Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2012, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2012 08:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 08:02 PM)Free Wrote:  and as far as any evidence that anyone in the 1st century ever proclaimed themselves to be a messiah, none exists.

Exactly.

And that includes Yeshua ben Josef. There is also no evidence Yeshua "proclaimed" himself a messiah.

So the question is, "is there evidence that there existed ANYONE, including Yeshua ben Josef, (if he even existed), who was perceived by others to be a messiah" ?

For someone who required "consensus" in the other thread, it certainly seems a capriciously jettisoned requirement here. Thumbsup

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
12-11-2012, 09:00 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(Today 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:
and as far as any evidence that anyone in the 1st century ever proclaimed themselves to be a messiah, none exists.

Exactly.

And that includes Yeshua ben Josef. There is also no evidence Yeshua "proclaimed" himself a messiah.

So the question is, "is there evidence that there existed ANYONE, including Yeshua ben Josef, (if he even existed), who was perceived by others to be a messiah ?

Excluding this Jesus who the Christians worship is intellectual suicide, because regardless whether or not anyone believes he existed or not, the records from the 1st century and 1st century contemporaries clearly demonstrate that someone, or "something," named Jesus was considered to be a Messiah/Christ.

Also, whoever wrote the Gospel of John was at least a 1st century contemporary, and in that gospel at 4:25 - 26 we have this Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

This is evidence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2012 09:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:00 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(Today 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:
and as far as any evidence that anyone in the 1st century ever proclaimed themselves to be a messiah, none exists.

Exactly.

And that includes Yeshua ben Josef. There is also no evidence Yeshua "proclaimed" himself a messiah.

So the question is, "is there evidence that there existed ANYONE, including Yeshua ben Josef, (if he even existed), who was perceived by others to be a messiah ?

Excluding this Jesus who the Christians worship is intellectual suicide, because regardless whether or not anyone believes he existed or not, the records from the 1st century and 1st century contemporaries clearly demonstrate that someone, or "something," named Jesus was considered to be a Messiah/Christ.

Also, whoever wrote the Gospel of John was at least a 1st century contemporary, and in that gospel at 4:25 - 26 we have this Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

This is evidence.
The goal posts have now been moved.
Above it was evidence of "proclaiming", now it's "someone, or something," named Jesus was considered to be a Messiah/Christ."

And THAT is ignorance of what a "gospel" is, (the "good news"), what scripture is, and what early Christian writings are all about. The gospels are not "history". Apart from "pious fraud", which was acceptable at the time, there is the whole question of how they were written, and why, and why, as literary device, "words are placed" in Yeshua's mouth. A gospel is a "faith document", written by believers, for believers, for use in IN church/liturgical services, to remind themselves what they already believe. It is evidence of nothing, except the belief of the followers. It is not evidence that Yeshua called himself that. there is good reason to think, considering the other earlier gospels, that the belief was NOT present in the earliest communities.

This is NOT evidence that HE claimed to be the messiah, only that others, later, came to think he was.
He meets none of the criteria for messianic status, during his lifetime.
In Acts 1 his followers asked him if he was going to restore the kingdom. He did not answer them.
THAT is NOT what you established as YOUR standard in your last post, requiring evidence of "proclamation".

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
12-11-2012, 09:33 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:The goal posts have now been moved.
Above it was evidence of "proclaiming", now it's "someone, or something," named Jesus was considered to be a Messiah/Christ."

No goal posts have been moved. How the fuck does anyone move a goal post when he is the one presenting evidence, and not refuting it? Do you even understand what moving the goal posts in this context means?

Quote:As logical fallacy

Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

For fuck sakes if you are going to accuse someone of using a logical fallacy don't you think it best to understand what the fuck it is you're accusing him of in the first place?


Quote:And THAT is ignorance of what a "gospel" is, (the "good news"), what scripture is, and what early Christian writings are all about. The gospels are not "history". Apart from "pious fraud", which was acceptable at the time, there is the whole question of how they were written, and why, and why, as literary device, "words are placed"
in Yeshua's mouth

Now here's a logical fallacy. You are attempting to say that the gospels are not history because they cannot be true, as opposed to being true as the Christians believe. This is called the "either/Or fallacy," commonly known as "False Dilemma:

Quote:A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

So what other option are you leaving out? You are leaving out the 3rd option that regardless of whether or not the gospels are true or false, they still have historical value. They are still records of the beliefs of people from the 1st century.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not that what those people believed was true or false, for the only thing that really matters from a historical perspective is the claims they made to support what they believed.

And in the 1st century, we have numerous historical records of people believing that some guy named Jesus was the Messiah/Christ.


Quote:Apart from "pious fraud", which was acceptable at the time, there is the whole question of how they were written, and why, and why, as literary device, "words are placed" in Yeshua's mouth. A "faith document", written by believers, for believers, to remind themselves what they already believe, is evidence of nothing, except the belief of the followers.

And evidence of the belief of the followers is all I have been asking for, haven't I? And that is exactly what I provided, didn't I? And that is exactly what you FAILED to provide for the list of supposed self proclaimed Messiahs from Wiki, isn't it?

Glad we could finally agree on something.

Have a great day.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 09:37 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 08:02 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Ok...Free...I have read and reread your posts to try to understand your perspective.

I think you are saying there is no evidence that there were any wannabe messiahs because there is no written record of any of them claiming " I think I'm the messiah." Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.


Finally, someone gets it. I never said there wasn't any other 1st century self proclaimed Messiahs, but only that there is no documented evidence from the first century about their existence.

Quote:Let's , as you say, put ourselves into the time and place of these characters. They didn't write their own biographies. They were illiterate, militant fundamentalist Jews. Yeshua, John the baptist, Judas (both of them), Menahem, John, Simon and all the others didn't keep diaries. All we can do is read what others have said about them. These others (such as Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus) thought these characters considered themselves messiahs.


Yet not one of those guys ever mentioned the word "Messiah" in their description of these supposed claimants, did they? Nor did they mention "Christ," did they?

So what are you left with Mark? What you are left with are historians in the 21st century doing the best they can do to examine 1st century history and make a calculative and reasonable assumption that other so-called Messiahs lived in 1st century Judea.

But guess what? Not one of those historians will say that what their findings reveal is etched in stone. Not one.

Quote:I'm not sure i understand why you are making such an issue of this. You are, as best I can tell, out on a limb all by yourself....not that that necessarily means you're wrong...but why is it such an issue for you?


I take issue because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as far as any evidence that anyone in the 1st century ever proclaimed themselves to be a messiah, none exists.

Quote:Um...its...not....because....you....think.....jeebus was the only "real" messiah...is it?


Well, don't you know that Jeebus is coming back in a flying saucer with Elvis?



Hi Free. Gee....this is going around in circles. I can't agree with you. My position is this. Just because these people didn't personally document their intentions doesn't mean they weren't wannabe messiahs. It is plainly clear from the writings of contemporary historians such as Josephus, Seutonius and Tacitus that these characters thought they were messiahs. It doesn't matter whether these authors used the word "messiah" or not....it's only a word....they were describing men who thought they were the Jewish commanders leading their people in a revolt against the Romans. There were dozens of them.

I am assuming your understanding of what a "messiah" is, is similar to mine... ie a political insurrectionist who opposes Roman rule and who hopes to establish a Jewish kingdom of god on earth? As Bucky pointed out, the word "messiah" meant different things to different people then, but this is what is generally accepted that most Jews, particularly the poor oppressed xenophobic peasants such as Yeshua, thought their messiah was.

To state that there were men who thought they were the messiah isn't an "extraordinary claim." It was almost part of the Jewish psyche. There were two major wars and numerous smaller battles because of it. Do we agree these wars and battles occured? Do we agree there were Jewish leaders in these battles? If so, then we agree there were many messiahs.

Bear in mind they often fought each other too, as each thought they alone were the messiah. Menahem, John and Simon are the classic examples of this. They were too full of personal ambition to unite against the common enemy. Monty Python made fun of them by having the Judean people's front fight the people's front of Judea while the bemused Romans stood by watching, which is exactly what happened when the Romans surrounded Jerusalem.

I think the Roman world try to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams by writing the gospels and claiming the messiah (Jeebus) had already been and gone. If you paid your taxes, loved your enemies, and turned the other cheek you'll get a big lollipop....heaven.....after you die. In the meantime you better just do what your Roman imperial masters expect of you and stop causing trouble!

I'm glad you're looking forward to Jeebus and Elvis coming back...me too. Amen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 09:43 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-11-2012 08:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Finally, someone gets it. I never said there wasn't any other 1st century self proclaimed Messiahs, but only that there is no documented evidence from the first century about their existence.



Yet not one of those guys ever mentioned the word "Messiah" in their description of these supposed claimants, did they? Nor did they mention "Christ," did they?

So what are you left with Mark? What you are left with are historians in the 21st century doing the best they can do to examine 1st century history and make a calculative and reasonable assumption that other so-called Messiahs lived in 1st century Judea.

But guess what? Not one of those historians will say that what their findings reveal is etched in stone. Not one.



I take issue because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as far as any evidence that anyone in the 1st century ever proclaimed themselves to be a messiah, none exists.



Well, don't you know that Jeebus is coming back in a flying saucer with Elvis?



Hi Free. Gee....this is going around in circles. I can't agree with you. My position is this. Just because these people didn't personally document their intentions doesn't mean they weren't wannabe messiahs. It is plainly clear from the writings of contemporary historians such as Josephus, Seutonius and Tacitus that these characters thought they were messiahs. It doesn't matter whether these authors used the word "messiah" or not....it's only a word....they were describing men who thought they were the Jewish commanders leading their people in a revolt against the Romans. There were dozens of them.

I am assuming your understanding of what a "messiah" is, is similar to mine... ie a political insurrectionist who opposes Roman rule and who hopes to establish a Jewish kingdom of god on earth? As Bucky pointed out, the word "messiah" meant different things to different people then, but this is what is generally accepted that most Jews, particularly the poor oppressed xenophobic peasants such as Yeshua, thought their messiah was.

To state that there were men who thought they were the messiah isn't an "extraordinary claim." It was almost part of the Jewish psyche. There were two major wars and numerous smaller battles because of it. Do we agree these wars and battles occured? Do we agree there were Jewish leaders in these battles? If so, then we agree there were many messiahs.

Bear in mind they often fought each other too, as each thought they alone were the messiah. Menahem, John and Simon are the classic examples of this. They were too full of personal ambition to unite against the common enemy. Monty Python made fun of them by having the Judean people's front fight the people's front of Judea while the bemused Romans stood by watching, which is exactly what happened when the Romans surrounded Jerusalem.

I think the Roman world try to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams by writing the gospels and claiming the messiah (Jeebus) had already been and gone. If you paid your taxes, loved your enemies, and turned the other cheek you'll get a big lollipop....heaven.....after you die. In the meantime you better just do what your Roman imperial masters expect of you and stop causing trouble!

I'm glad you're looking forward to Jeebus and Elvis coming back...me too. Amen.


Mark I'm going to direct you to a previous post of mine, and if you "read" it carefully, you will see precisely what I was asking of this Bucky Balls guy and Janus.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid201265


Hopefully you will read my request carefully, and understand "precisely" what I requested.

Hint: self-proclaimed.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 10:04 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:43 PM)Free Wrote:  Hint: self-proclaimed.
And yet you still use "follower proclaimed" as your evidence. Just amazing.

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
12-11-2012, 10:11 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-11-2012 09:43 PM)Free Wrote:  Hint: self-proclaimed.
And yet you still use "follower proclaimed" as your evidence. Just amazing.



Nonetheless, it is still evidence, and far more evidence than you could provide for that list on Wiki.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2012, 10:17 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:33 PM)Free Wrote:  And evidence of the belief of the followers is all I have been asking for, haven't I? And that is exactly what I provided, didn't I? And that is exactly what you FAILED to provide for the list of supposed self proclaimed Messiahs from Wiki, isn't it?

No idiot. I repeatedly gave you others NOT FROM WIKI. Apparently you have a mental challenge and cannot read.


It doesn't matter in the slightest what they believed. YOU said you wanted "SELF proclaimed". YOU have contradicted yourself, time and again here. YOU have shifted back and forth, constantly your requirement, and you have just done so AGAIN with Mark.

You say "It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not that what those people
believed was true or false, for the only thing that really matters from
a historical perspective is the claims they made to support what they
believed."

What the fuck does that mean ? That claims support historical truth ? Some historian you are !

Other people apparently believed other people were the messiah, but you HAVE shifted your argument from SELF proclaimed to "believer proclaimed".

You changed the argument, from "self proclaimed" to "follower proclaimed", which is what Mark and I have been saying all along.

I am not saying the gospels cannot be true. I am saying, because of the nature of that form of literature, they cannot be relied upon. YOU yourself were discussing the historical standards of the Romans not long ago. The Hebrews had NONE. The idea of "historical" did not exist in that culture at that time. You simply know nothing about Biblical Studies, or Christian scripture.

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
13-11-2012, 01:03 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-11-2012 09:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
(12-11-2012 09:37 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Free. Gee....this is going around in circles. I can't agree with you. My position is this. Just because these people didn't personally document their intentions doesn't mean they weren't wannabe messiahs. It is plainly clear from the writings of contemporary historians such as Josephus, Seutonius and Tacitus that these characters thought they were messiahs. It doesn't matter whether these authors used the word "messiah" or not....it's only a word....they were describing men who thought they were the Jewish commanders leading their people in a revolt against the Romans. There were dozens of them.

I am assuming your understanding of what a "messiah" is, is similar to mine... ie a political insurrectionist who opposes Roman rule and who hopes to establish a Jewish kingdom of god on earth? As Bucky pointed out, the word "messiah" meant different things to different people then, but this is what is generally accepted that most Jews, particularly the poor oppressed xenophobic peasants such as Yeshua, thought their messiah was.

To state that there were men who thought they were the messiah isn't an "extraordinary claim." It was almost part of the Jewish psyche. There were two major wars and numerous smaller battles because of it. Do we agree these wars and battles occured? Do we agree there were Jewish leaders in these battles? If so, then we agree there were many messiahs.

Bear in mind they often fought each other too, as each thought they alone were the messiah. Menahem, John and Simon are the classic examples of this. They were too full of personal ambition to unite against the common enemy. Monty Python made fun of them by having the Judean people's front fight the people's front of Judea while the bemused Romans stood by watching, which is exactly what happened when the Romans surrounded Jerusalem.

I think the Roman world try to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams by writing the gospels and claiming the messiah (Jeebus) had already been and gone. If you paid your taxes, loved your enemies, and turned the other cheek you'll get a big lollipop....heaven.....after you die. In the meantime you better just do what your Roman imperial masters expect of you and stop causing trouble!

I'm glad you're looking forward to Jeebus and Elvis coming back...me too. Amen.



Mark I'm going to direct you to a previous post of mine, and if you "read" it carefully, you will see precisely what I was asking of this Bucky Balls guy and Janus.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid201265


Hopefully you will read my request carefully, and understand "precisely" what I requested.

Hint: self-proclaimed.



Ok...I read it again. I comprehend your insistence about "self proclaimed." But...I'm afraid I just can't understand why you're making a big thing out of them having had to proclaim themselves the messiah.

I hope you don't think I'm being deliberately provocative, but I fail to understand your point about the gospels being evidence. I'm far more inclined to believe a secular author than what's in the babble.

Also, "what happened" is important. Truth is always a good ideal to discover.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: