Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2012, 09:50 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 09:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
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.
Re "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."

I didn't think of it in that way at all. I understood the narrator to mean that Paul scanned through Jewish scripture looking for an interpretation that would justify his Christ story. Paul could (and did) interpret scripture in any way he wanted. If Paul was a pharisee, that was their job description. Paul came up with a web of convoluted rationalizations that I think only masochists should try to make sense of LOL. The narrator wasn't saying that Christ IS found in Jewish scripture, but that Paul THOUGHT he was to be found there.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 09:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.


My mind is wide open. I haven't missed anything here, but again you obviously have because you still do not recognize the contradiction in the narrator's argument which was my whole, and only, point.

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
01-12-2012, 09:57 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 10:13 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:I didn't think of it in that way at all. I understood the narrator to mean that Paul scanned through Jewish scripture looking for an interpretation that would justify his Christ story. Paul could (and did) interpret scripture in any way he wanted. If Paul was a pharisee, that was their job description. Paul came up with a web of convoluted rationalizations that I think only masochists should try to make sense of LOL. The narrator wasn't saying that Christ IS found in Jewish scripture, but that Paul THOUGHT he was to be found there.


Nope, the narrator clearly attempts to justify his interpretation of what Paul said in the verse in question by attempting to interpret a verse in Isaiah to show what Paul could have alluded to.


By the way, did you check out the 00:50 point in video 14 A to verify that what I said is true?

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
01-12-2012, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 10:19 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 09:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: 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.
Ok....you're right....he could have provided more evidence other than just Paul's writing.

Forgetting the video for a second, I think he's right. I have found no good evidence from the first century that anyone thought of a Christ as a once walking human. The canonical gospels, in my humble opinion, while they may have first been penned late first century, had little or nothing to do with "Christianity" in the first century. Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude ( all first century books in the babble) say nothing about a once human Jesus. There is no reliably dated first secular commentary that talks about a once human Jesus.

Josephus ( who was first century)mentions John the Baptist and James, yet his references to "Christ" are very dubious.

I do believe there was a Yeshua who tried to start a war with Rome, because of the presence of James and J the B, and the fact the Nazarenes (not Christians) believed he had existed. Yet when we start talking about a "Christ" or a "Jesus" then we're moving into fantasy land.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 10:27 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 09:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 08:54 PM)Free Wrote:  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?


But the point remains that the narrator's argument is invalidated when he attempts to use the record of the story of the empty tomb in the Gospels as evidence that Paul should have mentioned the empty tomb story, but in almost the very same breath he claims the Gospels were unavailable to Paul during Paul's time.


What he does demonstrate however is that the reason Paul doesn't quote anything from the Gospels in his letters is because the Gospels had not yet been written. This is really the only good point he makes in the entire video, and the only thing I learned as being something unique. So at least something good came out of watching the videos, and I thank Vosur for that little tidbit.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. The establishment of a motive can be used as evidence, but the lack of a motive cannot be used as evidence. One of the criteria in a criminal court case is to establish the motive of the accused. The defense can indeed argue that no motive was established by the prosecution, but this is not done to prove anything, but rather to discredit the prosecutions case since they failed at that criteria.

The defense does not have to prove anything, but only disprove.

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
01-12-2012, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 10:45 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 10:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 09:14 PM)Free Wrote:  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.
Ok....you're right....he could have provided more evidence other than just Paul's writing.

Forgetting the video for a second, I think he's right. I have found no good evidence from the first century that anyone thought of a Christ as a once walking human. The canonical gospels, in my humble opinion, while they may have first been penned late first century, had little or nothing to do with "Christianity" in the first century. Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude ( all first century books in the babble) say nothing about a once human Jesus. There is no reliably dated first secular commentary that talks about a once human Jesus.

Josephus ( who was first century)mentions John the Baptist and James, yet his references to "Christ" are very dubious.

I do believe there was a Yeshua who tried to start a war with Rome, because of the presence of James and J the B, and the fact the Nazarenes (not Christians) believed he had existed. Yet when we start talking about a "Christ" or a "Jesus" then we're moving into fantasy land.


You see, we are not that far apart, Mark. You already believe that a Yeshua existed, and so do I.

The only difference between you and me is that I believe that the life of this very same Jewish Yeshua fellow became embellished into this Christian Jesus fellow by Paul, and all the other Christian writers of the 1st and 2nd century.

At the core of the Christian beliefs stands Yeshua, but the Christians have no clue who he actually was due to the excessive embellishments.

The only thing I can say about Yeshua is that he was considered to be the Messiah by a few Jews, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate around AD 30-35 for proclaiming himself to be a king aka "King of the Jews," a criminal act in a land controlled by Caesar.

Not much more to his story than that.

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
01-12-2012, 10:44 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 09:57 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I didn't think of it in that way at all. I understood the narrator to mean that Paul scanned through Jewish scripture looking for an interpretation that would justify his Christ story. Paul could (and did) interpret scripture in any way he wanted. If Paul was a pharisee, that was their job description. Paul came up with a web of convoluted rationalizations that I think only masochists should try to make sense of LOL. The narrator wasn't saying that Christ IS found in Jewish scripture, but that Paul THOUGHT he was to be found there.


Nope, the narrator clearly attempts to justify his interpretation of what Paul said in the verse in question by attempting to interpret a verse in Isaiah to show what Paul could have alluded to.


By the way, did you check out the 00:50 point in video 14 A to verify that what I said is true?
Bloody hell! This is hard work!

I assume you're referring to video 14 B (not A) The narrator says NOTHING about Isaiah (do you have sound on your computer?) The visuals do rest for a few seconds on a section of Old Testament scripture that happens to be Isaiah, but HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT IT! Please provide a transcript of the narrator "attempting to interpret a verse in Isaiah" so I , and everyone else, know what the hell you're talking about.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 10:57 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 10:38 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 10:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok....you're right....he could have provided more evidence other than just Paul's writing.

Forgetting the video for a second, I think he's right. I have found no good evidence from the first century that anyone thought of a Christ as a once walking human. The canonical gospels, in my humble opinion, while they may have first been penned late first century, had little or nothing to do with "Christianity" in the first century. Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude ( all first century books in the babble) say nothing about a once human Jesus. There is no reliably dated first secular commentary that talks about a once human Jesus.

Josephus ( who was first century)mentions John the Baptist and James, yet his references to "Christ" are very dubious.

I do believe there was a Yeshua who tried to start a war with Rome, because of the presence of James and J the B, and the fact the Nazarenes (not Christians) believed he had existed. Yet when we start talking about a "Christ" or a "Jesus" then we're moving into fantasy land.


You see, we are not that far apart, Mark. You already believe that a Yeshua existed, and so do I.

The only difference between you and me is that I believe that the life of this very same Jewish Yeshua fellow became embellished into this Christian Jesus fellow by Paul, and all the other Christian writers of the 1st and 2nd century.

At the core of the Christian beliefs stands Yeshua, but the Christians have no clue who he actually was due to the excessive embellishments.

The only thing I can say about Yeshua is that he was considered to be the Messiah by a few Jews, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate around AD 30-35 for proclaiming himself to be a king aka "King of the Jews," a criminal act in a land controlled by Caesar.

Not much more to his story than that.
"You see, we are not that far apart, Mark. You already believe that a Yeshua existed, and so do I."

AGREED! LOL

"At the core of the Christian beliefs stands Yeshua,"

TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY DISAGREED. LOL. Yeshua was a very human Jewish fundamentalist insurrectionist, a militant Jew who hated Rome with a passion, was murdered by the Romans, and who was opposed to gentile mythology. Jesus was a benign pacifist son of god spirit/man, who was invented by the gentile world to undermine militant messianic Judaism, who died for our sins and who we must have faith in to get onto heaven.

"but the Christians have no clue who he actually was due to the excessive embellishments."
BULLSEYE!

"The only thing I can say about Yeshua is that he was considered to be
the Messiah by a few Jews, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate
around AD 30-35 for proclaiming himself to be a king aka "King of the
Jews," a criminal act in a land controlled by Caesar.

Not much more to his story than that."
WE"RE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. Why then, do you claim Paul was writing about Yeshua?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 11:07 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 10:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 09:57 PM)Free Wrote:  Nope, the narrator clearly attempts to justify his interpretation of what Paul said in the verse in question by attempting to interpret a verse in Isaiah to show what Paul could have alluded to.


By the way, did you check out the 00:50 point in video 14 A to verify that what I said is true?
Bloody hell! This is hard work!

I assume you're referring to video 14 B (not A) The narrator says NOTHING about Isaiah (do you have sound on your computer?) The visuals do rest for a few seconds on a section of Old Testament scripture that happens to be Isaiah, but HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT IT! Please provide a transcript of the narrator "attempting to interpret a verse in Isaiah" so I , and everyone else, know what the hell you're talking about.


Yes, Part 14B, at the 50 second mark you will see the narrator attempt to interpret the scripture in Isaiah with the words on the screen that say, "The past tense of Isaiah 53 fits perfectly with the idea of a Jesus who was killed in the ancient past." The narrator is trying to prove that Paul's Jesus was not the one who the other Christian records talk about, but was someone from the ancient past who existed before the time of Isaiah.


Aside from the narrator's poor attempt to interpret scripture, the problems with the narrators premise are obvious. For example, he fails to acknowledge the numerous times that Paul said that Jesus Christ was crucified, and that crucifixion is a Roman invention that has no record of existence with any ancient culture from Isaiah's past.

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
01-12-2012, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 11:15 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(01-12-2012 10:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 10:38 PM)Free Wrote:  You see, we are not that far apart, Mark. You already believe that a Yeshua existed, and so do I.

The only difference between you and me is that I believe that the life of this very same Jewish Yeshua fellow became embellished into this Christian Jesus fellow by Paul, and all the other Christian writers of the 1st and 2nd century.

At the core of the Christian beliefs stands Yeshua, but the Christians have no clue who he actually was due to the excessive embellishments.

The only thing I can say about Yeshua is that he was considered to be the Messiah by a few Jews, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate around AD 30-35 for proclaiming himself to be a king aka "King of the Jews," a criminal act in a land controlled by Caesar.

Not much more to his story than that.
"You see, we are not that far apart, Mark. You already believe that a Yeshua existed, and so do I."

AGREED! LOL

"At the core of the Christian beliefs stands Yeshua,"

TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY DISAGREED. LOL. Yeshua was a very human Jewish fundamentalist insurrectionist, a militant Jew who hated Rome with a passion, was murdered by the Romans, and who was opposed to gentile mythology. Jesus was a benign pacifist son of god spirit/man, who was invented by the gentile world to undermine militant messianic Judaism, who died for our sins and who we must have faith in to get onto heaven.

"but the Christians have no clue who he actually was due to the excessive embellishments."
BULLSEYE!

"The only thing I can say about Yeshua is that he was considered to be
the Messiah by a few Jews, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate
around AD 30-35 for proclaiming himself to be a king aka "King of the
Jews," a criminal act in a land controlled by Caesar.

Not much more to his story than that."
WE"RE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. Why then, do you claim Paul was writing about Yeshua?

I have only claimed that at the core of Paul's writings stands Yeshua. I have said ad nausium that Paul was a liar and made shit up in his head. Paul basically took the little he knew about Yeshua and turned him into Jesus.

That's about all there is to that.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: