Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2012, 10:56 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Josephus and other historians mention at least a dozen Jewish leaders from the first century CE who were hailed as messiahs but killed by the Romans or in sectarian fights with their countrymen (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html- overview). Each time, the movements they inspired faded into nothing after the demise of their leader. The movement Yeshua was part of was different, because it definitely didn't fade away.



In the interest of intellectual honesty it should be noted that none of the people (aside from Jesus of Nazareth) on the list of the link above have any evidence whatsoever that they either self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah, nor is there any evidence that anyone in ancient times directly referred to them as a Messiah.


In fact, they are only regarded as "possible" messianic contenders by modern scholarship, but even then the assertion itself threads dangerously close to, if not in actuality, a Historian's Fallacy:


Quote:Historian's Fallacy

The historian's fallacy is a informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy


It also approaches the fallacy of Presentism:

Quote:Presentism

Presentism is a mode of literary or historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of Presentism is a common fallacy in historical writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_..._analysis)


Please bear that in mind before you consider anything in the link as being factual.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
02-12-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:Re...

"To demonstrate the argument it enables, any arguments mythers have that
relate to Paul's non quotes of the Gospels are now completely invalid
arguments since the Gospels didn't exist during his time to be able to
quote from them in the first place.
Mythers often say such things as
"Paul didn't agree with the Gospel writers and made his own Jesus up in
his head and started his own religion."
That argument, and many others like it, is now invalid."

HUH??? The "mythers" (this is really a derogatory term which shouldn't be used just because people have a different opinion to yours) obviously have a valid point. Paul obviously did make up his own Jesus, his own crucified son of god. Why do you think this argument is invalid? What on earth could you mean by "and many others like it?" You seem to suggest that everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours is "invalid"

There's something very fishy about the way you put people who don't agree with you down. If that's an ego/self esteem issue, get over it will you?


The term "myther" is even used by mythers themselves , and is hardly a derogatory term. It merely defines their position.

I don't have to suggest that the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all arguments invalidate themselves.

If you believe that the method of argument which uses unsupported assertion, logical fallacies, incomplete analysis, false Greek definitions, and glaringly obvious contradictions somehow has any validity to it, then I will wait right here for your explanation as to how any and/or all of those things are even remotely capable of establishing a point in the myther argument.

Mark you seriously need to hone your knowledge of how reasoning works. How do you think I could show you all the problems with those videos, which many you completely agreed with, if I wasn't employing sound reasoning?

Be prepared, if you are going to write a book on these subjects, and if your reasoning and supporting evidence is weak, you will be eaten alive by the critics.

What I do is the least of your worries, seriously.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
02-12-2012, 09:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(02-12-2012 10:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Josephus and other historians mention at least a dozen Jewish leaders from the first century CE who were hailed as messiahs but killed by the Romans or in sectarian fights with their countrymen (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html- overview). Each time, the movements they inspired faded into nothing after the demise of their leader. The movement Yeshua was part of was different, because it definitely didn't fade away.



In the interest of intellectual honesty it should be noted that none of the people (aside from Jesus of Nazareth) on the list of the link above have any evidence whatsoever that they either self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah, nor is there any evidence that anyone in ancient times directly referred to them as a Messiah.


In fact, they are only regarded as "possible" messianic contenders by modern scholarship, but even then the assertion itself threads dangerously close to, if not in actuality, a Historian's Fallacy:


Quote:Historian's Fallacy

The historian's fallacy is a informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy


It also approaches the fallacy of Presentism:

Quote:Presentism

Presentism is a mode of literary or historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of Presentism is a common fallacy in historical writings.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_..._analysis)


Please bear that in mind before you consider anything in the link as being factual.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/mes...l#overview
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 09:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2012 10:35 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(02-12-2012 02:03 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:HUH??? The "mythers" (this is really a derogatory term which shouldn't be used just because people have a different opinion to yours) obviously have a valid point. Paul obviously did make up his own Jesus, his own crucified son of god. Why do you think this argument is invalid? What on earth could you mean by "and many others like it?" You seem to suggest that everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours is "invalid"

There's something very fishy about the way you put people who don't agree with you down. If that's an ego/self esteem issue, get over it will you?




The term "myther" is even used by mythers themselves , and is hardly a derogatory term. It merely defines their position.

I don't have to suggest that the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all arguments invalidate themselves.

If you believe that the method of argument which uses unsupported assertion, logical fallacies, incomplete analysis, false Greek definitions, and glaringly obvious contradictions somehow has any validity to it, then I will wait right here for your explanation as to how any and/or all of those things are even remotely capable of establishing a point in the myther argument.

Mark you seriously need to hone your knowledge of how reasoning works. How do you think I could show you all the problems with those videos, which many you completely agreed with, if I wasn't employing sound reasoning?

Be prepared, if you are going to write a book on these subjects, and if your reasoning and supporting evidence is weak, you will be eaten alive by the critics.

What I do is the least of your worries, seriously
Myther...."to pester or annoy." End of argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 08:31 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(02-12-2012 09:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-12-2012 02:03 PM)Free Wrote:  The term "myther" is even used by mythers themselves , and is hardly a derogatory term. It merely defines their position.

I don't have to suggest that the opinion of many mythers is invalid, for a simple analysis of their arguments demonstrates that almost all arguments invalidate themselves.

If you believe that the method of argument which uses unsupported assertion, logical fallacies, incomplete analysis, false Greek definitions, and glaringly obvious contradictions somehow has any validity to it, then I will wait right here for your explanation as to how any and/or all of those things are even remotely capable of establishing a point in the myther argument.

Mark you seriously need to hone your knowledge of how reasoning works. How do you think I could show you all the problems with those videos, which many you completely agreed with, if I wasn't employing sound reasoning?

Be prepared, if you are going to write a book on these subjects, and if your reasoning and supporting evidence is weak, you will be eaten alive by the critics.

What I do is the least of your worries, seriously
Myther...."to pester or annoy." End of argument.
Are you intentionally making a conscious decision to purposely avoid what was meant when I answered your question of what a myther was with a link that clearly demonstrates that according to this context we are discussing it refers to those who believe Jesus was a total myth?

Are you so upset with me Mark that you would stoop to this low level of maturity?

Seriously?

I understand how some of the people here were quite happy to continue a discussion regarding the positive claim of how Paul's Jesus was not modeled after the Jewish Yeshua without that view being challenged. Then, when someone comes along and pokes holes in the argument (massive glaring holes), the happy bubble gets burst and the insults begin to fly.

So far in this discussion, I have been called a theist, an egotist, an angry person, and a host of other insulting names just because I provide evidence to counter the argument.

The problem with many people in this thread is that they haven't the first clue how to properly analyze text, investigate history, recognize fallacious arguments, reason effectively, and present a cohesive argument. Instead, they make unsupported claims, fail to analyze text, post logical fallacies as arguments, demonstrate a great lack of reasoning, and post an argument that falls apart with a gentle breeze.

My feeling on this is that if you cannot present a good argument, then perhaps people shouldn't embarrass themselves by presenting one that is clearly ridiculous.

Sure, anybody can have a theory, but just like any scientific argument, does your historical argument hold up under scrutiny? Why do you think it would be any different in the historical field than it would be in the scientific field?

Yes Mark, you were nice and comfortable with these people listening to you until I came along. I did not purposely come to this thread on my own to attack anybody personally. Bucky insisted that I come here so that he figured he could prove something to me. All that was proven here is that the arguments used to support non-historicity in favor of a total myth are left wanting in the extreme sense.

Now, because of the low level of maturity that is being demonstrated on this thread, I will leave you to continue to post your theories to those who really have no education to decide whether you have a point of not, and allow them to follow whatever it is you say, unchallenged.

That appears to be what you want, Mark. So that is what you will have.

Enjoy your thread. I have better things to do with some of the great atheists on this forum rather than argue over whatever it is you want people to believe.

Good day.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
03-12-2012, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 10:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Bucky insisted that I come here so that he figured he could prove something to me. All that was proven here is that the arguments used to support non-historicity in favor of a total myth are left wanting in the extreme sense.

Excuse me ? I insisted ? Hahahaha. Please provide proof of that little lie. After Free made a total fool of himself in the "Proof of Jesus" thread by stating

(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

and ranting on about it for pages and pages, and then trying to weasel out from it, by blaming the argument he made his own, on someone else. Now he lies and says I "insisted" he come to this thread. What a joke. Free has a very strange way of denying and being responsible for his own statements and utterly patronizing crap. Either we agree with him and only him, or we are "immature". He feel the need to keep reminding us how his analysis is done with exceptional clarity" bla bla bla. Snort. What a dishonest, overbearing, self-righteous idiot.

And speaking of "lying too much", Free, thanks for the neg rep. As with the one from The Theist, I shall wear it as a badge of honor. It will be seen in context, and you are in good company. I wouldn't have it, any other way.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 11:48 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Bucky insisted that I come here so that he figured he could prove something to me. All that was proven here is that the arguments used to support non-historicity in favor of a total myth are left wanting in the extreme sense.

Excuse me ? I insisted ? Hahahaha. Please provide proof of that little lie. After Free made a total fool of himself in the "Proof of Jesus" thread by stating

(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

and ranting on about it for pages and pages, and then trying to weasel out from it, by blaming the argument he made his own, on someone else. Now he lies and says I "insisted" he come to this thread. What a joke. Free has a very strange way of denying and being responsible for his own statements and utterly patronizing crap. Either we agree with him and only him, or we are "immature". He feel the need to keep reminding us how his analysis is done with exceptional clarity" bla bla bla. Snort. What a dishonest, overbearing, self-righteous idiot.

And speaking of "lying too much", Free, thanks for the neg rep. As with the one from The Theist, I shall wear it as a badge of honor. It will be seen in context, and you are in good company. I wouldn't have it, any other way.
Cut the crap out already. You guys are all mature and educated enough to discuss this topic without resorting to name-calling and ad hominems. I plead you one last time to stuff the insults and instead present a more plausible and factually supported argument than your opponent. That's what discussions in public are about. The point is not to convince the one you're debating, but the audience that is reading this stuff. You can either do this by presenting your argument in the most cohesive and logically sound way, or you can damage your credibility and cast doubt on your professionalism by attacking your opponent instead.

That's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
03-12-2012, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 12:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 11:36 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Excuse me ? I insisted ? Hahahaha. Please provide proof of that little lie. After Free made a total fool of himself in the "Proof of Jesus" thread by stating


and ranting on about it for pages and pages, and then trying to weasel out from it, by blaming the argument he made his own, on someone else. Now he lies and says I "insisted" he come to this thread. What a joke. Free has a very strange way of denying and being responsible for his own statements and utterly patronizing crap. Either we agree with him and only him, or we are "immature". He feel the need to keep reminding us how his analysis is done with exceptional clarity" bla bla bla. Snort. What a dishonest, overbearing, self-righteous idiot.

And speaking of "lying too much", Free, thanks for the neg rep. As with the one from The Theist, I shall wear it as a badge of honor. It will be seen in context, and you are in good company. I wouldn't have it, any other way.
Cut the crap out already. You guys are all mature and educated enough to discuss this topic without resorting to name-calling and ad hominems. I plead you one last time to stuff the insults and instead present a more plausible and factually supported argument than your opponent.

I'll pretty much leave it. If someone attacks, they can expect push-back
I was no longer arguing any "point" with him. He is unable to accept any point of view other than his own.
I was simply responding to his lie, which I quoted above, and his unsupported accusation in his "rep".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2012, 12:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2012 12:41 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  Bucky insisted that I come here so that he figured he could prove something to me. All that was proven here is that the arguments used to support non-historicity in favor of a total myth are left wanting in the extreme sense.

Excuse me ? I insisted ? Hahahaha. Please provide proof of that little lie. After Free made a total fool of himself in the "Proof of Jesus" thread by stating

(03-12-2012 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  But, for an atheist to accept that as being true, it's an admission to the existence of Jesus. We can't say one thing is true about the man, while another thing is not.

and ranting on about it for pages and pages, and then trying to weasel out from it, by blaming the argument he made his own, on someone else. Now he lies and says I "insisted" he come to this thread. What a joke. Free has a very strange way of denying and being responsible for his own statements and utterly patronizing crap. Either we agree with him and only him, or we are "immature". He feel the need to keep reminding us how his analysis is done with exceptional clarity" bla bla bla. Snort. What a dishonest, overbearing, self-righteous idiot.

And speaking of "lying too much", Free, thanks for the neg rep. As with the one from The Theist, I shall wear it as a badge of honor. It will be seen in context, and you are in good company. I wouldn't have it, any other way.
This only demonstrates what I said in your rep.

Listed below are two quotes from you regarding me coming to this discussion regarding Paul:


Bucky Ball Wrote:The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary". He came on the scene AFTER Jesus died, and he ahd every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so. There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer. AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid197057

Bucky Ball Wrote:He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread, or the Resurrection thread, where there are mountains of evidence. There does not have to be scholarly concensus for something to be true, and this is NOT about "scholarly concensus". Attempted defection. No real reply to argguments. Lies. The evidence is in the posted references.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid197122

Vosur Wrote:Are you sure that you looked at the evidence he provided you with? At the end of the post you responded to, there are two links to other threads. Did you read them?

Do you see the link you posted for me in the first quote? Do you see how you then attempted to goad me into coming here in the second quote by saying, "He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread?"

I have spoken the truth, and the truth I spoke is reflected in your rep.

Even Vosur knows that you tried to get me to come to this Paul thread, as I quoted him also when he acknowledged it.

So dude yeah, what I said in your rep was well deserved. You lied, and are still lying.

But we both know the proverbial hell will freeze over before you ever admit it, or apologize for it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious 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
03-12-2012, 01:56 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-12-2012 12:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-12-2012 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Excuse me ? I insisted ? Hahahaha. Please provide proof of that little lie. After Free made a total fool of himself in the "Proof of Jesus" thread by stating


and ranting on about it for pages and pages, and then trying to weasel out from it, by blaming the argument he made his own, on someone else. Now he lies and says I "insisted" he come to this thread. What a joke. Free has a very strange way of denying and being responsible for his own statements and utterly patronizing crap. Either we agree with him and only him, or we are "immature". He feel the need to keep reminding us how his analysis is done with exceptional clarity" bla bla bla. Snort. What a dishonest, overbearing, self-righteous idiot.

And speaking of "lying too much", Free, thanks for the neg rep. As with the one from The Theist, I shall wear it as a badge of honor. It will be seen in context, and you are in good company. I wouldn't have it, any other way.
This only demonstrates what I said in your rep.

Listed below are two quotes from you regarding me coming to this discussion regarding Paul:


' Wrote:The Paul references are the LEAST reliable. Paul was not a "contemporary". He came on the scene AFTER Jesus died, and he ahd every reason to make up shit, and he admitted he did so. There may have been more than one Saul of Tarsus. Certainly the one in ACts is not the Letter writer. AND the Letter writer never met Jesus, and changed his preaching, and spoke ONLY of a "resurrected Anointed ONE". He NEVER said anything about a historical person named Yeshua ben Josef. Not once.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Saint+Paul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid197057

' Wrote:He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread, or the Resurrection thread, where there are mountains of evidence. There does not have to be scholarly concensus for something to be true, and this is NOT about "scholarly concensus". Attempted defection. No real reply to argguments. Lies. The evidence is in the posted references.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid197122

' Wrote:Are you sure that you looked at the evidence he provided you with? At the end of the post you responded to, there are two links to other threads. Did you read them?

Do you see the link you posted for me in the first quote? Do you see how you then attempted to goad me into coming here in the second quote by saying, "He has refuted nothing in the Paul thread?"

I have spoken the truth, and the truth I spoke is reflected in your rep.

Even Vosur knows that you tried to get me to come to this Paul thread, as I quoted him also when he acknowledged it.

So dude yeah, what I said in your rep was well deserved. You lied, and are still lying.

But we both know the proverbial hell will freeze over before you ever admit it, or apologize for it.
You lied, and said "Bucky insisted I come here". I do no such thing. Liar.
I await no apology. It would be meaningless.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: