Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2012, 04:35 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 04:00 PM)Free Wrote:  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 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.
Don't you think it's unfair to accuse me (assuming that you included me when using the term "we") of accepting this as truthful when the very reason I mentioned these videos was to make them subject to critical scrutiny? I want to hear both sides of the stories before making a conclusion one way or the other. Peeps who visit this site and those who are already here will have an opportunity to look at his videos and your critique of them and decide for themselves who makes a better case. With that said, I'll review your critique later on and I'm looking forward to the response of BB and Mark Fulton.

Thanks for changing your mind about simply dismissing them, by the way.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
01-12-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 04:35 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 04:00 PM)Free Wrote:  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 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.
Don't you think it's unfair to accuse me (assuming that you included me when using the term "we") of accepting this as truthful when the very reason I mentioned these videos was to make them subject to critical scrutiny? I want to hear both sides of the stories before making a conclusion one way or the other. Peeps who visit this site and those who are already here will have an opportunity to look at his videos and your critique of them and decide for themselves who makes a better case. With that said, I'll review your critique later on and I'm looking forward to the response of BB and Mark Fulton.

Thanks for changing your mind about simply dismissing them, by the way.
Not speaking to anyone specifically, but only to those who accept these videos at face value as representing any kind of truth.

And you're welcome.

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
01-12-2012, 05:33 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Hi Free (and everyone else),

thankyou for actually looking at the videos. Shortly I will address your comments about them.

Thanks for sharing a little of your life.

You're a complex character, aren't you! I find it hard to understand why you seem so worked up about all of this. Why all the swearing, and then ranting about how much you know? You haven't really explained the "myther" thing either...why not share with us what you mean?

Something is making you very passionate but I can't quite understand what. I'm glad to hear you're an atheist. It wouldn't have mattered if you were one of those "closet Christians" who thinks they've a wonderful understanding of scripture but doesn't like churches, although that would have explained why you are so passionate (and opinionated) about all this.

I find your backhanded dismissal of these videos rather "over the top," but I appreciate the effort you've put in in your commentary, and I can learn from it, so let's keep talking.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Free (and everyone else),

thankyou for actually looking at the videos. Shortly I will address your comments about them.

Thanks for sharing a little of your life.

You're a complex character, aren't you! I find it hard to understand why you seem so worked up about all of this. Why all the swearing, and then ranting about how much you know? You haven't really explained the "myther" thing either...why not share with us what you mean?

Something is making you very passionate but I can't quite understand what. I'm glad to hear you're an atheist. It wouldn't have mattered if you were one of those "closet Christians" who thinks they've a wonderful understanding of scripture but doesn't like churches, although that would have explained why you are so passionate (and opinionated) about all this.

I find your backhanded dismissal of these videos rather "over the top," but I appreciate the effort you've put in in your commentary, and I can learn from it, so let's keep talking.
Hi Mark,

I am the farthest thing you will ever see from being any kind of Christian. Like my life story said, my atheism began at a very early age, and also in my introduction thread, I commented on how I was forced to go to church as a kid, but would only sneak into the church to grab the church bulletin so I could use it as evidence that I had actually been at the church.

No, my passion comes from being an historian, an atheist, employing reason and logic, and the fact that I absolutely love to argue on points.

I see things much differently than most other people when it comes to history, and the reason for that is that I actually take the time to investigate things. My analytical mind comes from the work I do in the IT world, so hopefully you can understand why I analyze things so in-depth. My reasoning comes from being an atheist and arguing against theists by destroying their arguments by pointing out the endless logical fallacies they use.

The "myther" thing I already explained. In this context it refers to anyone who thinks that Jesus was totally a mythical person and had no earthly existence. Google "Jesus Myther" for more info.

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
01-12-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Wow. Post 350, Free blows a gasket, sucks a valve, and smokes the fuck out. Prolly shouldn't recommend him vids no morez. Consider

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-12-2012, 06:13 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Hi Free, you wrote

"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."

Ok.....re.....
"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"

I've gone back and listened 3 times. The narrator doesn't say this at all. He says nothing about Paul quoting or not quoting from the gospels.

Re..."However, At 1:19 the narrator states that 1 Cor 11:24 has been "altered from the originals" " TRUE.

Re..."and then shows on-screen what we see in Luke 22:19," TRUE

Re..." which totally contradicts his position that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written" HUH? You are reading something into this that isn't there.

Re..."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?" HUH? This sentence I'm sure is an attempt to make a point, but I don't get it. Anyone else? Are you somehow suggesting the gospels were the "original" of what Paul wrote? Surely the narrator was just saying that he thinks Paul's writing here has been altered from the original.

Re..."The narrator most definitely contradicts himself here." NO HE DOESN"T

Re..."He makes a claim that Paul's text has been altered from the original, yet fails to demonstrate any evidence for support." TRUE.

I find it amazing that you don't seem to have understood what the guts of what the narrator is saying here, or if you have, you've ignored his argument. He's pointing out that in none of the 7 genuine Pauline letters does Paul mention the activities, teachings or miracles of Jesus. The only exception is the last supper scenario. I've also pointed this out to you on numerous occasions. The narrator and myself have reached the conclusion that Paul's Christ wasn't Jeebus. You disagree, yet you haven't produced any good evidence why, only some scattered lines from Paul which are remarkable for their lack of detail and could well be interpolations. It's a fundamental issue that you've avoided discussing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 07:08 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Ok.....re....."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"
I've gone back and listened 3 times. The narrator doesn't say this at all. He says nothing about Paul quoting or not quoting from the gospels.



You obviously failed to understand what I said, because no where did I say that the narrator said anything about Paul quoting or not quoting the gospels, but instread he asserts that the reason Paul never quoted much of anything from the Gospels was because they didn't exist at Paul's time to quote from them.


Quote:Re..."However, At 1:19 the narrator states that 1 Cor 11:24 has been "altered from the originals" " TRUE.
Re..."and then shows on-screen what we see in Luke 22:19," TRUE
Re..." which totally contradicts his position that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written"
HUH? You are reading something into this that isn't there.



Not at all. Go to the 50 second Mark and listen to him explain how Paul's writings came before the Gospels and Acts. He shows you a graph which demonstrates his belief that the Gospel and Acts were written after Paul's letters, and then goes on to explaining that the reason Paul didn't appear to know anything about the Gospels was because he didn't know about them due to the Gospels being written after Paul's letters.


Quote:
Quote:Re..."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?"

HUH? This sentence I'm sure is an attempt to make a point, but I don't get it. Anyone else? Are you somehow suggesting the gospels were the "original" of what Paul wrote? Surely the narrator was just saying that he thinks Paul's writing here has been altered from the original.



What I wrote is self explanatory when you keep in mind that the narrator most definitely asserts that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels were written. If what he says is true, then he cannot use what we see him quoting from Luke as the original source, and then claim that what Paul wrote was "altered" from the original.

How the hell can what Paul said in Corinthians be an alteration of the "original" in Luke if Paul wrote before Luke was written? If Paul wrote it before Luke did, then wouldn't Paul be the original?


Quote:Re..."The narrator most definitely contradicts himself here." NO HE DOESN"T



He absolutely does, 100%. That has been definitely proven.


Quote:I find it amazing that you don't seem to have understood what the guts of what the narrator is saying here, or if you have, you've ignored his argument. He's pointing out that in none of the 7 genuine Pauline letters does Paul mention the activities, teachings or miracles of Jesus. The only exception is the last supper scenario. I've also pointed this out to you on numerous occasions. The narrator and myself have reached the conclusion that Paul's Christ wasn't Jeebus. You disagree, yet you haven't produced any good evidence why, only some scattered lines from Paul which are remarkable for their lack of detail and could well be interpolations. It's a fundamental issue that you've avoided discussing.


You don't seem to understand that we are addressing an obvious contradiction by your little narrator boy, and if you can't see that at the 50 second mark I can't help you. But I assure you, anyone else who sees it will know I am dead on the money.

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
01-12-2012, 07:06 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re...
"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."

I have to disagree.

The narrator was not just referring to Paul's lack of commentary about an empty tomb. I'm repeating myself...Paul says virtually nothing about any aspect of Jeebus' life. He had seven letters in which to discuss his hero, but fails to deliver.
Did Paul know of a recently departed Yeshua? He must have, assuming of course, there was such a person (I think there was). Did he know of "Jesus?" OBVIOUSLY NOT! "Jesus" had yet to be created. Harry Potter didn't exist prior to the first book in the series. "Jesus" didn't exist until the first book in the series. That's why Paul never mentions him.

The "lack of evidence" is, in fact, evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 07:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Re...

"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.

I agree.

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.

Well said! Good point!

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.

Yeah, he got himself in a muddle here.

Yet....his basic proposition that Paul was using his own interpretation of Jewish scripture as the main source for his ideas I think is valid. What do you think?

I also think Paul over used his imagination, ideas from Mithraism, and other obscure sources.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 07:37 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
"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."

Let's talk about this. You may be right about the translation of the word.

Yet the narrator is making the profound point that first century Christians did not think of Christ as a once living person, yet as a spiritual heavenly intermediary between man and god. BINGO! BULLSEYE! That particular comment has profound implications for the legitimacy of today's Christianity and for the Jeebus story.

I suspect you disagree with this. Please comment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: