Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 11:53 PM)Noelani Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 11:16 PM)Janus Wrote:  'Saint' Paul was a mysoginist and responsible for two thousand years of oppression of women in Xtian societies.
1. F you Paul!

2. Last night as I was falling asleep I thought of a question that pertained to this thread. At this moment I cannot remember it.
a. Yes, I think about this stuff while drifting off to dream land.

C. Keep on posting. I can only speak for myself but I benefit from the knowledge being passed on.

@. If you can recommend/cite books/sources that back up or add to your posts I would appreciate that. I am, albeit slowly, reading what I can.
List so far: God Delusion... Check
Who Wrote the Bible?.....Check
God is not great......Check
Forged.....Reding
Good and Evil.... to read
The Origin of Satan.....Reading




Hi Noelani, thanks for acknowledging my efforts. I have read a pile of books about Jeebus etc as high as my ceiling! Here are a list of the most informative ones. I will admit I am a friend of Douglas Lockhart. He is an eccentric who owns a little bookstore in Hobart. He drinks too much of (my) red wine, but his books are beautifully written, well researched and eye opening. I guarantee you will find all the following fascinating...


http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...+terrorist

http://www.amazon.com/Those-Incredible-C...schonfield


http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Heretic-Free...s+lockhart

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-God-Ques...s+lockhart

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dynasty-Hidd...ames+tabor

PS my book is at printers...should be out soon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
06-11-2012, 07:46 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(06-11-2012 06:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 07:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mark, I can edit this out, later, but here are some things about the split process, and Gamaliel II.

Controversy and Origin of Expulsion Curse of the Minim :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/sta...ctions.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel_II

There are more clues about the split from Judaism.
Jews were required to pay a tax, after the first revolt, and eventually the reason, Christians were seen as separate
was they they were exempted from the Jewish Tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Iudaicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianit...st_century

A good resource here is a book called :
A House Divided, The Parting of the Ways Between Synagogue and Church, Vincent Martin, PhD, (Harvard).
Thanks mate!

Why spend all that time and energy on bullshit when you could be fishing, drinking, and screwing?

Still not really certain, eh...

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2012, 07:53 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(06-11-2012 07:46 PM)Janus Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 06:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks mate!


Why spend all that time and energy on bullshit when you could be fishing, drinking, and screwing?

Still not really certain, eh...

Big Grin



Well...personally I've always been 100% sure about my atheism. I just thought I'd find out what all the fuss is about....why one third of the world believes Christian bullshit. Then I decided to write a book...big mistake...LOL.

Actually...like many things....when you really get into it...the history is fascinating. It's a bit like a hobby...but it's not for everyone. I'm over it, to be honest. You're right...there are more fun things in life.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2012, 01:15 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Mark, I somehow missed your response to Logica Re: what happened to the Nazarenes. If what you say about the 'Desposyni' is true and they (the Nazarenes) were actual blood relatives of Yeshua and were written about by Eusebius as well as others, then why is the matter of a historical Jesus still being questioned? I actually haven't thoroughly researched this question and really only have heard what Ehrman thinks about this (Example: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed,"). The proofs that Erhman uses seem weak compared to what you stated. How strong is the evidence for an historical Jesus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2012, 10:14 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-11-2012 01:15 AM)Noelani Wrote:  Mark, I somehow missed your response to Logica Re: what happened to the Nazarenes. If what you say about the 'Desposyni' is true and they (the Nazarenes) were actual blood relatives of Yeshua and were written about by Eusebius as well as others, then why is the matter of a historical Jesus still being questioned? I actually haven't thoroughly researched this question and really only have heard what Ehrman thinks about this (Example: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed,"). The proofs that Erhman uses seem weak compared to what you stated. How strong is the evidence for an historical Jesus?



The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good, despite what those who belong to the "Jesus/Christ- Myth- Mythology- Mythicism" camp say.

Over many years I have seen this topic of historicity pop up, and have been involved in countless discussions about it. I have concluded that the arguments against historicity have never been more than the following:

1. Assertion: Those who deny historicity always attack the evidence by trying to say that it is not evidence at all. Their arguments against the evidence are always based upon implausible explanations, unprovable claims, and grossly unsupported theories. When asked to provide actual evidence to support their claims against historicity, none that can be supported is ever provided.

2. Logical Fallacies: It's an embarrassment how many people (atheists in particular, and they should know better) use logical fallacies in their argumentation. Some of the logical fallacies they use are: Historian's Fallacy, Presentism, Moving The Goalposts, and a long list of other fallacies that often digresses the topic into an Ad Hominem fiasco.

3. Claims of Bias: Often those who oppose historicity will play the "bias card" against a consensus of scholars who agree that Jesus existed. They will claim bias due to most religious scholars have Christian beliefs. The problem with this is that not all scholars are Christian, and yet those who are not Christian also agree with the findings of the Christian scholars.

4. Self Bias: Personally, I don't really care if Jesus existed or not. It makes no difference to me. I am completely at peace with myself as an atheist and do not need to attack historicity just because I do not like Christianity. However, I see this bias in scores of atheists who seem to have a personal agenda, as well as a very deep hatred for religion in general, insomuch as their "tone" in the argumentation process reeks of complete and total disdain.

In conclusion, it requires a level head and non emotional involvement to reach what I accept to be the best possible explanation of the evidence. The best possible explanation of the evidence is that somebody named Jesus, considered to be the Christ by many Jews, was nailed to a couple of sticks by Pontius Pilate and crucified around AD 30 - 35.

Anything else about the guy is not required.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2012, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2012 11:16 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-11-2012 10:14 AM)Free Wrote:  
(10-11-2012 01:15 AM)Noelani Wrote:  Mark, I somehow missed your response to Logica Re: what happened to the Nazarenes. If what you say about the 'Desposyni' is true and they (the Nazarenes) were actual blood relatives of Yeshua and were written about by Eusebius as well as others, then why is the matter of a historical Jesus still being questioned? I actually haven't thoroughly researched this question and really only have heard what Ehrman thinks about this (Example: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed,"). The proofs that Erhman uses seem weak compared to what you stated. How strong is the evidence for an historical Jesus?



The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good, despite what those who belong to the "Jesus/Christ- Myth- Mythology- Mythicism" camp say.

Over many years I have seen this topic of historicity pop up, and have been involved in countless discussions about it. I have concluded that the arguments against historicity have never been more than the following:

1. Assertion: Those who deny historicity always attack the evidence by trying to say that it is not evidence at all. Their arguments against the evidence are always based upon implausible explanations, unprovable claims, and grossly unsupported theories. When asked to provide actual evidence to support their claims against historicity, none that can be supported is ever provided.

2. Logical Fallacies: It's an embarrassment how many people (atheists in particular, and they should know better) use logical fallacies in their argumentation. Some of the logical fallacies they use are: Historian's Fallacy, Presentism, Moving The Goalposts, and a long list of other fallacies that often digresses the topic into an Ad Hominem fiasco.

3. Claims of Bias: Often those who oppose historicity will play the "bias card" against a consensus of scholars who agree that Jesus existed. They will claim bias due to most religious scholars have Christian beliefs. The problem with this is that not all scholars are Christian, and yet those who are not Christian also agree with the findings of the Christian scholars.

4. Self Bias: Personally, I don't really care if Jesus existed or not. It makes no difference to me. I am completely at peace with myself as an atheist and do not need to attack historicity just because I do not like Christianity. However, I see this bias in scores of atheists who seem to have a personal agenda, as well as a very deep hatred for religion in general, insomuch as their "tone" in the argumentation process reeks of complete and total disdain.

In conclusion, it requires a level head and non emotional involvement to reach what I accept to be the best possible explanation of the evidence. The best possible explanation of the evidence is that somebody named Jesus, considered to be the Christ by many Jews, was nailed to a couple of sticks by Pontius Pilate and crucified around AD 30 - 35.

Anything else about the guy is not required.

The literary "mythological" interpretation of scripture, (Bultmann et all), has nothing to do with the Mythicism movement. Poster asserts this, while apparently not understanding the difference. Bultmann very much believed in the historical Jebus.

Scripture, in both the Old Testament, and the New Testament is not "History". Scripture is Literature, and uses every form of literary device, including metaphor, and hyperbole. "Remembering to support" the cause, (ie "pious fraud") was considered perfectly acceptable, thus not only scripture, but internal sources, such as Eusubius, are unreliable.

1. Assertion, no evidence. Generization, no evidence. Speculation, no evidence. The positive claim is that Yeshua existed. Proving the negative is impossible, and not necessary. No evidence *against* historicity is required. The positive claim must be supported. "Over many years" is an appeal to an implied argument from authority. "Over many years" people were wrong about many things. Fallacy is called "Appeal to Tradition".

2. Someone who attempted to get us to ignore his "head-fake" and not see the "conditional" nature of requesting evidence, and then sermonizing about "logical fallacies" is quite hilarious.

3. Assertion. No evidence. No proof. No poll. "Consensus" while claimed, is not, and never has been demonstrated. Even if it were, the possibility exists that "consensus" is wrong. Many scholars are atheists, and not all scholars agree with Christian scholars.

4. Conclusion is perfect example of "bias". Assertion. No evidence. I, for example, actually have a deep affection for certain elements of at least two Christian religious traditions.

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
10-11-2012, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2012 11:24 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-11-2012 10:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-11-2012 10:14 AM)Free Wrote:  The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good, despite what those who belong to the "Jesus/Christ- Myth- Mythology- Mythicism" camp say.

Over many years I have seen this topic of historicity pop up, and have been involved in countless discussions about it. I have concluded that the arguments against historicity have never been more than the following:

1. Assertion: Those who deny historicity always attack the evidence by trying to say that it is not evidence at all. Their arguments against the evidence are always based upon implausible explanations, unprovable claims, and grossly unsupported theories. When asked to provide actual evidence to support their claims against historicity, none that can be supported is ever provided.

2. Logical Fallacies: It's an embarrassment how many people (atheists in particular, and they should know better) use logical fallacies in their argumentation. Some of the logical fallacies they use are: Historian's Fallacy, Presentism, Moving The Goalposts, and a long list of other fallacies that often digresses the topic into an Ad Hominem fiasco.

3. Claims of Bias: Often those who oppose historicity will play the "bias card" against a consensus of scholars who agree that Jesus existed. They will claim bias due to most religious scholars have Christian beliefs. The problem with this is that not all scholars are Christian, and yet those who are not Christian also agree with the findings of the Christian scholars.

4. Self Bias: Personally, I don't really care if Jesus existed or not. It makes no difference to me. I am completely at peace with myself as an atheist and do not need to attack historicity just because I do not like Christianity. However, I see this bias in scores of atheists who seem to have a personal agenda, as well as a very deep hatred for religion in general, insomuch as their "tone" in the argumentation process reeks of complete and total disdain.

In conclusion, it requires a level head and non emotional involvement to reach what I accept to be the best possible explanation of the evidence. The best possible explanation of the evidence is that somebody named Jesus, considered to be the Christ by many Jews, was nailed to a couple of sticks by Pontius Pilate and crucified around AD 30 - 35.

Anything else about the guy is not required.

The literary "mythological" interpretation of scripture, (Bultmann et all), has nothing to do with the Mythicism movement. Poster asserts this, while apparently not understanding the difference.

Scripture, in both the Old Testament, and the New Testament is not "History". Scripture is Literature, and uses every form of literary device, including metaphor, and hyperbole. "Remembering to support" the cause, (ie "pious fraud") was considered perfectly acceptable, thus not only scripture, but internal sources, such as Eusubius, are unreliable.

1. Assertion, no evidence. Generization, no evidence. Speculation, no evidence. The positive claim is that Yeshua existed. Proving the negative is impossible, and not necessary. No evidence *against* historicity is required. The positive claim must be supported. "Over many years" is an appeal to an implied argument from authority. "Over many years" people were wrong about many things. Fallacy is called "Appeal to Tradition".

2. Someone who attempted to get us to ignore his "head-fake" and not see the "conditional" nature of requesting evidence, and then sermonizing about "logical fallacies" is quite hilarious.

3. Assertion. No evidence. No proof. No poll. "Consensus" while claimed, is not, and never has been demonstrated. Even if it were, the possibility exists that "consensus" is wrong. Many scholars are atheists, and not all scholars agree with Christian scholars.

4. Conclusion is perfect example of "bias". Assertion. No evidence. I, for example, actually have a deep affection for certain elements of at least two Christian religious traditions.
Poster above fails to acknowledge the following:

1. Scripture does indeed have historical value, not because whether or not the stories are true, but because the language used provides historical insight into the idiom, lexicon, system of beliefs, and other markers of an ancient civilization.

2. Classic example of denying that evidence actually exists because he does not understand what constitutes evidence. Confuses evidence with conclusive proof, when historians will tell us that nothing is 100% conclusive in ancient history.

3. Uses classic examples of the logical fallacies spoken of in my previous post, and will now attempt to digress this thread into a personal ad hominem attack.

4. Consensus has in fact been demonstrated among many different scholarly organizations numerous times. Poster above has a bad habit of moving the goalposts, and/or not providing any evidence or good argument to dispute the consensus. Simply asserts "they are all wrong."

Poster above is a perfect example of the argumentation used by those who oppose historicity, and examples of his fallacious argumentation are available on this forum.

Poster above will now respond to this post and make it all about me. However, in the interests of preserving Marks objective here, I will no longer participate in high-jacking this thread to digress it into something of which it was not intended.

Carry on, Mark.



Shy

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2012, 11:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-11-2012 05:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-11-2012 10:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Poster above fails to acknowledge the following:

1. Scripture does indeed have historical value, not because whether or not the stories are true, but because the language used provides historical insight into the idiom, lexicon, system of beliefs, and other markers of an ancient civilization.

2. Classic example of denying that evidence actually exists because he does not understand what constitutes evidence. Confuses evidence with conclusive proof, when historians will tell us that nothing is 100% conclusive in ancient history.

3. Uses classic examples of the logical fallacies spoken of in my previous post, and will now attempt to digress this thread into a personal ad hominem attack.

4. Consensus has in fact been demonstrated among many different scholarly organizations numerous times. Poster above has a bad habit of moving the goalposts, and/or not providing any evidence or good argument to dispute the consensus. Simply asserts "they are all wrong."

Poster above is a perfect example of the argumentation used by those who oppose historicity, and examples of his fallacious argumentation are available on this forum.

Poster above will now respond to this post and make it all about me. However, in the interests of preserving Marks objective here, I will no longer participate in high-jacking this thread to digress it into something of which it was not intended.
1. Agree. Missed the point. Attempted to conflate Mythicism with Bultman's et all "Mythologial" interpretation. Point stands. No refutation attempted.
2. False. No attempt at comparison was made. ANY evidence would be acceptable. Evidence previously presented was weak, at most, on the single instance. The other two were easily rejected.
3. No ad hominem was made. (BTW "digress this thread", is improper English).
4. Consensus has NEVER ONCE been demonstrated, and the CONTENT of the scholars listed in the Wiki references was never once discussed, just listed. No concensus was demonstrated, only asserted.
5. This poster has already contributed substantially to Mark's thread. Poster above takes counter-arguments as personal attacks, and has made no contribution here.

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
11-11-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good


Really? OK, I'm waiting for that "pretty good evidence". I'm sure we all are. Feel Free to lay that "pretty good evidence" on us.

Around 0 AD the messiahs were a cottage industry in Palestine. There was one on every second streetcorner, complete with disciples, mindless followers, and groupies. The sects were coming out of the woodwork wherever you looked. So the fact that this Jesus sect eventually came out on top was pure chance. A throw of the dice. Xtians could just as easily have turned out worshipping one Timothy, Mustafa, or Ali today... Big Grin
Of course then they wouldn't have been called Xtians, but rather Timotheans, Mustachios, or Aliens... Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 03:59 PM)Janus Wrote:  
Quote:The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good


Really? OK, I'm waiting for that "pretty good evidence". I'm sure we all are. Feel Free to lay that "pretty good evidence" on us.

Around 0 AD the messiahs were a cottage industry in Palestine. There was one on every second streetcorner, complete with disciples, mindless followers, and groupies. The sects were coming out of the woodwork wherever you looked. So the fact that this Jesus sect eventually came out on top was pure chance. A throw of the dice. Xtians could just as easily have turned out worshipping one Timothy, Mustafa, or Ali today... Big Grin
Of course then they wouldn't have been called Xtians, but rather Timotheans, Mustachios, or Aliens... Big Grin
He's not talking about evidence for the sect. We all know why they came out on top, and was NOT "pure chance". But Janus could care less about history so he has no clue, why that happened. He's talking about the *person* Yeshua ben Josef. Weeping

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: