Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2016, 08:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Mark Fulton Wrote:Paul knew fuck all about Jesus Christ.

If you, or anyone else, ignores all the evidence in an effort to support your crazy pet theory, you would have no choice but to come to this conclusion.

But you need to ignore the following:

1. Several verses where he "knows" Jesus was crucified.
2. The verse where he says he met James, the Lord's brother.
3. Several verses where he met the apostles of Jesus Christ.
4. The fact that he quotes Jesus from 1Cor 11:23 to 1Cor 11:26.
5. Numerous verses where he knew the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since those facts above cannot be ignored, could we accurately predict that your response to this must, by necessity, be "It's all interpolated?"

Since you have no other recourse, your only option to maintain your position is to make the claim of interpolation, since the evidence definitely shows he knew plenty about Jesus Christ.

And if you make the claim of interpolation, I will most certainly corner you into presenting historical evidence to prove it.

So ... let's see it.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 04:46 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-08-2016 08:26 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Mark Fulton Wrote:Paul knew fuck all about Jesus Christ.

If you, or anyone else, ignores all the evidence in an effort to support your crazy pet theory, you would have no choice but to come to this conclusion.

But you need to ignore the following:

1. Several verses where he "knows" Jesus was crucified.
2. The verse where he says he met James, the Lord's brother.
3. Several verses where he met the apostles of Jesus Christ.
4. The fact that he quotes Jesus from 1Cor 11:23 to 1Cor 11:26.
5. Numerous verses where he knew the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since those facts above cannot be ignored, could we accurately predict that your response to this must, by necessity, be "It's all interpolated?"

Since you have no other recourse, your only option to maintain your position is to make the claim of interpolation, since the evidence definitely shows he knew plenty about Jesus Christ.

And if you make the claim of interpolation, I will most certainly corner you into presenting historical evidence to prove it.

So ... let's see it.

Big Grin

Here I go again, explaining stuff to another theist, at the risk of being repetitive...

Paul Knew Almost Nothing of Jesus

Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Paul’s Christ was clearly someone different from the wise teacher full of parables and anecdotes we think we know from the Gospels. Amazingly, in the twenty-first century, we know more about “Jesus” than Paul did!

Paul wrote,
“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:
“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and
“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Paul didn’t give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ’s death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:

“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could have been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could have saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years (Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts about Jesus as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might care to know about Yeshua.

Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul nor James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure - because the Gospels hadn’t been written yet, so Jesus’ status as a legendary character hadn’t been created.

Who then, was Paul’s Christ? It was someone who Paul thought had existed in heaven since the beginning of time, yet only revealed to the world via his own peculiar interpretation of Jewish scripture. Douglas Lockhart (http://douglaslockhart.com/) and a number of other scholars (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm) think it could have been the “Teacher of Righteousness” written about in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are many theories as to who this character was, one of which is that he was an Essene leader, a priest, who lived perhaps a hundred years before Yeshua, who had disapproved of the Hasmonean high priest.

In the Gentile world of the time there was competition from many dying and rising gods such as Mithras. Those gods often didn’t have a mortal life that was remembered, just like Paul’s Christ. It was only the myth of them dying and rising again that gave them significance, just like his Christ. His Christ, real identity uncertain, was a Judaic myth invented to compete with these other cults. The idea that his Christ would one day be equated with Yeshua may not ever have been on Paul’s radar. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm).

It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries.

Or, it could be that Paul was using the (very common) name to represent a spirit, not a person. “Paul” does say, once, in 1 Tim 6;13, that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, yet this wasn’t written by Paul. “Paul” does talk about what Christ allegedly said on the night he was betrayed, in the first letter to the Corinthians, but this whole passage is unique in that regard and therefore it too is suspiciously “unPauline.”

Most Christians I have talked to about this are perplexed, and with good reason, because Paul’s lack of commentary on Jesus undermines the account about Jesus being an inspiring, miracle working individual, someone with real feelings, empathy for his fellows, and charisma, who preached wise anecdotes that had so impressed his disciples and the crowds. This is an image created by churchmen using the Gospels. Paul knew none of this. Outside of Jewish scripture he only ever acknowledged one source of wisdom—himself. An authoritative Yeshua, even one recently deceased, would have focused the limelight on someone more significant than himself, and I don’t think he would have liked that.

Just who Paul thought his Christ was is a difficult concept to grasp, and in my opinion it’s not worth spending too much time on. It helps to remember that the sources of Paul’s ideas are obscure; that his writings have been tampered with; that original meaning is often lost in translations; that the Jesus stories we know so well only finished being cobbled together in the fourth century, and Paul had never read them; that Paul had an overactive imagination, and he was a very peculiar man.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-08-2016 08:26 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Mark Fulton Wrote:Paul knew fuck all about Jesus Christ.

If you, or anyone else, ignores all the evidence in an effort to support your crazy pet theory, you would have no choice but to come to this conclusion.

But you need to ignore the following:

1. Several verses where he "knows" Jesus was crucified.
2. The verse where he says he met James, the Lord's brother.
3. Several verses where he met the apostles of Jesus Christ.
4. The fact that he quotes Jesus from 1Cor 11:23 to 1Cor 11:26.
5. Numerous verses where he knew the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since those facts above cannot be ignored, could we accurately predict that your response to this must, by necessity, be "It's all interpolated?"

Since you have no other recourse, your only option to maintain your position is to make the claim of interpolation, since the evidence definitely shows he knew plenty about Jesus Christ.

And if you make the claim of interpolation, I will most certainly corner you into presenting historical evidence to prove it.

So ... let's see it.

Big Grin

"4. The fact that he quotes Jesus from 1Cor 11:23 to 1Cor 11:26."

Yeah yeah, I know. Nice try, but....

The Last Supper

Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. Paul had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.

“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What’s surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person ate and drank with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.

There are three compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.

He was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules. Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua and his followers would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.

This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was probably borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull’s flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm). This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.

The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.

Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony. The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner. By participating in the event, people are repeatedly reminded they’re flawed and need Christ and the church to be redeemed. That promotes power; and priests know it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTwSJK_XMI).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 04:54 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(03-08-2016 08:03 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(03-08-2016 04:55 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  A large body of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus. Scripture tells us this not once, but twice! This is history... the written evidence, not to mention the archaeological evidence ( can you deny Damascus existed? Surely it had a road? How da fuck could people get there if there was no road?) The mythers and atheists who want to destroy the faith of children are denying the existence of roads, ghosts and Jesus! Unbelievable! I'm highly trained, and I believe I know a road, and a ghost, in context, when I see it. The vast majority of professional scholars acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

If you don't want to believe there was a Damascus or a road or a ghost, that's fine by me , but a consensus of professionals acknowledge that Jesus' ghost visited Paul on the road to Damascus.

I'm generally a fan of yours, Mark, but I think you're being a bit unfair here. It's quite possible to believe that there is an element of history both in the Gospels and in Acts (i.e., people like Jesus and Paul did exist, and did do some of the things attributed to them in those books) without accepting all of the miracles, etc. I myself think that Paul's "vision" on the road to Damascus is either a made-up story, or has some natural explanation (maybe an epileptic fit?), and that the miracles of Jesus (including the Resurrection) are bullshit, but I am willing to accept that Jesus and Paul were probably real historical people (and that Jesus really was from Nazareth -- it's the Bethlehem stuff that smells like bullshit to me). GoingUp has never said, or even suggested, that he thinks Paul saw the ghost of Jesus. Keep in mind that this entire thread is only about whether or not Jesus existed, not about his divinity or the truth of Christianity. The subject here is history, not theology or apologetics.

Also, the "consensus of professionals" thing can sound like a cop-out, but consider an analogous situation. You are a professional biologist (like, say, RocketSurgeon), and some creationist who thinks that evolution is bullshit keeps challenging you to provide a list of specific scholars who support evolution. Well, they all do! Where would you even start? The question is just silly. I'm not blindly accepting all of GoingUp's arguments, but if he is a professional in this field (history), and virtually all the other professionals in the field agree with him, it's perfectly reasonable for him to find this continual demand for citations irritating (especially since he has provided some citations).

Thanks for your nice comments. I will reply soon. Right now, after 12 hours working, Mozart and Johnny Walker black are calling out to me. If I were to reply after the whiskey, you wouldn't want to read it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 09:45 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:Here I go again, explaining stuff to another theist, at the risk of being repetitive...

Since it has been stated to you numerous times by me that I am not a theist, I will point out to the readers that the first thing we see from you in response to my post is a bare faced lie. Hopefully they will keep that in mind as I review the rest of your diatribe.

Quote:Most Christians incorrectly assume Paul was restating Jesus’ teachings. Yet Paul never claimed he was inspired or influenced by Jesus or Jesus’ disciples. Paul held his messages came from God and were about his Christ. They were not from Jesus.

Immediately you attempt to state that the Christian interpretation is incorrect, yet every Christian and every non Christian can see that Paul's quote regarding the Last Supper is found in the Gospel records. Since it is accepted by the Christians that Jesus spoke these very same words in the Gospel, and it is accepted by virtually all bible scholars that the Paul is in fact quoting verbatim what we see in the Gospel records, then any claims of otherwise would need to be evidenced.

But you have no evidence, therefore your claim is baseless.

In addition to this, you claim that Paul was not inspired by Jesus, yet we see the following:

Gal_1:12  For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it except by a revelation of Jesus Christ.


Quote:Paul wrote,

“Even if we did once know Christ in the flesh, that is not how we know him now” (2 Cor. 5:16, NJB.) What an extraordinary statement! It only begins to make sense if we realize that Paul was only interested in the idea of a resurrected spirit, his Christ figurehead. A “once human” Jesus, someone with a personality and ideas, was never a topic Paul was comfortable discussing.

I find it hilarious that you somehow think that Paul was somehow uncomfortable talking about a human Jesus, especially when we see numerous quotes of his blatantly contradiction you. List below are just 10 out of a large abundance:

1Co_2:2  For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him being crucified.

1Co_1:23  but we preach that Christ was crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:8  which none of the rulers of this world knew for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

2Co_13:4  for even if He was crucified out of weakness, yet He lives by the power of God. For indeed even we are weak in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you),

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Rom_1:3  about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Rom_5:15  but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

1Co_9:1  Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Gal_4:4  But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, coming into being out of a woman, having come under Law,

1Ti_6:13  I charge you before God who makes all things alive and in the sight of Jesus Christ, who witnessed the good confession to Pontius Pilate,


And in addition to this, we have dozens more. So whatever fantasy is rolling around in that head of yours, it is completely contradicted by a massive abundance of textual evidence.


Quote:Someone passing himself off as Paul wrote that “Christ” was a mystery, one that he had a particularly good understanding of:

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4, KJV,) and
“Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds” (Col. 4:3, KJV.)

Here you are stating "Someone passing himself off as Paul" which obviously implies that the author of those verses was not Paul, and then you proceed to somehow use this as some kind of evidence against what Paul understood?

If you accept that it wasn't Paul who wrote it, then what the fuck does that have to do with what Paul understood?

It's completely irrelevant.

Quote:If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates.

Why? What's your reasoning here? You are attempting to interpolate your own speculation as if it should be part of history, when you have no good reasoning why, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Besides ...

Gal 1:18 - 1:19  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother.


Quote:It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” among Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries.

I must be a prophet, since I accurately predicted that you would ignore the direct evidence, and then you would play the interpolation card.

Why? Because you cannot dispute the actual hard evidence with any evidence to the contrary at all. Your only method is to ignore the evidence, such as the 10 quotes I posted above- which are just a meager few from many many more- and then play the interpolation card.

You are a dime-a-dozen Jesus Mythicist, Mark. You use all their techniques, and quote from their websites. You are not fooling anybody whatsoever.

As expected, you cannot prove one single thing about your premise, as you are merely making up shit in your own head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:07 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 08:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  ... every Christian and every non Christian can see that Paul's quote regarding the Last Supper is found in the Gospel records. Since it is accepted by the Christians that Jesus spoke these very same words in the Gospel, and it is accepted by virtually all bible scholars that the Paul is in fact quoting verbatim what we see in the Gospel records, ...

I think the consensus of bible scholars is that Paul's authentic epistles were all written before any of the gospels, so if anyone is quoting, it is the gospels who are quoting Paul, not the other way around.

I grant the possibility that Jesus may have actually said those words, and that everyone is legitimately quoting him, but Paul can't be quoting the gospels, unless all the scholars are wrong about composition dates.

I am assuming for the sake of argument that none of these passages are interpolated, although I will also grant that possibility. We know that early Christians were not above such practices, since they openly bragged about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
04-08-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 09:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 08:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  ... every Christian and every non Christian can see that Paul's quote regarding the Last Supper is found in the Gospel records. Since it is accepted by the Christians that Jesus spoke these very same words in the Gospel, and it is accepted by virtually all bible scholars that the Paul is in fact quoting verbatim what we see in the Gospel records, ...

I think the consensus of bible scholars is that Paul's authentic epistles were all written before any of the gospels, so if anyone is quoting, it is the gospels who are quoting Paul, not the other way around.

I grant the possibility that Jesus may have actually said those words, and that everyone is legitimately quoting him, but Paul can't be quoting the gospels, unless all the scholars are wrong about composition dates.

I am assuming for the sake of argument that none of these passages are interpolated, although I will also grant that possibility. We know that early Christians were not above such practices, since they openly bragged about it.

A-ha! Someone else sees it.

If there was no written canonical gospel record at the time, then Paul is relating an event that he was taught. In other words, he was "learning" things about Jesus from oral tradition.

However, there is plenty of evidence from Paul's letters that there were indeed gospels in existence during his time, and that things concerning Jesus had in fact been written down.

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:42 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 09:24 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 09:07 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think the consensus of bible scholars is that Paul's authentic epistles were all written before any of the gospels, so if anyone is quoting, it is the gospels who are quoting Paul, not the other way around.

I grant the possibility that Jesus may have actually said those words, and that everyone is legitimately quoting him, but Paul can't be quoting the gospels, unless all the scholars are wrong about composition dates.

I am assuming for the sake of argument that none of these passages are interpolated, although I will also grant that possibility. We know that early Christians were not above such practices, since they openly bragged about it.

A-ha! Someone else sees it.

If there was no written canonical gospel record at the time, then Paul is relating an event that he was taught. In other words, he was "learning" things about Jesus from oral tradition.

However, there is plenty of evidence from Paul's letters that there were indeed gospels in existence during his time, and that things concerning Jesus had in fact been written down.

Gal_3:1  O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?

Gal_1:6  I marvel that you so soon are being moved away from Him who called you into the grace of Christ, to another gospel,

There may have been written gospels floating around, but not any of the four that ended up in the Bible. There is a strong consensus that they were all written later. In any event, the word "gospel" (in the second quote) may just mean another set of teachings -- not necessarily a written document. The word itself just means "good news". When Paul says "another gospel", he is comparing it to his own "gospel" -- i.e., his teaching. The Galatians are being led astray by teachings contrary to Paul's.

I don't dispute, though, that Paul probably learned this "good news" from someone else. I don't think he made it all up himself. He says in several places that he "received" it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 10:37 AM by sheba021.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 09:24 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  If there was no written canonical gospel record at the time, then Paul is relating an event that he was taught. In other words, he was "learning" things about Jesus from oral tradition.
Just curious, why is it so improbable to assume that event was something Paul invented himself or that it was interpolated later?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(02-08-2016 05:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 05:16 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Thats usually not how claims are evaluated.
Not accepting one belief does not automatically mean to accept the opposite belief.

When we have two claims (i believe the universe to be caused / not caused), the claims are evaluated separately. So for the claim "i believe the universe is caused", you can either believe it or not. That (the latter one) does not adress at all the separate claim of "i believe the universe was not caused (by anything)". This claim is separately evaluated by "i believe" or "i dont believe".

It is done the same way in law: When the prosecution claims that (the indicted person) is guilty, we do not evaluate the two prongs thats he is guilty or innocent (two separate prongs), but we evaluate "he is guilty". Therefore the judgement is "guilty" or "not guilty", and not "guilty" or "innocent". The innocence claim is a different one and evaluated separately.

We dont say "i dont think hes guilty, therefore i think he is innocent" in court.

So if TBD doesnt believe one claim, it is a straw man to suggest he (indirectly) claimed to hold the opposing belief. TBD may say "i dont know" to both claims, making GoingUps response indeed a red herring.

No one seems to understand my position.

I was agreeing with him.

That is why I said, "Unfortunately, so is the argument for Indeterminism."

Both are arguments from ignorance.

Right, both are arguments from ignorance but I only highlighted the one you professed as your own position.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: