Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2012, 08:34 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 08:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 07:11 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And I'm interested in the flaws in his reasoning. Your first critique is based on incomplete information, so that doesn't help me very much.

I was hoping for something more profound. I think you can imagine that I didn't mention the videos to hear you trash-talking them, saying that they are "fucking retarded and grossly insulting to human intellect" and that his position represents a "god damn belief system", especially since neither of these accusations appear to be very accurate. I did it because I was hoping for an opportunity to learn something new about the topic. Saying that there are too many unanswered questions, suppositions, logical fallacies and unsupported assertions without giving me any examples from the videos doesn't help me either. I'd prefer if you'd update your first critique instead of choosing this irrational and unprofessional approach of insulting the position. The choice is yours.

You're welcome, Mark.



All I'm really trying to tell you is that I find the myther position excruciatingly boring. Those videos make a nice neat story, but they are not unlike dozens of others I have reviewed over the years. They have excellent entertainment value for the lay person, but they could put me to sleep real quick.

I just don't have enough of an attention span to be able to sit through the 33 videos and endure. So pick out some subject from those videos that you think is worth talking about and as long as isn't 10 bloody videos long I will go check it out.

But watching 33 videos on a bullshit subject just isn't going to happen.
14 A,B,C,D
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 08:34 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 07:05 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Vosur, I want to thank you for introducing us to this excellent video series.

I have spent last night and this morning watching 1-15.

The four brief videos, 14A,B,C and D are extremely relevant to the discussion I've been having with Free about the identity of Paul's Christ.

Free, I INSIST you watch them.

I strongly encourage anyone who has an interest in this to view them too. Here is the link to 14A...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE



Sure, I'll check them out. Meanwhile, you and anyone else who is interested may consider downloading E-sword. It's an excellent bible organizer that allows you to download numerous bible translations so that you can study the different translations of verses stacked upon each other, and draw a more accurate conclusion based on consensus. When E-sword is coupled with that html bible with the Greek I linked you to in an earlier post, you will find it to be an invaluable resource.

You can download it here.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
30-11-2012, 09:07 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 06:43 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That's a valid point, but he doesn't, as far as I can see, use the "Christian vs Chrestian" issue to discredit the validity of Christianity.

Actually, yes he does. He was trying to demonstrate that there had been some tampering with some ancient texts so that the original word of Chrestian had been changed to Christian. He's trying to further his point that numerous other Christian and historical texts were altered in an effort to discredit any historicity to Yeshua.

I have reviewed several of his videos now and the theme is very obvious. He's merely rehashing the same tired old stories mythers have used for the past 10 years, and which have all already been discredited.

I have seen all this dozens of times, and none of it impresses me. There are too many unanswered questions, suppositions, logical fallacies, and unsupported assertions. The entire myther position is simply, for lack of a better phrase, fucking retarded and grossly insulting to human intellect.

It's a god damn belief system not unlike Christianity or Islam, and it makes me just as sick.
I couldn't find myther in my macbook dictionary.

Google says 1. myther. To pester and annoy. Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Would you care to explain exactly who these "mythers" you refer to are?

And then who they are pestering and annoying?

This video series is obviously the result of years of research and hard work to put together.

Here comes you, who can't be bothered watching it, point blank dismissing everything in it with a rant that's a gross generalization.

So much for open-mindedness, the search for truth, and the scientific process!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 10:07 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 09:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 06:43 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, yes he does. He was trying to demonstrate that there had been some tampering with some ancient texts so that the original word of Chrestian had been changed to Christian. He's trying to further his point that numerous other Christian and historical texts were altered in an effort to discredit any historicity to Yeshua.

I have reviewed several of his videos now and the theme is very obvious. He's merely rehashing the same tired old stories mythers have used for the past 10 years, and which have all already been discredited.

I have seen all this dozens of times, and none of it impresses me. There are too many unanswered questions, suppositions, logical fallacies, and unsupported assertions. The entire myther position is simply, for lack of a better phrase, fucking retarded and grossly insulting to human intellect.

It's a god damn belief system not unlike Christianity or Islam, and it makes me just as sick.
I couldn't find myther in my macbook dictionary.

Google says 1. myther. To pester and annoy. Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Would you care to explain exactly who these "mythers" you refer to are?

And then who they are pestering and annoying?

This video series is obviously the result of years of research and hard work to put together.

Here comes you, who can't be bothered watching it, point blank dismissing everything in it with a rant that's a gross generalization.

So much for open-mindedness, the search for truth, and the scientific process!



The videos are dismissible because they are not saying anything different than what I already know, and have already debated countless times. I have quickly skimmed through most of them and found myself saying to myself, "Same old crap, different day."

There is nothing in any of those videos I don't already know. I don't think you understand how long I have been in this religion game. Let me give you a little background.

I was raised in a Catholic village and had already read the bible before I was 5 years old. Yes, I could read and write at 4 years old. I was 7 years old and in grade 4. Young I know, but we won't get into that. Anyways, my teacher was a nun. One day I asked her, "Is Peter Pan God? He can fly up to heaven like Jesus did, so why is he not a god too?" I had just read Peter Pan, so the question was relevant, at least to me.


I was grabbed by the scruff of the neck and hauled off to the priest, who was also the principal. Out came the big black strap and I got 5 lashes on both hands.
That was the beginning of my atheism. At 7 years old I was literally beaten into hating religion by the very people who taught it to me.


I became a writer at a very young age. I won a couple youth awards and contests, one of which I finished 2nd in the nation regarding Armistice/Remembrance Day. Later in life I entered college to become a journalist. However, I changed my mind because I fell in love with history, and opted out after the first year.

I have been studying ancient history specializing in the Abrahamic religions for the past 30 odd years. But it is not my profession. I have been asked countless time to make it my profession, and have been offered positions a few times as an assistant to a couple professors, but that is not what I wanted to do for a living. I do indeed have some considerable education.


Instead, I build servers, elaborate computer systems, networks, websites, and am the head of an IT corporation. Why? Because I like puzzles and solving problems, as well as unhacking computer systems and returning them to a secure state. It's both fun and challenging to me.

History is just a hobby, and religions are just part of history. Yes, I could have easily made it a profession but it just wasn't challenging enough for me. And after more than 30 years, there's not too damn much I haven't already seen, and I can recognize a false argument from a mile away for the simple reason that I have seen the same damn argument countless times.


So before you think I am merely dismissing anything out of hand, consider the fact that I most likely already seen it long ago, and dealt with it years ago. Like I already said, same shit, different fucking day.

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
30-11-2012, 10:35 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 10:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 09:07 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I couldn't find myther in my macbook dictionary.

Google says 1. myther. To pester and annoy. Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Would you care to explain exactly who these "mythers" you refer to are?

And then who they are pestering and annoying?

This video series is obviously the result of years of research and hard work to put together.

Here comes you, who can't be bothered watching it, point blank dismissing everything in it with a rant that's a gross generalization.

So much for open-mindedness, the search for truth, and the scientific process!



The videos are dismissible because they are not saying anything different than what I already know, and have already debated countless times. I have quickly skimmed through most of them and found myself saying to myself, "Same old crap, different day."

There is nothing in any of those videos I don't already know. I don't think you understand how long I have been in this religion game. Let me give you a little background.

I was raised in a Catholic village and had already read the bible before I was 5 years old. Yes, I could read and write at 4 years old. I was 7 years old and in grade 4. Young I know, but we won't get into that. Anyways, my teacher was a nun. One day I asked her, "Is Peter Pan God? He can fly up to heaven like Jesus did, so why is he not a god too?" I had just read Peter Pan, so the question was relevant, at least to me.


I was grabbed by the scruff of the neck and hauled off to the priest, who was also the principal. Out came the big black strap and I got 5 lashes on both hands.
That was the beginning of my atheism. At 7 years old I was literally beaten into hating religion by the very people who taught it to me.


I became a writer at a very young age. I won a couple youth awards and contests, one of which I finished 2nd in the nation regarding Armistice/Remembrance Day. Later in life I entered college to become a journalist. However, I changed my mind because I fell in love with history, and opted out after the first year.

I have been studying ancient history specializing in the Abrahamic religions for the past 30 odd years. But it is not my profession. I have been asked countless time to make it my profession, and have been offered positions a few times as an assistant to a couple professors, but that is not what I wanted to do for a living. I do indeed have some considerable education.


Instead, I build servers, elaborate computer systems, networks, websites, and am the head of an IT corporation. Why? Because I like puzzles and solving problems, as well as unhacking computer systems and returning them to a secure state. It's both fun and challenging to me.

History is just a hobby, and religions are just part of history. Yes, I could have easily made it a profession but it just wasn't challenging enough for me. And after more than 30 years, there's not too damn much I haven't already seen, and I can recognize a false argument from a mile away for the simple reason that I have seen the same damn argument countless times.


So before you think I am merely dismissing anything out of hand, consider the fact that I most likely already seen it long ago, and dealt with it years ago. Like I already said, same shit, different fucking day.
Well sharing knowledge would be nice, if not then meh.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 10:41 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 10:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 10:07 PM)Free Wrote:  The videos are dismissible because they are not saying anything different than what I already know, and have already debated countless times. I have quickly skimmed through most of them and found myself saying to myself, "Same old crap, different day."

There is nothing in any of those videos I don't already know. I don't think you understand how long I have been in this religion game. Let me give you a little background.

I was raised in a Catholic village and had already read the bible before I was 5 years old. Yes, I could read and write at 4 years old. I was 7 years old and in grade 4. Young I know, but we won't get into that. Anyways, my teacher was a nun. One day I asked her, "Is Peter Pan God? He can fly up to heaven like Jesus did, so why is he not a god too?" I had just read Peter Pan, so the question was relevant, at least to me.


I was grabbed by the scruff of the neck and hauled off to the priest, who was also the principal. Out came the big black strap and I got 5 lashes on both hands.
That was the beginning of my atheism. At 7 years old I was literally beaten into hating religion by the very people who taught it to me.


I became a writer at a very young age. I won a couple youth awards and contests, one of which I finished 2nd in the nation regarding Armistice/Remembrance Day. Later in life I entered college to become a journalist. However, I changed my mind because I fell in love with history, and opted out after the first year.

I have been studying ancient history specializing in the Abrahamic religions for the past 30 odd years. But it is not my profession. I have been asked countless time to make it my profession, and have been offered positions a few times as an assistant to a couple professors, but that is not what I wanted to do for a living. I do indeed have some considerable education.


Instead, I build servers, elaborate computer systems, networks, websites, and am the head of an IT corporation. Why? Because I like puzzles and solving problems, as well as unhacking computer systems and returning them to a secure state. It's both fun and challenging to me.

History is just a hobby, and religions are just part of history. Yes, I could have easily made it a profession but it just wasn't challenging enough for me. And after more than 30 years, there's not too damn much I haven't already seen, and I can recognize a false argument from a mile away for the simple reason that I have seen the same damn argument countless times.


So before you think I am merely dismissing anything out of hand, consider the fact that I most likely already seen it long ago, and dealt with it years ago. Like I already said, same shit, different fucking day.
Well sharing knowledge would be nice, if not then meh.
What knowledge do you want me to share?

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
30-11-2012, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2012 11:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
----------

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
30-11-2012, 11:57 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(30-11-2012 10:41 PM)Free Wrote:  
(30-11-2012 10:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Well sharing knowledge would be nice, if not then meh.
What knowledge do you want me to share?
In reference to the video series posted.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 05:29 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 05:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Thanks Vosur, for the video set. They are quite interesting.
I haven't watched them all yet, but the main idea, ie that Mark is essentially a series of assembled mythological vignettes certainly has to be entertained, and that the other gospels are essentially further elaboration on mythology is certainly quite possible. Their syncretistic (resemblance) to other myths is quite astounding.

For example the trial before Pilate. it simply makes no sense, at all.
No Galilean peasant would have merited the time or trouble of a Roman aristocrat.
The gospels are totally inconsistent with respect to what happened, even on what day, and time of day things happened.
Some specifically say he was silent before Pilate, (to "fulfill" the "sheep to slaughter" prophesy). John says he gave a speech. So which was it ?
They can't both be true.
There would have been no witnesses of the trial among the followers. Who would have seen it ? No Galilean peasant would have been in the quarters to watch, and the gospels specifically claim they all ran away before it happened. So where did the details come from ? Obviously they were made up.
There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers without trials, thus one would have been unnecessary.
If Jesus were an "important" insurrectionist, why didn't the Jewish historians of the day even mention him, at all ?

As I wrote above, there certainly has to be some question about this important part of the story, and if it's a concoction, then what else was just made up ?

Epectetus was a Greek writer on ethics who lived in Rome, and was very interested in the brotherhood of man. He *would* have been very interested in Jesus, had he existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus He never mentions him, at all.

Juvenal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal and Martial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial were Roman satirists who made fun of everything they could find in Rome in the First Century world. They never once mention either Jesus, a "Christ" or Christians. Maybe they just didn't think they were funny.

Seneca the Elder, the greatest writer on Ethics at the time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Elder never once mentions Jesus, or Christians or a new "love" cult. Neither does his son, Seneca the Younger.

Pliny the Elder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder wrote on all sorts of natural phenomena, and odd occurrences, cults,
and superstitions, earthquakes, etc in "De Superstitio". HE does not once mention Jesus, Christians or a Christ, or the earthquakes at the death, or resurrection.

Galio, the BROTHER of Seneca, who was the (supposed) judge in the trial of Paul in Acts, never once mentions Jesus, Christians. or a Christ. In fact Galio doesn't even mention PAUL.

First Century Jewish historians of the time, such as Justice of Tiberius, who was a native of Galilee, and contemporary of Jesus, wrote the ENTIRE Jewish history of the time, and NEVER ONCE mentions a Jesus, and neither do any of the other Jewish historians who had an opportunity to do so. The torn temple curtain is never mentioned, nor the zombie invasion.
http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history....endyear=79

Philo of Alexandria, a Jew, who may have actually been in Jerusalem, on site at the time, for the zombie invasion, (in Matthew), who DID even write whole
books on the Essenes, and other Jewish cults of Jesus' day NEVER ONCE mentions Jesus or his cult, or the two earthquakes, split rocks, or torn curtain in the temple.

Nicholas of Damascus, the court historian, and friend of Herod, never once mentions a Jesus, or Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_of_Damascus

Clearly what's going on in the gospels, is allegorical/mythology, not historical.
The silence from the writers who would have something to say about Yeshua is deafening.

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
01-12-2012, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 04:45 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Regarding Excavating The Empty Tomb Part 14A & 14B:



1.

The narrator begins by suggesting the since Paul didn't quote much from the Gospel records, it indicates that Paul's writing occured before any of the gospels were written. REMEMBER THAT HE SAID THIS AS IT PERTAINS TO SOME OTHER THINGS WRITTEN BELOW.

However, At 1:19 the narrator states that 1 Cor 11:24 has been "altered from the originals" and then shows on-screen what we see in Luke 22:19, which totally contradicts his position that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written.

If Paul wrote before the Gospels were written, then how could what he wrote be altered from the original, since the narrator is suggesting that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written?

The narrator most definitely contradicts himself here. He makes a claim that Paul's text has been altered from the original, yet fails to demonstrate any evidence for support. No ... you cannot use Luke or any Gospel record as evidence like he tried to do, not if you accept his contradictory position that Paul wrote before the gospels were published.

So right out of the gate we see this narrator blatantly contradicting himself, and rendering his own argument invalid.

2.

In regards to Paul not saying anything about the empty tomb to anyone, this is clearly an argument from silence which attempts to suggest that the absence of evidence (Paul saying anything about the empty tomb) is some kind of evidence.

The fact remains that one cannot use nothingness as evidence of anything.

One does not show up in court with empty hands and try to convince a judge that something is actually in his hands, for example. Hence, the very nature of the narrator's argument is a logical fallacy, because he is attempting to demonstrate that a lack of evidence is evidence.

Now, I am not saying that an argument from silence should not be pondered, but only that it is not viable evidence that can be used to support an argument. Therefore, the narrator's argument here is eliminated as evidence for the simple fact that it is not evidence.


3.

At about the 7:30 mark, the narrator begins to make a case that Paul's concept of Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection from 1Cor 15:3 were inline with what was written from the so-called Prophets in the Jewish scriptures, although Paul does not actually say that the scriptures he was talking about were the Jewish scriptures. This is assumed, and it may be a valid assumption, but still an unproven assumption.


He then states at about the 8:00 mark that Paul used Isaiah 53 and Pslams 22, when there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The narrator has put himself into a position of of interpreting the Jewish scriptures on Paul's behalf, and then attempts to use this as evidence.

Essentially, the narrator is putting words into Paul's mouth to make his point, and this is known as the Strawman Attack logical fallacy.

At about the 8:30 mark, the narrator shoots himself in the foot when he displays the words "KATA GRAPHE" on the screen, and then tells us that the word "GRAPHE" is literally translated as "writings," and not scriptures. Therefore, he is saying that what Paul said in 1Cor 15:3 should not be "according to the scriptures," but "according to what was written." He then says, "Of course Paul is talking about the scriptures, but the word "GRAPHE" does not mean scriptures."

Huh? I already know it doesn't always mean "scriptures," but it also does not mean it isn't talking about the Jewish scriptures either. But the narrator is saying that the word does not refer to scriptures, and then still insists that Paul is talking about scriptures? Why the fuck would he shoot himself in the foot like this?

Overall, this argument is indeed a Strawman fallacy and is also invalid, and cannot be used to support the narrator's position.


4.

At the 9:00 minute mark, the narrator then posts on the screen what he determines to be a "misleading non-literal translation" with a quote of 1Cor 11:23 in a shrewd attempt to discredit the verse as providing any historicity to Jesus in Paul's writings, and attempts his own misleading "translation" of the Greek word used for "betray," so that it does not actually mean "betray."

Either the narrator is clueless, or outright lying. For the word that he shows on the screen in fact does translate to "betrayed," and that fact can be demonstrated by simply Googling the word "paradidomi" or by using the translator I provided earlier which will lead you to the following Greek translation of the word:

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebible....htm#S3860

(Mark I suggest you check this out.)

It is also possible that the narrator failed to consider the ancient meaning of the word as it applied in ancient times, and instead opted to use the modern Greek translation, which does not always show the word "betrayed."

Nevertheless, he is 100% wrong.


5.

At approximately the 12:00 mark, the narrator displays on the screen Romans 16:25-26, which he interpolated to reflect what he understands the verse to mean. Please understand that he is pushing his interpretation onto us here, and provides no evidence to support that interpretation. For example, he interprets the word "mystery" to reflect the meaning of "gospel," and then insists again with his interpretation that the "gospel was kept secret since the world began, and later encoded into the prophetic scriptures."

Is his interpretation correct? Possibly, but let's look closely.

As the video switched over to 14b, the narrator makes a positive claim that "God was revealing Jesus to the entire world through the prophetic writings, the Jewish scriptures, and not some ground zero event just a few years earlier."

The narrator then again attempts to put words in Paul's mouth about which ancient scriptures Paul was referring to in Romans 16:25-26. He refers to Isaiah and claims that the verse from Isaiah in which Jesus was killed in the ancient past.

This is utterly fucking ridiculous. Not only does he put more words in Paul's mouth and then make a positive claim about what Paul is talking about in Romans 16:25 and relating it to Isaiah in which the narrator claims that Isaiah is speaking of a dead Jesus in the past, he provides not one stitch of evidence whatsoever that that was Paul's meaning, nor does he provide any evidence whatsoever that the Isaiah scriptures refers to a dead Jesus in the past!

This narrator's premise here is solely based upon his own interpretation of scripture, and not upon any actual evidence at all. For the narrator to basically say, "This is what Paul meant, and it can be verified in the Jewish scriptures" is identical to how the Christians attempt to claim that many of the ancient Jewish scriptures refer to Jesus, and we all know how much bullshit that is.

So why the fuck should we tolerate anybody doing that to Paul, when we cry "bullshit" when Christians do it to Jesus?

There's no place for a double-standard here guys, so let's not make hypocrites of ourselves as atheists by allowing this narrator to do to Paul what we ourselves would not allow a Christian to do to Jesus, otherwise we paint ourselves identically as Christians who follow Jesus when we choose to "follow" a narrator's interpretation of scripture for Paul.

Fair enough?

And one other point I make here as an atheist. The narrator's positive claim that the passage in Isaiah refers to a dead Jesus in the past absolutely requires us, as atheists, to believe that Isaiah was a prophet of God.

So let me see a show of hands of how many of you believe that Isaiah was a prophet of God?

Do I hear crickets chirping out there, people? Do you want to believe what the narrator is saying about Isaiah now?

Really?


6

His next diatribe is an attempt to dismiss Paul's version of events in in 1Cor 15:3 -8 by classifying it as mere "hearsay." He then says, "It's Paul's word against mine." He then attempts to make an argument based upon whether or not Paul was telling the truth, as opposed to attempting to dismiss the verses as "evidence to support what was written in previous records." He cleverly avoids this situation by attempting to date Paul's conversion to years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus so that his statement that "Jesus was on earth after the resurrection for years" is supported.

Hold on a moment here. Where the fuck is this narrator getting any evidence to date Paul's conversion to be years and years after the supposed resurrection? Again, he provides absolutely no evidence to support this assertion, so this argument of his is invalidated because he can't demonstrate any fucking evidence to support it.

Nowhere did Paul say nor imply that Jesus "hung around for years after the supposed resurrection." No where, at any time.

He then goes on to to make claims that other ancient 1st century writers never mentioned anything about Jesus or the Christians, and while using Josephus, he cleverly avoids mentioning that Josephus does indeed mention Jesus called Christ, the brother of James.

He then goes onto in an attempt to dismiss 1Cor 15:3-8 by suggesting that a Christian interpolated the text, but again fails to provide one stitch of fucking evidence to support the claim. He then asserts again that in regards to Paul's letters there are "a few insertions that Paul never wrote."

Well people, we are atheists, and I like to think we represent reason. Therefore, if this narrator is going to make a positive claim that there were "a few insertions that Paul never wrote" then it is our duty to call him on it and show us the fucking evidence to support that assertion.

Does he? No, not even once. He attempts to justify his assertions with even more assertions, as if that will somehow make up for his lack of any evidence. But at the end of the fucking day, he is speaking out of his fucking ass and doing nothing any different than what the fucking Christians do; trying to convince us of something that simply isn't there.

He then goes on again to attempt to verify his claim of interpolation by demonstrating that Paul's version of events shows 12 apostles seen Jesus after the supposed resurrection while Matthew shows only 11 due to Judas hanging himself. At best, this only demonstrates a contradiction between Paul and Matthew, and we all know the bible is full of contradictions. But it by no means demonstrates any evidence whatsoever of the text being interpolated by a later Christian.

This narrator then attempts to use Acts as if it's some kind of evidence against 1Cor 15:3-8 as being written by Paul by illustrating that in Acts Peter was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, while in Paul's letters Peter was called to administer to the Jews. Now wait a minute here ...

Didn't this same narrator at the beginning claim that the Gospels and Acts were a work of fiction, and now he's trying to use a work of fiction to dispute Paul's letters?

People, how the fuck does that work? Would you use a work of fiction to dispute something else? This narrator is contradicting himself all over these crazy videos.

Summary:

Seriously guys?

We are atheists, and we should be demonstrating far greater reasoning abilities than what this narrator wants us to have. If we believe what he claims, then why should we not also believe in religion?

How are many of his claims are any different than what we see from a Christian pastor preaching about how the prophets foretold the coming of Jesus?

If we are to accept his assertions and the claims he makes without any evidence being supplied, how then are we any different from the Christians and Muslims who swallow the claims of their scriptures hook, line, and sinker without any actual evidence to support those claims?

Should we sacrifice our reasoning abilities and accept the fallacies of arguments from silence and evidence of absence as evidence when we know they are fallacies?

Should any of us be so desperate in our disdain for religions that we should accept any flawed theories to dispute those religions?

No, we are atheists, and I like to think we utilize our reasoning abilities far better than any theists. And if we continue to accept these types of videos as being somehow "truthful," we diminish ourselves intellectually and place ourselves on the same level as the theists.

That's not happening to me. Don't let it happen to you. Review what I said here and take my notes and compare them to what you see in those two videos from 14 A and 14 B, and if you don't think that my review is correct, then by all means challenge my review with evidence and not the kind of bullshit the narrator uses.


I'll look at C & D later, but this is really freaking stupid, guys.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: