Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2016, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 04:52 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 04:07 PM)sheba021 Wrote:  
(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.

The logic is solid. Since it doesn't mention, or even allude to, any meeting with Jesus after a crucifixion, is there any reason we should think it did? No, there is no reason because there is no evidence.

Therefore, we take it at face value, and read nothing into it. For you to determine the possibility that it refers to a post-crucifixion event, you must add that to to it. That means you are interpreting it to be that.

But ... you have no evidence within the text to enable that interpretation.

Quote:
(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.

Hardly, since the text sits as it sits. I am not reading one thing into it that isn't capable of being determined by the text. He says he saw Jesus. That all it says.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that he had seen Jesus in the same fashion as you or anyone sees anybody else.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with arriving at that possibility, considering the fact that there is no evidence in the text to determine anything otherwise.

Quote:
(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?

Because the Criterion of Embarrassment is prevalent in the text, for one thing. Also, I find no reason to doubt it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 04:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 04:44 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 04:07 PM)sheba021 Wrote:  It does not mention a pre-crucifixion event either, so apply your own logic and see which conclusion it leads to.

The logic is solid. Since it doesn't mention, or even allude to, any meeting with Jesus after a crucifixion, is there any reason we should think it did? No, there is no reason because there is no evidence.

Therefore, we take it at face value, and read nothing into it. For you to determine the possibility that it refers to a post-crucifixion event, you must add that to to it. That means you are interpreting it to be that.

But ... you have no evidence within the text to enable that interpretation.

Quote:Yes, so you letting your confirmation bias run wild.

Hardly, since the text sits as it sits. I am not reading one thing into it that isn't capable of being determined by the text. He says he saw Jesus. That all it says.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that he had seen Jesus in the same fashion as you or anyone sees anybody else.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with arriving at that possibility, considering the fact that there is no evidence in the text to determine anything otherwise.

Quote:What makes you think he was telling the truth?

Because the Criterion of Embarrassment is prevalent in the text, for one thing. Also, I find no reason to doubt it.


You know you have become such a waste of space, I am not gonna read you anymore.

Having read all the translated ancient works of both Greeks and Romans, and knowing professors who teach the subject, I can smell the bullshit a mile away.

You know shit about that world. Especially the Roman empire, both east and west.

Give it up and go join a religious site. I can see right through you. And my head isn't even on properly!

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
07-08-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 04:09 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
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.

If you were capable of telling time, you wouldn't have missed the short bus again.

We'll need to call your parents to come and pick you up.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 05:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 04:58 PM)Banjo Wrote:  And my head isn't even on properly!

I have noticed that you've been having difficulties.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 05:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
1 Corinthians 9:1-2

The issue is Paul's apostleship. He invokes his belief and faith experience.
First he says "I'm a free man, am I not". (They challenged his free status as he accepted no payments.) Then "I am an envoy, am I not?"

"I have seen Jesus our Lord, haven't I?"
He uses the Greek perfect tense, as his PAST experience has a present effect on his present apostolic status. (Having seen Jesus, in an incidental way, or any way OTHER than as a believer) would have NO effect on his apostolic status. Then to continue the apostolic status claim, he goes on to invoke those to whom the letter is written : "You are the result of my work in the lord's service, aren't you ?" The entire section is an attempt to SUPPORT his apostolic status. Claiming some (idiotic) incidental "sighting" (but not meeting with and *understanding* and *having faith in*) Jesus, IN NO WAY supports apostolic status. The line obviously references the "come to believe in" (seen as the messiah/exalted/"raised up/anointed" one) as I have discussed above. If he had actually physically met Jesus personally, it would have been used both by him and others to support his status in his relationship with the Jerusalem Church, which was not a cordial one.

A perfect example where stupid literal fundamentalists take a line out of context, and actually lose the entire meaning of the text. The reason the line is in the text is to support apostolic status, NOT a claim that "Oh once I saw him". Seeing Jesus and not being a believer does not in any way help his cause or promote the purpose of the text in question.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 11:20 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 09:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Book of Acts presents a timeline which, when compared with the "Before God I do not lie" accounts of (supposedly) Paul himself in Galatians, are totally irreconcilable. Paul never claimed to have "met Jesus". The two texts are not both possible as the truth. One of them is outright lying, or made up. Deal with it. Both texts are religious writing, and there is nothing to prove.

But ... are we speaking about the Book of Acts? No. Nice red herring.

We are speaking only of 1 Cor 9:1.

He never saw him in the flesh, just in his imagination.

Quote:Every scholar on the planet knows that each and every Gospel, Acts, and Letters in the New Testament were, at one time, completely separate documents.

Completely separate? I think not.
That would require the authors to be completely unfamiliar with any of the other writings, and that is highly doubtful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 05:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 05:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1 Corinthians 9:1-2

The issue is Paul's apostleship.

True.

Quote:He invokes his belief and faith experience.

In the previous chapters, and following chapters, yes.

True.

Quote:First he says "I'm a free man, am I not". (They challenged his free status as he accepted no payments.) Then "I am an envoy, am I not?"

True.

Quote:"I have seen Jesus our Lord, haven't I?"
He uses the Greek perfect tense, as his PAST experience has a present effect on his present apostolic status.

True.


Quote: (Having seen Jesus, in an incidental way, or any way OTHER than as a believer) would have NO effect on his apostolic status.

True.

Quote:Then to continue the apostolic status claim, he goes on to invoke those to whom the letter is written : "You are the result of my work in the lord's service, aren't you ?"

True.

Quote:The entire section is an attempt to SUPPORT his apostolic status. Claiming some (idiotic) incidental "sighting" (but not meeting and *understanding* and *having faith in*) Jesus, IN NO WAY supports apostolic status.

True.

Quote: The line obviously references the "come to believe in" (seen as the messiah/exalted/"raised up/anointed" one) as I have discussed above.

Probable.

Quote:The reason the line is in the text is to support apostolic status, NOT a claim that "Oh once I saw him". Seeing Jesus and not being a believer does not in any way help his cause or promote the purpose of the text in question.

Excellent.

You actually read the text, and actually studied it.

Your answer is satisfactory to me. I'm impressed.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2016 05:41 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:He never saw him in the flesh, just in his imagination.

Perhaps, but we don't really know. What we do know is that he knew of Jesus before he was converted, because he was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem before any other sect were ever known as Christians.

People don't seem to realize that Paul never persecuted the Christian church, because it didn't exist at that time. He was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem.

Quote:Completely separate? I think not. That would require the authors to be completely unfamiliar with any of the other writings, and that is highly doubtful.

It's virtually universal that Paul wrote his letters before Luke-Acts was penned. That means Paul would be absolutely unfamiliar with Luke-Acts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 06:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 05:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:He never saw him in the flesh, just in his imagination.

Perhaps, but we don't really know. What we do know is that he knew of Jesus before he was converted, because he was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem before any other sect were ever known as Christians.

People don't seem to realize that Paul never persecuted the Christian church, because it didn't exist at that time. He was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem.

Quote:Completely separate? I think not. That would require the authors to be completely unfamiliar with any of the other writings, and that is highly doubtful.

It's virtually universal that Paul wrote his letters before Luke-Acts was penned. That means Paul would be absolutely unfamiliar with Luke-Acts.

That does not say much. They were in the same milieu with the same stories and preaching. That the written tales have some agreement is therefore not surprising and is not strong or definititive evidence of anything else.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 06:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 05:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:He never saw him in the flesh, just in his imagination.

Perhaps, but we don't really know. What we do know is that he knew of Jesus before he was converted, because he was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem before any other sect were ever known as Christians.

People don't seem to realize that Paul never persecuted the Christian church, because it didn't exist at that time. He was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem.

Quote:Completely separate? I think not. That would require the authors to be completely unfamiliar with any of the other writings, and that is highly doubtful.

It's virtually universal that Paul wrote his letters before Luke-Acts was penned. That means Paul would be absolutely unfamiliar with Luke-Acts.

That makes no sense. Paul said he was persecuting members of the new sub-sect (who came to be called Christians). They were called "The Way" subsect of Judaism. They and the Nazarenes were not the same.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: