Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[JonathanL]

So I'm really kind of curious (and too lazy to read the entire thread). How did this segue become the topic of this thread?

Every discussion thread on TWeb eventually derails into a discussion about something entirely different from the initial topic.

[rogue06]

Every discussion thread on TWeb eventually derails into a discussion about something entirely different from the initial topic.

bacon

ftw in accordance with Jed's Law

[carpedm9587]

Every discussion thread on TWeb eventually derails into a discussion about something entirely different from the initial topic.

Really? I never noticed that...

[seer]

appeared

Are you suggesting that Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

[carpedm9587]

Are you suggesting that Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

I don't know about Tass - but I am suggesting that your problem is the lack of a historical basis. Clearly, the writers of the gospels felt perfectly comfortable quoting entire speeches from Jesus that are highly unlikely to be Jesus' actual words. Yet the words are quoted as if they were Jesus' own. Do they convey his original message? Probably. Are they his exact words? Highly unlikely.

So if the gospel writers felt perfectly comfortable putting specific words in Jesus' mouth, how comfortable were they putting day-to-day activities into the story? Did Jesus ever have the encounter in the temple as a youth? Was he actually born in a stable? Did he ride into Jerusalem on a mule to adulation of the crowds? Did he have the conversation with the tax collector? Or are all of these stories passed down over the years, embellished, used to convey ideas about Jesus, and ended up being part of his "history?" Did Jesus tell all of those parables, or were some of them stories the Apostles later told, and then attributed them to Jesus to lend them credence.

And if this is possible, where is the line between the historical "what actually happened" and the things added to the story by the Apostles, early preachers, and the documenters.

The fact is - we simply don't know. We can only assume. We cannot prove these stories are historically accurate - and we cannot prove they are not. We do not have the evidence to do either.

[Tassman]

Are you suggesting that Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

[seer]

Nonsense, of course Paul believed in the bodily resurrection, and just because Paul saw Christ in a vision does not mean that the Apostles saw Christ in a vision. That doesn't follow. And again it is not merely "tradition" when the principles (the original disciples and Apostles) are still around to inform the early Christian community.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, of course Paul believed in the bodily resurrection, and just because Paul saw Christ in a vision does not mean that the Apostles saw Christ in a vision. That doesn't follow. And again it is not merely "tradition" when the principles (the original disciples and Apostles) are still around to inform the early Christian community.

You certainly do love to poison the well, Seer. I find myself wondering if you actually believe it helps your arguments.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, of course Paul believed in the bodily resurrection, and just because Paul saw Christ in a vision does not mean that the Apostles saw Christ in a vision.

That doesn't follow. And again it is not merely "tradition" when the principles (the original disciples and Apostles) are still around to inform the early Christian community.

The gospel stories were disseminated via oral tradition over a period of decades before being recorded in writing. Such stories are certain to be embellished, misremembered and inevitably grow with the telling. Especially as much of the Jesus tradition was not passed down by those who had known Jesus personally, but often by peripatetic preachers who had only heard about Jesus from others or, like Paul, who only knew him through visionary experiences.

[seer]

Bull Tass, Paul is not saying that all encounters were apparitions. And what did Paul have a vision of? The bodily resurrected Christ? And again, Paul did believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

The gospel stories were disseminated via oral tradition over a period of decades before being recorded in writing. Such stories are certain to be embellished, misremembered and inevitably grow with the telling. Especially as much of the Jesus tradition was not passed down by those who had known Jesus personally, but often by peripatetic preachers who had only heard about Jesus from others or, like Paul, who only knew him through visionary experiences.

Again nonsense, how do you know these stories were not passed down by those who knew Jesus especially since they were still alive at the time of these writings (for the most part)? Again we know that Luke used eyewitnesses for his books and both he and Paul were companions of the Apostles. And how do you misremember that your dead friend came back to life?

[carpedm9587]

Bull Tass, Paul is not saying that all encounters were apparitions. And what did Paul have a vision of? The bodily resurrected Christ? And again, Paul did believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Again nonsense, how do you know these stories were not passed down by those who knew Jesus especially since they were still alive at the time of these writings (for the most part)? Again we know that Luke used eyewitnesses for his books and both he and Paul were companions of the Apostles. And how do you misremember that your dead friend came back to life?

That's pretty much the point. All of this is pure speculation piled on assumption after assumption. Paul claims to have a "vision" of Jesus. If I have a "vision" of someone, how does that support the claim that, in the real world, they were actually "bodily resurrected?" It's a vision - of a person. The status of the person in the real world is not impacted by the vision. What Paul believes about Jesus also does not affect what happened in the real world.

Just as Tass cannot prove that "these stories were not passed down by those who knew Jesus especially since they were still alive at the time of these writings (for the most part)," you also cannot prove that "these stories were passed down by those who knew Jesus especially since they were still alive at the time of these writings (for the most part)." You cannot even demonstrate that "the witnesses were alive at the time of the writings (for the most part)." You know the authors claimed some of the witnesses were part of the community, but you cannot show that they were the source for the stories (you have to assume it), that they recalled the events of Jesus' life correctly (you have to assume it), or that the documentors accurately captured the stories (you have to assume it). Working against you are the time gap between the events reported and their documentation as well as what we know about how human memory works, all of which you have to wave away in order to preserve your beliefs.

This is what I outlined for you in the discussion you abandoned. The level of detail in the gospels with respect to Jesus specific words and day-to-day activities cannot be defended using normal historical methodology. It is, ASAIK, unprecedented in historical analysis. And the miracles (as you pointed out) cannot be defended with normal historical methodology. It leaves you with major gaps in claiming that the gospels and other NT books are a reliable source for documenting the events of Jesus' life. Ignoring that problem, as you are obviously doing, doesn't make it go away.

[Tassman]

Bull Tass, Paul is not saying that all encounters were apparitions.

Paul is clearly saying that all the encounters with Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 were the same as his encounter with Jesus. And we know that this was not a fleshly encounter.

Again nonsense, how do you know these stories were not passed down by those who knew Jesus especially since they were still alive at the time of these writings (for the most part)?

Again we know that Luke used eyewitnesses for his books and both he and Paul were companions of the Apostles.

that. Acts is not considered by scholars to be reliable history. And, given the inconsistencies between Paul's letters and Acts, the letters are considered more reliable for information about Paul than Acts

And how do you misremember that your dead friend came back to life?

[seer]

Paul is clearly saying that all the encounters with Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 were the same as his encounter with Jesus. And we know that this was not a fleshly encounter.

Nonsense Tass, Paul says no such thing and Paul makes it clear that the resurrection was not some kind of mere spiritual apparition. As Bart Erhman states:

My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians.

https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/

that. Acts is not considered by scholars to be reliable history. And, given the inconsistencies between Paul's letters and Acts, the letters are considered more reliable for information about Paul than Acts

And you have scholars on the opposite sides of these questions. For instance you have 220 historically verifiable person, places and things between the Gospel and Acts. And you have zero evidence that the main points were misremembered.

Pure bias bull. A dead man physically coming back from the dead would have as unusual then as it it is now. And as Erhman makes clear, they, the very people that Paul references (the actual followers of Christ who met him after his resurrection) did not believe these encounters were merely of apparitions.

[Tassman]

Paul says no such thing and Paul makes it clear that the resurrection was not some kind of mere spiritual apparition.

A dead man physically coming back from the dead would have as unusual then as it it is now. And as Erhman makes clear, they, the very people that Paul references (the actual followers of Christ who met him after his resurrection) did not believe these encounters were merely of apparitions.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...-craig-ehrman/

[seer]

Again according to Ehrman did Paul and his audience believe in the resurrection of the body, the physical resurrection of Christ? Yes or no?