Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2016, 09:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 08:56 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  By that standard, Paris Hilton is a contemporary of OJ Simpson. Care to guess why she didn't testify at his trial?

She wasn't required? If she was required, she would have been there.

Quote:Paul only ever "saw" Jesus in a vision after the crucifixion.

How do you know this for sure?

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?

It should be noted that the verse above is only assumed to refer to his supposed religious experience on the road to Damascus, but the reality is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this verse has anything to do with his experience on the road to Damascus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 08:56 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  By that standard, Paris Hilton is a contemporary of OJ Simpson. Care to guess why she didn't testify at his trial?

She wasn't required? If she was required, she would have been there.

Quote:Paul only ever "saw" Jesus in a vision after the crucifixion.

How do you know this for sure?

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?

It should be noted that the verse above is only assumed to refer to his supposed religious experience on the road to Damascus, but the reality is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this verse has anything to do with his experience on the road to Damascus.

There is also absolutely no evidence or reason that anything those writing propaganda letters in the name of "Paul" said can or should be taken as reliable.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2016, 09:13 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:03 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  She wasn't required? If she was required, she would have been there.


How do you know this for sure?

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?

It should be noted that the verse above is only assumed to refer to his supposed religious experience on the road to Damascus, but the reality is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this verse has anything to do with his experience on the road to Damascus.

There is also absolutely no evidence or reason that anything those writing propaganda letters in the name of "Paul" said can or should be taken as reliable.

Are you suggesting this letter isn't genuine?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is also absolutely no evidence or reason that anything those writing propaganda letters in the name of "Paul" said can or should be taken as reliable.

Are you suggesting this letter isn't genuine?

Are you suggesting he really saw Jesus during his hallucination ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Are you suggesting this letter isn't genuine?

Are you suggesting he really saw Jesus during his hallucination ?

Nope, not at all.

What I am saying is that verse 1Co 9:1 shows that Paul seen Jesus, and that verse has absolutely no evidence as to be referring to the supposed incident on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, that verse could be speaking of a completely separate event.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Are you suggesting he really saw Jesus during his hallucination ?

Nope, not at all.

What I am saying is that verse 1Co 9:1 shows that Paul seen Jesus, and that verse has absolutely no evidence as to be referring to the supposed incident on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, that verse could be speaking of a completely separate event.

Or they both could be complete fiction, or the Pauls could be different people (as Ehrman thinks). It ''shows" nothing. It repeats a claim.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2016, 10:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Nope, not at all.

What I am saying is that verse 1Co 9:1 shows that Paul seen Jesus, and that verse has absolutely no evidence as to be referring to the supposed incident on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, that verse could be speaking of a completely separate event.

Or they both could be complete fiction, or the Pauls could be different people (as Ehrman thinks). It ''shows" nothing. It repeats a claim.

That which exists can never be "nothing." Therefore, it shows "something."

The "something" that the text indicates is that Paul seen Jesus.

This leaves the only two choices we can make:

1. Paul seen Jesus.

2. Paul did not see Jesus.

The text is the only evidence available, so what you need to do is disprove what the text says, otherwise we have no reason to dismiss it as evidence that not only was Paul a contemporary of Jesus, but he was also an eyewitness.

So provide some evidence and good reasoning why this text should be dismissed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 10:31 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 10:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 10:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Or they both could be complete fiction, or the Pauls could be different people (as Ehrman thinks). It ''shows" nothing. It repeats a claim.

That which exists can never be "nothing." Therefore, it shows "something."

The "something" that the text indicates is that Paul seen Jesus.

This leaves the only two choices we can make:

1. Paul seen Jesus.

2. Paul did not see Jesus.

The text is the only evidence available, so what you need to do is disprove what the text says, otherwise we have no reason to dismiss it as evidence that not only was Paul a contemporary of Jesus, but he was also an eyewitness.

So provide some evidence and good reasoning why this text should be dismissed.

Paul "seen" Jesus is not correct English. You have no advanced degree.
The text "indicates" nothing. Religious writing contains all sorts of garbage. It's NOT "HISTORICAL". It's a product of FAITH.
Your idiotic assertion is false. It does not take into account the nature of the literature in question, (among other things). If what you say it true, YOU also must accept the Greek myths as factual, and need to refute them. I don't buy your assumptions, and you don't get to tell anyone what they "need to do", you arrogant patronizing SOB.
The Greek words used also can be translated as "made evident" (not necessarily "seen"), but since you're a scholar of nothing, I doubt you know anything about the "alternate resurrection" views.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2016, 10:49 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 10:57 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 10:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 10:08 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That which exists can never be "nothing." Therefore, it shows "something."

The "something" that the text indicates is that Paul seen Jesus.

This leaves the only two choices we can make:

1. Paul seen Jesus.

2. Paul did not see Jesus.

The text is the only evidence available, so what you need to do is disprove what the text says, otherwise we have no reason to dismiss it as evidence that not only was Paul a contemporary of Jesus, but he was also an eyewitness.

So provide some evidence and good reasoning why this text should be dismissed.

Paul "seen" Jesus is not correct English.

It's lexiconical, deal with it.

Quote:The text "indicates" nothing. Religious writing contains all sorts of garbage. It's NOT "HISTORICAL". It's a product of FAITH.

You are certainly hooked on this "everything is a faith based thing," but now that must prove itself to be the ultimate truth, and the only way you can do that is by YOU proving it.

So therefore, prove that the text is nothing but a product of faith, and that it cannot be an actual event.

So ... let's see your evidence to prove your claim.


Quote:Your idiotic assertion is false. It does not take into account the nature of the literature in question, (among other things). If what you say it true, YOU also must accept the Greek myths as factual, and need to refute them. I don't buy your assumptions, and you don't get to tell anyone what they "need to do", you arrogant patronizing SOB.

But my position has nothing to do with any Greek myths. My position is only that Paul claims to have seen Jesus in that text. He says nothing in that text that could be viewed as mythical in any way.

So, "Mr. Insufferable Know-It-All," let's see if you can put your fucking money where your obviously uneducated mouth is, and prove your idiotic stupid-ass claim.

How's that for being patronizing? Put up, or shut the fuck up.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 11:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Nope, not at all.

What I am saying is that verse 1Co 9:1 shows that Paul seen Jesus, and that verse has absolutely no evidence as to be referring to the supposed incident on the road to Damascus.

Therefore, that verse could be speaking of a completely separate event.

Man you are some rotten historian. You sound more like a theology student.

You use Paul both for and against Jesus. That's some sloppy history mate.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: