Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 12:35 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have proven that Paul and Acts contradict themselves ABSOLUTELY. Neither is reliable.

You haven't proven that Paul's letters are not reliable whatsoever.

Everybody knows that Acts and Paul's Letters are two different authors, so of course contradictions can almost certainly occur. We see this thing in virtually all historical texts that speak of similar things. It's common.

But can you show me where Paul contradicts himself with 1 Cor 9:1?


And that's the logical thing to do here. All historians can say things about the past that can contradict each other. No two versions from two different people will ever be identical.

So your argument is worthless.

They (the contrradistion) are HUGE essential parts of the story. One (Acts) says he was in Jerusalem a LOT, and familiar with ALL the players. Paul (in Galatians) totally contradicts this narrative, and says the opposite. They are two entirely different stories. At least one is a lie. You cannot possibly be an historian.

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
07-08-2016, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 01:02 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 12:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 11:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No, neither Ehrman or Crossman translate it that way at all, and this "B.B. Scott" you speak of is unknown.

The laugh is on you, MR (not DR). The "internal experience" / "transformation'' ("coming to see") IS EXACTLY Crossan's view of the resurrection experience.
(Just goes to show you know absolutely nothing of this subject, and the players and experts who comment on it).
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/69/69.4/69.4.2.pdf

That text doesn't even allude to 1 Cor 9:1 at all. No mention of it at all.

Fail.

Quote:And it IS the theme of Ehrman also.

So you say, but please show me where, specifically.

(Be very careful, I have all his books)

Smartass

Quote:Paul said he "got his gospel from no man". That means he denied having ever met Jesus, AND if he did, the huge tension with the Church in Jerusalem he fought would never have happened. You really cook up shit to make your insane fakery look legit.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul possibly having seen Jesus before Jesus was crucified. He could have seen him walking with his apostles, or "seen" him anywhere. Just because he may have seen him doesn't mean he listened to Jesus preaching anything about any Gospel. And why would he listen to Jesus before his conversion? He persecuted the church, remember?

You fail again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 01:27 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 12:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 12:35 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You haven't proven that Paul's letters are not reliable whatsoever.

Everybody knows that Acts and Paul's Letters are two different authors, so of course contradictions can almost certainly occur. We see this thing in virtually all historical texts that speak of similar things. It's common.

But can you show me where Paul contradicts himself with 1 Cor 9:1?


And that's the logical thing to do here. All historians can say things about the past that can contradict each other. No two versions from two different people will ever be identical.

So your argument is worthless.

They (the contrradistion) are HUGE essential parts of the story. One (Acts) says he was in Jerusalem a LOT, and familiar with ALL the players. Paul (in Galatians) totally contradicts this narrative, and says the opposite. They are two entirely different stories. At least one is a lie. You cannot possibly be an historian.

No ... no ... no.

You said "At least one is a lie" when any intellectually honest historian would say "At least one is inaccurate."

A lie is best defined as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What historians see in these ancient texts is not a lot of outright lies, but rather heaps and heaps of inaccuracies.

They also understand the nature of these ancient religious cultures, which bear absolutely no resemblance to modern cultures. You- via the historian's fallacy- will determine it to be lies, but actual historians know precisely what it is.

Acts is simply the works of an author who absolutely believed that the information he gathered was accurate according to his sources, and according to his own experiences. There was no intent to deliberately lie because he actually believed everything he wrote.

Paul's letters are the works of yet another religious person who also completely believed in what he was writing about. Paul may have been somewhat delusional, or motivated out of fear, or wrote what he wrote under the motivation of several different variables. But to say "he lied" only demonstrates a narrow-mindedness in which that is all you want to see, at the expense of what the truth may actually be.

My position is not a position that "somebody lied," but rather the more intellectually honest position that "somebody is inaccurate" for the simple reason that not every time that people make mistakes should they be considered a liar.

If that were the case, then every time you made a mistake on an exam, well by golly, you're nothing but a god damn good for nothing liar, right?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 01:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 12:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 12:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The laugh is on you, MR (not DR). The "internal experience" / "transformation'' ("coming to see") IS EXACTLY Crossan's view of the resurrection experience.
(Just goes to show you know absolutely nothing of this subject, and the players and experts who comment on it).
http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/69/69.4/69.4.2.pdf

That text doesn't even allude to 1 Cor 9:1 at all. No mention of it at all.

Fail.

Quote:And it IS the theme of Ehrman also.

So you say, but please show me where, specifically.

(Be very careful, I have all his books)

Smartass

Quote:Paul said he "got his gospel from no man". That means he denied having ever met Jesus, AND if he did, the huge tension with the Church in Jerusalem he fought would never have happened. You really cook up shit to make your insane fakery look legit.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul possibly having seen Jesus before Jesus was crucified. He could have seen him walking with his apostles, or "seen" him anywhere. Just because he may have seen him doesn't mean he listened to Jesus preaching anything about any Gospel. And why would he listen to Jesus before his conversion? He persecuted the church, remember?

You fail again.

You are the one who constantly invokes "consensus". There is no consensus that Paul ever met Jesus. Name 5 scholars that say Paul met Jesus.

You go down again. You are no historian, if you need to be schooled about why mythology is not historical, or why documents based in faith are not reliable.
I smell some sort of rat here. Why would he say he "met" Jesus if he only 'saw" him ? You're grasping at straws, as you've been shown to be an ignoramus.

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
07-08-2016, 02:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 01:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 12:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They (the contrradistion) are HUGE essential parts of the story. One (Acts) says he was in Jerusalem a LOT, and familiar with ALL the players. Paul (in Galatians) totally contradicts this narrative, and says the opposite. They are two entirely different stories. At least one is a lie. You cannot possibly be an historian.

No ... no ... no.

You said "At least one is a lie" when any intellectually honest historian would say "At least one is inaccurate."

A lie is best defined as a deliberate attempt to deceive. What historians see in these ancient texts is not a lot of outright lies, but rather heaps and heaps of inaccuracies.

They also understand the nature of these ancient religious cultures, which bear absolutely no resemblance to modern cultures. You- via the historian's fallacy- will determine it to be lies, but actual historians know precisely what it is.

Acts is simply the works of an author who absolutely believed that the information he gathered was accurate according to his sources, and according to his own experiences. There was no intent to deliberately lie because he actually believed everything he wrote.

Paul's letters are the works of yet another religious person who also completely believed in what he was writing about. Paul may have been somewhat delusional, or motivated out of fear, or wrote what he wrote under the motivation of several different variables. But to say "he lied" only demonstrates a narrow-mindedness in which that is all you want to see, at the expense of what the truth may actually be.

My position is not a position that "somebody lied," but rather the more intellectually honest position that "somebody is inaccurate" for the simple reason that not every time that people make mistakes should they be considered a liar.

If that were the case, then every time you made a mistake on an exam, well by golly, you're nothing but a god damn good for nothing liar, right?

Big Grin

BTW, YOU of all people lecturing about the "historian's fallacy" is a huge joke. YOU were the one who had to be told about your own use of that very fallacy in denying that YOUR view of Salem Witches was not that very fallacy. You're a fraud. Pure and simple.

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
07-08-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 01:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 12:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That text doesn't even allude to 1 Cor 9:1 at all. No mention of it at all.

Fail.


So you say, but please show me where, specifically.

(Be very careful, I have all his books)

Smartass


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul possibly having seen Jesus before Jesus was crucified. He could have seen him walking with his apostles, or "seen" him anywhere. Just because he may have seen him doesn't mean he listened to Jesus preaching anything about any Gospel. And why would he listen to Jesus before his conversion? He persecuted the church, remember?

You fail again.

You are the one who invokes "consensus". There is no consensus that Paul ever met Jesus.

You go down again.

I am not saying there is any consensus, nor am I saying that the verse definitely demonstrates that Paul met a physical Jesus before the crucifixion.

What I am saying is straight forward:

Most people, including most scholars, automatically associate 1 Cor 9: 1 with Paul's supposed conversion on the road to Damascus. However, this association with the conversion story is not actually evidenced by 1 Cor 9:1, or any of the text previous to, or immediately after 1 Cor 9:1.

The text gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as being associated with the conversion story, or any other story referring to Paul meeting any kind of a resurrected Christ. Therefore, a question needs to be addressed.

Q: Assuming 1 Cor 1:9 is true, could it not indicate that Paul actually met Jesus at some point before Jesus was crucified?

If not, why not?


That's all my position is on that issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 02:04 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The text gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as being associated with the conversion story, or any other story referring to Paul meeting any kind of a resurrected Christ. Therefore, a question needs to be addressed.

Q: Assuming 1 Cor 1:9 is true, could it not indicate that Paul actually met Jesus at some point before Jesus was crucified?

If not, why not?[/b]

That's all my position is on that issue.
The text does not give any indication of Paul meeting Jesus pre-crucifixion either. There is nothing in his letters that indicates Paul has even heard of Jesus prior to his "conversion".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 02:41 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 02:21 PM)sheba021 Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 02:04 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The text gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as being associated with the conversion story, or any other story referring to Paul meeting any kind of a resurrected Christ. Therefore, a question needs to be addressed.

Q: Assuming 1 Cor 1:9 is true, could it not indicate that Paul actually met Jesus at some point before Jesus was crucified?

If not, why not?[/b]

That's all my position is on that issue.
The text does not give any indication of Paul meeting Jesus pre-crucifixion either.

On the contrary, the fact that it doesn't mention a post-crucifixion event indicates that it wasn't a post-crucifixion event. Therefore, the only other option is a pre-crucifixion event.

The point I am making is that the text gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as being associated with the conversion story, or any other story referring to Paul meeting any kind of a resurrected Christ.

Quote: There is nothing in his letters that indicates Paul has even heard of Jesus prior to his "conversion".

Actually there is. He admits to persecuting the church previous to his conversion in 1 Cor 15:9.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 04:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 02:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  On the contrary, the fact that it doesn't mention a post-crucifixion event indicates that it wasn't a post-crucifixion event. Therefore, the only other option is a pre-crucifixion event.
It does not mention a pre-crucifixion event either, so apply your own logic and see which conclusion it leads to.

(07-08-2016 02:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The point I am making is that the text gives absolutely no indication whatsoever as being associated with the conversion story, or any other story referring to Paul meeting any kind of a resurrected Christ.
Yes, so you letting your confirmation bias run wild.

(07-08-2016 02:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually there is. He admits to persecuting the church previous to his conversion in 1 Cor 15:9.
What makes you think he was telling the truth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:Q: Assuming 1 Cor 1:9 is true, could it not indicate that Paul actually met Jesus at some point before Jesus was crucified?

There's your problem. You assume that any of that horseshit is true. Big mistake.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: