehem, the names of Jesus' parents, the fact that Jesus taught the scribes and Pharisees at age 12, something that would stand out to him as a pharisee, no mention of Jesus' miracles, none of Jesus' sermons, none of Jesus parables, no details about the trial, crucifixion, and death of Jesus other than a Creed of Witnesses and the Creed for the Last Supper.

      And we are asked to believe that Paul personally met Jesus of Nazareth on a dark, desert highway, and then was personally taught by Jesus in the Arabian desert for several years??? Give me a break. Paul invented, either maliciously or due to mental illness, a "Christ". He knew little to nothing about the historical "Jesus".

      Nick: "Paul's reputation is on the line with the Galatian church. He's not going to share a story that anybody can say is wrong."

      Gary: It was in Galatia that Paul was accused of being a liar. In one of the letters to Timothy, Paul writes that "all in Asia have forsaken me". I think here that Paul is admitting that the churches, in Asia at leas,t saw him as a fabricator of facts. The author of the Book of Revelation has Jesus praising the Church in Ephesus for rejecting false "apostles". If Paul said "all" of Asia had rejected him, that would include "Asia's" capital city, Ephesus.

      I personally don't think Paul was a liar, I think he was mentally ill. I believe that this is what his "thorn in the flesh" most likely was. Anyone who isn't sure if he has or has not been teleported to the "third heaven" can't be playing with a full deck.

      Nick: "A seed of doubt is not enough. You need a theory that is in fact plausible and let's also say, let's suppose Paul didn't check the claims. The creed exists and is accurate whether or not Paul verified it."

      Gary: I'm laughing.

      I have given you several plausible scenarios. You have not demonstrated their impossibility but have only expressed your personal prejudice against them. All of my scenarios are within the realm of naturalist probabilities. I challenge you to show me even ONE of my scenarios that meets the definition of "impossible". And, how on earth can you make the claim that, "The Creed...is accurate"? How in hell do you know that a Creed written 2,000 years ago is accurate?

      You are really full of yourself at times, Nicholas.

      (Time for dinner. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow.)
      Last edited by Gary; 07-27-2015, 09:45 PM.

      Comment


      • Why are you not using the quote function properly? Just highlight the part you want and wrap it in quote tags. It makes your post much more clear.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Nick: "Yep. Too many issues so Paul never once bothered to get the facts of Jesus's life. Considering we have also a Lord's Supper tradition from them, I think we can safely say Paul verified the claims that he was preaching and since he received this testimony from the apostles, they would have discussed it to make sure he understood the creed and agreed with it."

          Gary: There is a big difference between probably and certainty. Paul mentions the Creed from I Corinthians 15 and the Words of Institution for the Eucharist. That's it! Those are the only details about the historical Jesus that Paul ever gives in his letters to his churches. He never once mentions Jesus' birthplace, the wisemen, the star over Bethlehem, the names of Jesus' parents, the fact that Jesus taught the scribes and Pharisees at age 12, something that would stand out to him as a pharisee, no mention of Jesus' miracles, none of Jesus' sermons, none of Jesus parables, no details about the trial, crucifixion, and death of Jesus other than a Creed of Witnesses and the Creed for the Last Supper.

          And we are asked to believe that Paul personally met Jesus of Nazareth on a dark, desert highway, and then was personally taught by Jesus in the Arabian desert for several years??? Give me a break. Paul invented, either maliciously or due to mental illness, a "Christ". He knew little to nothing about the historical "Jesus".

          Nick: "Paul's reputation is on the line with the Galatian church. He's not going to share a story that anybody can say is wrong."

          Gary: It was in Galatia that Paul was accused of being a liar. In one of the letters to Timothy, Paul writes that "all in Asia have forsaken me". I think here that Paul is admitting that the churches, in Asia at leas,t saw him as a fabricator of facts. The author of the Book of Revelation has Jesus praising the Church in Ephesus for rejecting false "apostles". If Paul said "all" of Asia had rejected him, that would include "Asia's" capital city, Ephesus.

          I personally don't think Paul was a liar, I think he was mentally ill. I believe that this is what his "thorn in the flesh" most likely was. Anyone who isn't sure if he has or has not been teleported to the "third heaven" can't be playing with a full deck.

          Nick: "A seed of doubt is not enough. You need a theory that is in fact plausible and let's also say, let's suppose Paul didn't check the claims. The creed exists and is accurate whether or not Paul verified it."

          Gary: I'm laughing.

          I have given you several plausible scenarios. You have not demonstrated their impossibility but have only expressed your personal prejudice against them. All of my scenarios are within the realm of naturalist probabilities. I challenge you to show me even ONE of my scenarios that meets the definition of "impossible". And, how on earth can you make the claim that, "The Creed...is accurate"? How in hell do you know that a Creed written 2,000 years ago is accurate?

          You are really full of yourself at times, Nicholas.

          (Time for dinner. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow.)
          I'm sure that when I made the assertion that Paul was either a liar or mentally ill, every Christian reading this thread bristled. "Why would a man abandon a cushy life as a Pharisee, a member of the upper eschalon of Jewish society, and choose to become a member of a hated, scorned, ridiculed and brutally persecuted sect??"

          My answer: Human beings do the craziest things, especially when they are mentally ill.

          There is a radical Muslim cleric living in Israel today who not too long ago was an ultra-orthodox, right-wing Jewish settler, and, ultra-orthodox rabbi, or at least was in rabbinical school (I'm not sure if you have to graduate to be called "rabbi")!! I will post a link to his story. Bottom line: Human beings do some of the most unbelievable things, including converting to a religion they previously hated with all their being.

          Joseph Cohen aka Yusuf Khattab:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabIO_gwRgo

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeRUAvMDhkY

          Here is a question for Nick, and every other Christian, to consider: Why do you think the prophet Mohammad said that he had seen an angel from God; ridden a winged-horse to heaven; and had received the true Word of God (the Koran)?

          1. Everything he claimed really did happen
          2. He was drunk.
          3. He had a fever and was delusional.
          4. He had a kidney or liver disease that caused toxins to build up in his blood, making him delusional.
          5. He was bipolar, had some form of schizophrenia, or some other form of mental illness.
          6. He lied, maybe for very good reasons, such as to improve the morality and living conditions of the Bedouin tribes in Arabia.

          Now, if you were to pose these questions to a devout Muslim, they would be just as outraged as you were about my suggestion that the apostle Paul was probably mentally ill. But don't you agree, that any of the causes from #2 to #6 are much more likely to be the cause for Mohammad's miracle claims than that they really did happen?

          And you can apply this same test to Joseph Smith. A Mormon will never consider that Smith was delusional, mentally ill, or a liar, but I'm sure you would agree with me that he was most likely one of these three.

          When my faith was on the line, and I realized that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts, it all came down to Paul. I asked myself this question: Which is more probable: That Paul a sincere, devout man but was mistaken about what he thought he saw on the Damascus Road, or, that dead bodies really can be reanimated, eat broiled fish lunches, and levitate into outer space?
          Last edited by Gary; 07-27-2015, 11:34 PM.

          Comment


          • Gary you can break up the text of Nick's (or anyone's) post into chunks you wish to comment on by wrapping each section you wish to single out with quote tags. Opening quote tag for a Nick quote would be: [+Quote+=+Nick+] and closing tag for the quote is [+/+quote+] (minus of course the + signs which are mine for clarity in this instance as there must be no spaces between each). When you select Reply with Quote the whole text is just presented as a single quote with an opening and closing tag so you have to add in extra tags as you go. Basic rule is each quote you wish to single out must have an opening and a closing tag.
            Last edited by Abigail; 07-28-2015, 03:09 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
              Gary: I'm laughing.

              I have given you several plausible scenarios. You have not demonstrated their impossibility but have only expressed your personal prejudice against them. All of my scenarios are within the realm of naturalist probabilities. I challenge you to show me even ONE of my scenarios that meets the definition of "impossible".
              The only thing that you have demonstrated is that you don't believe that someone can raise from the dead and therefore whatever Paul said must be interpreted in a different manner. Jesus' claim was that He was the Son of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He supplied this by God raising Him from the dead. But you don't accept that anyone can be raised from the dead and that is why as far as you are concerned, Paul has to be wrong or lying or mentally ill.

              Originally posted by Gary
              And, how on earth can you make the claim that, "The Creed...is accurate"? How in hell do you know that a Creed written 2,000 years ago is accurate?
              Accurate in the sense that even if Paul and Peter fished all the time or acted as in any of your other senarios, the creed had been formulated by people who must have come to some agreement as to what it should articulate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by William View Post
                I get your response. I am unsure, however, what you really think.

                Is there just as much historical support, and more so, for these other religious men of note, than there is for Jesus or do you think there is less?
                Do I agree that all three existed? Yes. I think it's quite possible that all three had supernatural help, though only a fertile imagination is necessary for Joseph Smith and Mohammed. One of the advantages of the Christian scripture is that IS from the perspective of witnesses and not simply one man's assertions. There is not one shred of evidence for anything in the Book of Mormon. The Koran is an amalgam of heretical Jewish and Christian beliefs altered to promote Arabs instead of Jews and whatever tack Mohammed thought would get him the most support at the time. On the other hand, the New Testament is replete with references to the Old Testament, identifiable places and names, and attestations of eyewitnesses. Christianity says, "Come and see." Islam says, "Submit." Mormonism says, "Feel the burning in your bosom."

                One way to compare the religions is to compare where the faithful end up. A Christian aspires to be perfect, and spend eternity with God. A Mormon aspires to rule over his own petty universe, begetting billions of spirit babies with his wife (or wives) - pandering to a lust for power. A Muslim aspires to spend eternity with his 70 virgins - pandering to a lust for sexual gratification.

                Does that help?
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  No one but Paul refers to Paul as an apostle.
                  Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,

                  Acts 14:3-4 - So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders. The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles.

                  "All the apostles"??? Weren't the Twelve/Eleven the apostles?? Did Paul mean that Jesus appeared to the Twelve again?

                  Weird!
                  Apostle doesn't always refer to the Twelve in the New Testament.

                  Romans 16:7 - Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

                  Galatians 1:19 - But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

                  1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6 - Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace . . . nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

                  1 Corinthians 4:6, 9 - Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other . . . For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

                  1 Corinthians 3:4-6 - For when one says, I follow Paul, and another, I follow Apollos, are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

                  That the Twelve are not the only ones labeled "Apostle" in the early church is not controversial among scholars. Some (like Mark Goodacre, and Karen King) also include Mary Magdalene in the list. The most basic definition of "Apostle" is "one who is sent", though it is often inferred that an Apostle is also someone who has witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
                  Last edited by Adrift; 07-28-2015, 08:59 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                    So let's list the appearances:

                    1. Cephas
                    2. The Twelve (I thought Judas was dead and the new apostle wasn't chosen until after the Ascension?? Oh well, they were probably using a euphemism....)
                    I'm not a sports fan, but I understand there are twelve teams in the Big Ten now. It's called a synecdoche.

                    3. The Five Hundred
                    4. James
                    5. All the apostles
                    6. Paul

                    "All the apostles"??? Weren't the Twelve/Eleven the apostles?? Did Paul mean that Jesus appeared to the Twelve again?
                    No. There were other apostles. Apostles simply refers to sent out ones. Paul refers to some of these such as Junia in Romans 16. These could include the seventy from Luke.

                    Weird!
                    And the number of commentaries consulted on this was....zero....

                    Sounds more to me that Paul was just rattling off a Creed, a Creed which he had never verified. But that is just my humble opinion.
                    We are sure the world of NT scholarship will be revolutionized by your humble opinion, even though Paul himself says he did historeo with regards to the claims and knew the people well enough that he knew some of them were dead and was practically challenging the Corinthians to go to talk to the poeple.

                    "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d]" This is still part of the Creed! The same Creed that has Paul referring to the Eleven as "the Twelve" and calling the original eleven disciples both the "Twelve" and the "Apostles". Believe what you want, but I don't believe that Paul verified any of this information. If he had of, the Creed wouldn't be so awkward, and down right bizarre.
                    It's only awkward and bizarre if you come with a fundamentalist bent that assumes the disciples and the twelve are the same.

                    I can't prove Paul didn't verify the facts in this Creed, but Nick cannot prove that he did. We must resort to probabilities, once again.
                    I'll go then with Paul's testimony and the fact that this creed preceded him and the early church would not have success at all passing around a creed everyone knew was false.



                    Well, I guess I should not try to speak for all skeptics, but the ones I read, in particular Bart Ehrman, believe that early Christians believed in a bodily resurrection. Do you dispute Ehrman's position on this issue?
                    No. Ehrman is absolutely right.

                    Gary: My contention is that most (not all) of the converts to Christianity were poor and uneducated in the first century. What did Christianity offer that might be appealing to people of this class:

                    1. Equality
                    Masters, Freemen, Slaves, Men, Women, Gentiles, and Jews were all equal in this belief system.
                    Sure. ALl of them were equally likely to be killed by the Romans and persecuted by the Jews. Well maybe not equally, the poor who had no means of escape or resources at hand would be even more likely.

                    2. Justice
                    One may not receive justice in this life, but one would receive justice in the next. The righteous will be rewarded and the "wicked" oppressors, punished. This must have appealed to a lot of people living under the boot of the Roman Empire.
                    Except most people didn't believe in an afterlife like that. When you were dead, you were dead. Further, to believe that Jesus would bring justice to the empire, you'd have to believe the claims of Jesus.

                    3. Riches
                    You might not get rich in this life by joining the Christian movement, but you were promised, by the leader himself, a mansion of gold, a crown of jewels, and streets lined with gold.

                    For people living in poverty, misery, and oppression under the Romans, this must have been very appealing.
                    Wow. What a fundamentalist bent. That kind of stuff doesn't show up until Revelation and even then it's not literal and once again, no one could verify this and yet mystery religions offered you prosperity here in this life.


                    I'm sure that when I made the assertion that Paul was either a liar or mentally ill, every Christian reading this thread bristled. "Why would a man abandon a cushy life as a Pharisee, a member of the upper eschalon of Jewish society, and choose to become a member of a hated, scorned, ridiculed and brutally persecuted sect??"

                    My answer: Human beings do the craziest things, especially when they are mentally ill.
                    No. We didn't bristle. Not at all. We just rolled our eyes knowing it's you again. Well here's how i can look at this.

                    I can say "Why would someone abandon a Christian faith when they have no knowledge of the facts and can't handle a debate? Well obviously, they must be mentally ill! I know that they are because they did something crazy and since they did something crazy, they're mentally ill.

                    I don't believe that, but if this is the modus operandi you wish to use, then let's be consistent with it.

                    Unfortunately, psycho-history ever since Young Man Luther has been looked down on and nothing in Paul's letters indicates mental illness.

                    There is a radical Muslim cleric living in Israel today who not too long ago was an ultra-orthodox, right-wing Jewish settler, and, ultra-orthodox rabbi, or at least was in rabbinical school (I'm not sure if you have to graduate to be called "rabbi")!! I will post a link to his story. Bottom line: Human beings do some of the most unbelievable things, including converting to a religion they previously hated with all their being.

                    Joseph Cohen aka Yusuf Khattab:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DabIO_gwRgo

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeRUAvMDhkY

                    Here is a question for Nick, and every other Christian, to consider: Why do you think the prophet Mohammad said that he had seen an angel from God; ridden a winged-horse to heaven; and had received the true Word of God (the Koran)?

                    1. Everything he claimed really did happen
                    2. He was drunk.
                    3. He had a fever and was delusional.
                    4. He had a kidney or liver disease that caused toxins to build up in his blood, making him delusional.
                    5. He was bipolar, had some form of schizophrenia, or some other form of mental illness.
                    6. He lied, maybe for very good reasons, such as to improve the morality and living conditions of the Bedouin tribes in Arabia.
                    None of those reasons. Sorry. Try again.

                    Now, if you were to pose these questions to a devout Muslim, they would be just as outraged as you were about my suggestion that the apostle Paul was probably mentally ill. But don't you agree, that any of the causes from #2 to #6 are much more likely to be the cause for Mohammad's miracle claims than that they really did happen?
                    No. In fact, I don't find any of those reasons convincing really.

                    And you can apply this same test to Joseph Smith. A Mormon will never consider that Smith was delusional, mentally ill, or a liar, but I'm sure you would agree with me that he was most likely one of these three.
                    We have court records showing Smith was a liar and a con man. We have evidence that after his supposed vision where he was told to join no churches, he joined the Methodist church. We have evidence that he plagiarized the BoM from other works at the time. (All of this you conveniently ignored.)

                    When my faith was on the line, and I realized that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts, it all came down to Paul. I asked myself this question: Which is more probable: That Paul a sincere, devout man but was mistaken about what he thought he saw on the Damascus Road, or, that dead bodies really can be reanimated, eat broiled fish lunches, and levitate into outer space?
                    You've given no argument against miracles. Why should I throw out an account because it contains a miracle when a miracle is the best explanation?

                    btw, I doubt personal testimony worked well for you as an evangelist as Christian. Why think it works any better right now?

                    Gary: There is a big difference between probably and certainty. Paul mentions the Creed from I Corinthians 15 and the Words of Institution for the Eucharist. That's it! Those are the only details about the historical Jesus that Paul ever gives in his letters to his churches. He never once mentions Jesus' birthplace, the wisemen, the star over Bethlehem, the names of Jesus' parents, the fact that Jesus taught the scribes and Pharisees at age 12, something that would stand out to him as a pharisee, no mention of Jesus' miracles, none of Jesus' sermons, none of Jesus parables, no details about the trial, crucifixion, and death of Jesus other than a Creed of Witnesses and the Creed for the Last Supper.
                    Baloney. Romans 1: Jesus is descended from David. Galatians 4. Jesus is born under a woman and born under the law. 1 Cor. 5. Jesus is our passover lamb. Galatians 1. Jesus has a brother named James. 1 Cor. 7 Jesus's tradition on divorce and marriage. As for the other stuff, why would Paul need to mention it? This is a high context society. The material would be well-known to the people. The ANE world was a high-context world where background knowledge was assumed.

                    And we are asked to believe that Paul personally met Jesus of Nazareth on a dark, desert highway, and then was personally taught by Jesus in the Arabian desert for several years??? Give me a break. Paul invented, either maliciously or due to mental illness, a "Christ". He knew little to nothing about the historical "Jesus".
                    Who says Paul was personally taught by Jesus in the desert? I know of no one saying that. btw, the idea that Paul invented in any way like this has been dead since the work of E.P. Sanders. Try to pay attention.



                    Gary: It was in Galatia that Paul was accused of being a liar. In one of the letters to Timothy, Paul writes that "all in Asia have forsaken me". I think here that Paul is admitting that the churches, in Asia at leas,t saw him as a fabricator of facts. The author of the Book of Revelation has Jesus praising the Church in Ephesus for rejecting false "apostles". If Paul said "all" of Asia had rejected him, that would include "Asia's" capital city, Ephesus.
                    Oh good grief. Show where in Galatians Paul was called a liar. Give the evidence, not speculation. As for being abandoned. Yes. Paul was near death at that point and most people were thinking there was no need to hang around because Rome would be coming after them next. I note also you read all like a good little fundamentalist still.

                    I personally don't think Paul was a liar, I think he was mentally ill. I believe that this is what his "thorn in the flesh" most likely was. Anyone who isn't sure if he has or has not been teleported to the "third heaven" can't be playing with a full deck.
                    Yeah. Let me know when you do some real research into NDE's. Note Paul knew he had an appearance. He just didn't know if that was in his body or if he somehow left his body.



                    Gary: I'm laughing.

                    I have given you several plausible scenarios. You have not demonstrated their impossibility but have only expressed your personal prejudice against them. All of my scenarios are within the realm of naturalist probabilities. I challenge you to show me even ONE of my scenarios that meets the definition of "impossible". And, how on earth can you make the claim that, "The Creed...is accurate"? How in hell do you know that a Creed written 2,000 years ago is accurate?
                    We know it because if it had been known to be false then Christianity would have definitely died out since all their claims were seen as false. I don't know scholars who doubt the accuracy of the creed and the appearance tradition save perhaps mythicists who are on the fringe of the fringe.

                    You are really full of yourself at times, Nicholas.

                    (Time for dinner. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow.)
                    No. The person full of himself is the one who deconverted because he couldn't answer questions but thinks he knows enough to demonstrate that the best NT scholars in the field across the board are wrong on an issue.

                    You're convincing people around here Gary.

                    You're just not convincing them of what you want to convince them of.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                      The only thing that you have demonstrated is that you don't believe that someone can raise from the dead and therefore whatever Paul said must be interpreted in a different manner. Jesus' claim was that He was the Son of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He supplied this by God raising Him from the dead. But you don't accept that anyone can be raised from the dead and that is why as far as you are concerned, Paul has to be wrong or lying or mentally ill.

                      "Accurate in the sense that even if Paul and Peter fished all the time or acted as in any of your other senarios, the creed had been formulated by people who must have come to some agreement as to what it should articulate.
                      "

                      "must have"?

                      You have no proof of this assertion. You are making an assumption.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,

                        Acts 14:3-4 - So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders. The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles.



                        Apostle doesn't always refer to the Twelve in the New Testament.

                        Romans 16:7 - Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

                        Galatians 1:19 - But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

                        1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6 - Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace . . . nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

                        1 Corinthians 4:6, 9 - Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other . . . For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

                        1 Corinthians 3:4-6 - For when one says, I follow Paul, and another, I follow Apollos, are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

                        That the Twelve are not the only ones labeled "Apostle" in the early church is not controversial among scholars. Some (like Mark Goodacre, and Karen King) also include Mary Magdalene in the list. The most basic definition of "Apostle" is "one who is sent", though it is often inferred that an Apostle is also someone who has witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
                        You are correct. I should have said that no one except Paul and the Pauline disciple who wrote the Book of Acts (maybe Luke, maybe not) refers to Paul as an apostle.

                        Are you saying that at the time of the Resurrection, there were already men who were preaching the Gospel that would be referred to as "apostles"?? I don't think so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          I'm not a sports fan, but I understand there are twelve teams in the Big Ten now. It's called a synecdoche.



                          No. There were other apostles. Apostles simply refers to sent out ones. Paul refers to some of these such as Junia in Romans 16. These could include the seventy from Luke.



                          And the number of commentaries consulted on this was....zero....



                          We are sure the world of NT scholarship will be revolutionized by your humble opinion, even though Paul himself says he did historeo with regards to the claims and knew the people well enough that he knew some of them were dead and was practically challenging the Corinthians to go to talk to the poeple.



                          It's only awkward and bizarre if you come with a fundamentalist bent that assumes the disciples and the twelve are the same.



                          I'll go then with Paul's testimony and the fact that this creed preceded him and the early church would not have success at all passing around a creed everyone knew was false.





                          No. Ehrman is absolutely right.



                          Sure. ALl of them were equally likely to be killed by the Romans and persecuted by the Jews. Well maybe not equally, the poor who had no means of escape or resources at hand would be even more likely.



                          Except most people didn't believe in an afterlife like that. When you were dead, you were dead. Further, to believe that Jesus would bring justice to the empire, you'd have to believe the claims of Jesus.



                          Wow. What a fundamentalist bent. That kind of stuff doesn't show up until Revelation and even then it's not literal and once again, no one could verify this and yet mystery religions offered you prosperity here in this life.




                          No. We didn't bristle. Not at all. We just rolled our eyes knowing it's you again. Well here's how i can look at this.

                          I can say "Why would someone abandon a Christian faith when they have no knowledge of the facts and can't handle a debate? Well obviously, they must be mentally ill! I know that they are because they did something crazy and since they did something crazy, they're mentally ill.

                          I don't believe that, but if this is the modus operandi you wish to use, then let's be consistent with it.

                          Unfortunately, psycho-history ever since Young Man Luther has been looked down on and nothing in Paul's letters indicates mental illness.



                          None of those reasons. Sorry. Try again.



                          No. In fact, I don't find any of those reasons convincing really.



                          We have court records showing Smith was a liar and a con man. We have evidence that after his supposed vision where he was told to join no churches, he joined the Methodist church. We have evidence that he plagiarized the BoM from other works at the time. (All of this you conveniently ignored.)



                          You've given no argument against miracles. Why should I throw out an account because it contains a miracle when a miracle is the best explanation?

                          btw, I doubt personal testimony worked well for you as an evangelist as Christian. Why think it works any better right now?



                          Baloney. Romans 1: Jesus is descended from David. Galatians 4. Jesus is born under a woman and born under the law. 1 Cor. 5. Jesus is our passover lamb. Galatians 1. Jesus has a brother named James. 1 Cor. 7 Jesus's tradition on divorce and marriage. As for the other stuff, why would Paul need to mention it? This is a high context society. The material would be well-known to the people. The ANE world was a high-context world where background knowledge was assumed.



                          Who says Paul was personally taught by Jesus in the desert? I know of no one saying that. btw, the idea that Paul invented in any way like this has been dead since the work of E.P. Sanders. Try to pay attention.





                          Oh good grief. Show where in Galatians Paul was called a liar. Give the evidence, not speculation. As for being abandoned. Yes. Paul was near death at that point and most people were thinking there was no need to hang around because Rome would be coming after them next. I note also you read all like a good little fundamentalist still.



                          Yeah. Let me know when you do some real research into NDE's. Note Paul knew he had an appearance. He just didn't know if that was in his body or if he somehow left his body.





                          We know it because if it had been known to be false then Christianity would have definitely died out since all their claims were seen as false. I don't know scholars who doubt the accuracy of the creed and the appearance tradition save perhaps mythicists who are on the fringe of the fringe.



                          No. The person full of himself is the one who deconverted because he couldn't answer questions but thinks he knows enough to demonstrate that the best NT scholars in the field across the board are wrong on an issue.

                          You're convincing people around here Gary.

                          You're just not convincing them of what you want to convince them of.
                          "We are sure the world of NT scholarship will be revolutionized by your humble opinion, even though Paul himself says he did historeo with regards to the claims and knew the people well enough that he knew some of them were dead and was practically challenging the Corinthians to go to talk to the poeple. "

                          I agree that Paul believed he was quoting "historeo" but you are making an ASSUMPTION when you say that he knew people well enough that he knew some were dead. You cannot prove that, Nick, and you know it.

                          Nick: "I'll go then with Paul's testimony and the fact that this creed preceded him and the early church would not have success at all passing around a creed everyone knew was false."

                          Gary: That is your choice, Nick. However, I and many other former Christians have decided that we cannot believe in the reanimation of dead human tissue based on one first century man's testimony.

                          Why would the early Church know that the Creed was incorrect?? Maybe the Creed in I Corinthians is the CORRECT order of ALLEGED appearances and the non-witness author of Mark, writing in Rome, got his information wrong, and when the other three gospel writers wrote their gospels, they copied Mark's incorrect list, and not the Creed. If Mark wrote after 70 AD, who would be alive to know the difference? And when others saw the discrepancy, they assumed the same harmonization excuses that Christians make up today.

                          Bottom line: If you want to believe something bad enough, you will ignore all evidence to the contrary, even if it is staring you in the face.

                          Many, many possible naturalistic explanations, my friend. But for some reason you discount them all as implausible, but you buy the most implausible explanation, the reanimation of dead human tissue, without batting an eye!
                          Last edited by Gary; 07-28-2015, 10:19 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            "We are sure the world of NT scholarship will be revolutionized by your humble opinion, even though Paul himself says he did historeo with regards to the claims and knew the people well enough that he knew some of them were dead and was practically challenging the Corinthians to go to talk to the poeple. "

                            I agree that Paul believed he was quoting "historeo" but you are making an ASSUMPTION when you say that he knew people well enough that he knew some were dead. You cannot prove that, Nick, and you know it.
                            Prove in an absolute sense? No. Do I have reason to doubt it either? No. Especially since Paul would keep in touch with the Jerusalem church.

                            Sorry Gary, but these things where I write out a long reply and you just take a little shot back and say "I can't absolutely prove" do not convince me one iota.

                            If you want to deal with this, you will have to read the scholars yourself. Get off of Google and read a book.

                            Furthermore, who said anything about quoting histereo? It's not a source. That's how Paul described his activity. It's a historical investigation.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Are you saying that at the time of the Resurrection, there were already men who were preaching the Gospel that would be referred to as "apostles"?? I don't think so.
                              What? Where did you get that from anything in my post?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                What? Where did you get that from anything in my post?
                                It's a wonder how he gets anything from what is said. I post something and Gary makes some wild bizarre leap from it to something else that never entered my mind once.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X