Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2012, 01:18 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Back in my baptist school days, the minister would talk about Paul. I never understood how anyone could follow him. Clearly he didn't like women. He didn't believe in sex. Everything he wrote was decades after Christ died, and based on a hallucination. And people revere him?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-11-2012, 01:33 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(13-11-2012 01:18 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Back in my baptist school days, the minister would talk about Paul. I never understood how anyone could follow him. Clearly he didn't like women. He didn't believe in sex. Everything he wrote was decades after Christ died, and based on a hallucination. And people revere him?
Hi! Welcome!

Yes it's amazing that people give the nasty little weazel any credibility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 01:41 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(13-11-2012 01:33 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 01:18 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Back in my baptist school days, the minister would talk about Paul. I never understood how anyone could follow him. Clearly he didn't like women. He didn't believe in sex. Everything he wrote was decades after Christ died, and based on a hallucination. And people revere him?
Hi! Welcome!

Yes it's amazing that people give the nasty little weazel any credibility.

It's true especially xtian women. I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Thanks for the welcome!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2012, 09:40 PM
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.




Hey Free, if I hypothetically conceed that there were no first century wannabe self proclaimed messiahs....so what? I'm interested to know where you want to take the conversation from here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 06:03 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(13-11-2012 09:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-11-2012 09:43 PM)Free Wrote:  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.




Hey Free, if I hypothetically conceed that there were no first century wannabe self proclaimed messiahs....so what? I'm interested to know where you want to take the conversation from here.
Hello Mark,

It's fine that don't agree about the messianic claimants. My whole point was to demonstrate that there really isn't much of any kind of evidence from the 1st century regarding self professed messianic pretenders aside from what we have about Jesus.

You see, Bucky has been trying so hard to discount the evidence for the existence Jesus, but then when he puts up a big battle for the existence of other messianic pretenders with the flimsy (if we can call it) evidence, well ... I found it exceptionally entertaining. If you can see things from my point of view, you may find it quite amusing also. Smile

Anyways, back on the topic. Have you have time to answer my post on page 11?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid198475

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
14-11-2012, 06:32 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2012 07:07 PM by Janus.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(14-11-2012 06:03 PM)Free Wrote:  My whole point was to demonstrate that there really isn't much of any kind of evidence from the 1st century regarding self professed messianic pretenders aside from what we have about Jesus.


And what we have about Jesus isn't evidence either, or from the 1st century AD! It's hearsay from the second, third, fourth hand, etc., written down in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. There are no (authentic) first-hand eye-witness accounts about one Jesus. None. If judges today would convict on the basis of 'evidence' like that we would lynch and quarter them!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Janus's post
14-11-2012, 08:11 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:My whole point was to demonstrate that there really isn't much of any kind of evidence from the 1st century regarding self professed messianic pretenders aside from what we have about Jesus.

And what we have about Jesus isn't evidence either, or from the 1st century AD! It's hearsay from the second, third, fourth hand, etc., written down in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. There are no (authentic) first-hand eye-witness accounts about one Jesus. None. If judges today would convict on the basis of 'evidence' like that we would lynch and quarter them!


Let me explain something for you Janus, and try to understand it so that you are better armed with how the historical method works.

Firstly, when you say "hearsay," it does not apply to history in the same way it applies to a court of law. They are two different genres, and hearsay evidence in court, as you know, is inadmissible, particularly in criminal cases.

However, when it comes to history, almost everything we know about the ancient past comes from ancient historians, writers, philosophers, and other people who penned their experiences and/or the experiences of others. These documents that they wrote do not qualify as "hearsay" for the simple reason that they are not "uttered words." Here below is the definition of hearsay:

"Information heard by one person about another. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law
because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness."



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay?s=t



However, when it comes to history all we have are ancient documents and historical accounts. Therefore, when we read what these ancient historians said in their documents, how do you pick and choose as to which things are true and which things are not?


Generally, we simply accept what they say and attempt to verify it the best we can. Historians such as Tacitus, for example, wrote about the lives of the ancient Caesars. He didn't live during the time of most of them, so where did he get his information from? And should we accept his account of those Caesars as being, at least, reasonably accurate?


We have no good reason to doubt that what these historians wrote as being truthful. Even when it comes to Paul, it gives us great insights into what he believed and accepted as being true. It doesn't mean it is true, but only that he believed it was, as well as number of other writers.


Imagine this for a moment. If you had never heard of Jesus, the bible, or Christianity at all, and you read what Tacitus wrote about this Christ being crucified, would you doubt it? Would you also greatly doubt what he wrote about the Caesars? For what reason would you doubt?


You see, I see it from the perspective that Tacitus wrote what he did because it's part of Roman history, and not as part of some Christian propaganda. His whole point was to record the execution of the so-called "king of the Christians," by the Romans, for the glory of Rome. All through his works he mentioned his sources as being from Roman records, former historians, and the Roman registries. Even for the part about Nero and the great fires of Rome- which contains the part about Christ- at the very beginning Tacitus tells us his information comes from other writers.


So to historians, this is not "hearsay" as the understanding of what hearsay is, but it is history, and the part of what Tacitus wrote about Christ is a part of Roman history, and just as much a part of it as all the other things he wrote about.


Can anyone conclusively prove that Jesus existed? Absolutely not, but we cannot conclusively prove that a lot of people actually existed either. The best we can is approximate the truth as best as we can, and with no bias whatsoever.


Why? Because that's the way history works.


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
14-11-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(14-11-2012 06:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 09:40 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Free, if I hypothetically conceed that there were no first century wannabe self proclaimed messiahs....so what? I'm interested to know where you want to take the conversation from here.
Hello Mark,

It's fine that don't agree about the messianic claimants. My whole point was to demonstrate that there really isn't much of any kind of evidence from the 1st century regarding self professed messianic pretenders aside from what we have about Jesus.

You see, Bucky has been trying so hard to discount the evidence for the existence Jesus, but then when he puts up a big battle for the existence of other messianic pretenders with the flimsy (if we can call it) evidence, well ... I found it exceptionally entertaining. If you can see things from my point of view, you may find it quite amusing also. Smile

Anyways, back on the topic. Have you have time to answer my post on page 11?

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid198475
In the other thread, Free used Josephus as his sencond line of evidence for Jesus. I also used Josephus for the others. Free may be forgetful, as he is elderly, but I suspect just attempting to be dishonest. HE used the SAME evidence I did. He thinks we are as forgetful as he is.

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
14-11-2012, 08:25 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:In the other thread, Free used Josephus as his sencond line of evidence for Jesus. I also used Josephus for the others. Free may be forgetful, as he is elderly, but I suspect just attempting to be dishonest. HE used the SAME evidence I did. He thinks we are as forgetful as he is.

Actually, i used the same "source" you used to demonstrate "evidence" for Jesus, and the "lack of evidence" for your other messianic pretenders.

The ability to effectively communicate reality seems to elude you.

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
14-11-2012, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2012 08:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(14-11-2012 08:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:In the other thread, Free used Josephus as his sencond line of evidence for Jesus. I also used Josephus for the others. Free may be forgetful, as he is elderly, but I suspect just attempting to be dishonest. HE used the SAME evidence I did. He thinks we are as forgetful as he is.

Actually, i used the same "source" you used to demonstrate "evidence" for Jesus, and the "lack of evidence" for your other messianic pretenders.

The ability to effectively communicate reality seems to elude you.
Sorry. You lost that little debate. YOU never provided proof for YOUR assertion of "self"proclaimed", and if you ever actually read Josephus you would know that while not using the "word" messiah, he spent pages attempting to discredit them. The problem is you apparently can not understand reality. You also capriciously switched your position 180 degrees, as Mark pointed out. In the other thread you demanded consensus. As Mark pointed out, you are the only person we have ever heard of who does not think there were other messiahs. Thus you are totally outside consensus on this one. Actually, Free, do you plan on contributing something positive here, on this thread about St. Paul ? Or are you just here to be an annoying little negative pest ?

Mark. There are things we haven't discussed yet. For example we know that even the letters that are attributed to him are not really complete or continuous documents. Corinthians 1 is a combination of three separate documents. We know that there is at least one letter that is missing, that was earlier than the ones we have We know the philosophy in the letters develops, thus proving that "inspiration" is refuted, (in the earlier letters), as the later letters contradict the earlier ones about some major points.

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: