Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2012, 07:58 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Free, in regards to your point no. 5...

here is the King James piece of scripture that's discussed...

"25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."

You have labelled the narrator's interpretation of this as "utterly fucking ridiculous," yet you fail to say why. Please say why.

I assume you have your own interpretation of what Paul meant? Please enlighten me. Please explain

"according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" and

"But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 08:41 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
"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!"

I've watched this section 3 more times. The narrator never puts words in Paul's mouth. The narrator says nothing about Isaiah, yet there is a visual flash to a section of Isaiah. Nowhere does the narrator claim "Isaiah is speaking of a dead Jesus in the past"

The narrator does claim "god was revealing Jesus to the entire world through the prophetic writings, the Jewish scriptures, and not some ground zero event a few years earlier. An ancient mystery encoded into the very pages of scripture, hidden from mankind since the beginning of time revealed only in the last days to select apostles such as Paul."

Re "he provides not one stitch of evidence whatsoever that that was Paul's meaning," Um....yes he does, you have failed to understand it.

You go on to say...
"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?"

You are using very strong, emotive language and accusing him of poor scholarship basically because you disagree with what he's saying.

You have failed to address his arguments. He (and I) has given much more than "his own interpretation of scripture" to back up his claim. You, as yet, haven't addressed my arguments, and haven't given your (I suspect you think superior) interpretation of scripture to counter his. You show no evidence you have understood what he's saying because you're so anxious to machine gun him in the kneecaps.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
RE

"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?"

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you, or someone else, please explain?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 08:54 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote: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.


Mark, in pure reasoning and logical thought, evidence of something that is absent is not evidence. Where there is nothing in existence, there is no evidence of existence. The narrator is using an Argument from Silence, which is categorized as an informal fallacy. The reason why it is a fallacy is that it is impossible to prove anything with something that does not exist. In the case of the narrator, he is attempting to prove something via the use of something that does not exist.


One other thing, the narrator is probably correct that the Gospels we currently have may not have existed at the time of Paul, and were not written until a couple decades after Paul. Do you not see how the narrator's argument again stands in contradiction? Since he says that Paul says nothing about the empty tomb as per the Gospel records, then how could Paul ever quote anything about the empty tomb as per the Gospel records if the Gospels had not yet been written?


The narrator cannot use the very same gospel records he claims that didn't exist during Paul's time to try prove a point that Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb that was described in the Gospel records.


His argument is a total contradiction of itself.

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, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 09:28 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
"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 there ...

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?"

You've totally missed the point. Again. Watch the video again. The narrator makes the point that Acts and Paul contradict each other over Peter's role, which they do. He then says he's more inclined to believe Paul.

In fact, Free, you've totally missed the whole point about Paul. At the risk of sounding patronizing, you're too closed minded. You've been studying this stuff for 30 years and become set in your thought patterns. Bucky's and mine and the narrator's ideas obviously cause you cognitive dissonance, and you come out all aggressive as a result. There is an easier way. Cool your jets and open your mind to to the reality you may be wrong.

I may be wrong too. In fact I have been about some things. I've gone back and corrected my script. That's one of the reasons I'm here...to learn.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 09:05 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote: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?
Yes, I agree, Paul did use many ancient sources for his man-god. You see, Paul only did exactly what the other writers were doing; building a mythical character on top of a historical person. The Gospel writers did it, as well as all other canonized sources, and even many of the non canonized ancient sources. Why not Paul? His position on Jesus is no more or less ridiculous than anyone elses.
Quote: I also think Paul over used his imagination, ideas from Mithraism, and other obscure sources.
Paul figures prominently in Gnostic sources, and shows definite signs of early Gnosticism.

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, 09:14 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:"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.

But Mark, he failed to make his point when his arguments for the point are invalidated. He never proved with any evidence that first century Christians did not think of Christ as a once living person at all. Nor did he prove with any evidence that Christ was a spiritual heavenly intermediary between man and god.

I can see you were impressed by the comment, but the comment in itself is but mere assertion, and I think you simply like the comment because it agrees with what you believe.

But at the end of it all, he provided no evidence to support the claims.

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, 09:24 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Free, in regards to your point no. 5...
here is the King James piece of scripture that's discussed...
"25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen."
You have labelled the narrator's interpretation of this as "utterly fucking ridiculous," yet you fail to say why. Please say why.

I didn't say "utterly fucking ridiculous" in regards to the narrator's interpretation, instead I explained it as, "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!"

That is what I found "utterly fucking ridiculous."

Quote:I assume you have your own interpretation of what Paul meant? Please enlighten me. Please explain.

Nope, it's ambiguous and pointless.

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, 09:35 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:RE
"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?"
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you, or someone else, please explain?
What I am saying is that the narrator expects us, as atheists, to believe thaat the Isaiah scripture refers to a dead Jesus who died before the time of Isaiah. This means that the narrator is doing exactly the same thing that Christian pastors do when they interpret scripture. The narrator is interpreting scripture and asking us atheists to believe in his interpretation.

Like ... in what fucking world is that going to happen? If you are going to believe in the narrators interpretation, then why not believe in a Christian's interpretation also? After all, isn't it all the same shit, different day?

So because he puts words in Paul's mouth, and then asks us to believe in his interpretation of scripture just like the Christians do, then his entire freaking argument is invalidated.

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, 09:39 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 08:54 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: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.


Mark, in pure reasoning and logical thought, evidence of something that is absent is not evidence. Where there is nothing in existence, there is no evidence of existence. The narrator is using an Argument from Silence, which is categorized as an informal fallacy. The reason why it is a fallacy is that it is impossible to prove anything with something that does not exist. In the case of the narrator, he is attempting to prove something via the use of something that does not exist.


One other thing, the narrator is probably correct that the Gospels we currently have may not have existed at the time of Paul, and were not written until a couple decades after Paul. Do you not see how the narrator's argument again stands in contradiction? Since he says that Paul says nothing about the empty tomb as per the Gospel records, then how could Paul ever quote anything about the empty tomb as per the Gospel records if the Gospels had not yet been written?


The narrator cannot use the very same gospel records he claims that didn't exist during Paul's time to try prove a point that Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb that was described in the Gospel records.


His argument is a total contradiction of itself.
Well....yes and no.

I think the narrator is making the point that Jeebus had an empty tomb, although the fact hadn't been documented in the gospels when Paul was around. So....if Paul had known of a Jeebus, he surely would have known of an empty tomb, and, one would think, would have mentioned the fact.

You probably know more about logic than me. What about this.....in a court of law, isn't the absence of a motive used as evidence?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: