Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2016, 08:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 08:04 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Recycled and later forgeries...although I'm sure a fucktard like you can't stand hearing that.

Keep on believing your bullshit, boy. It just makes you look stupid(er).

Yep, when all else fails, just throw in the forgery card.

Meanwhile, I will just up the ante for the benefit of the readers so that they can see the real evidence that Mythicits such as you try so miserably to hide:

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS - circa C.E. 120

CHAPTER IX.--PATIENCE INCULCATED.

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.


So ... more forgery? Ya think?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 08:40 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
What I think is that someone who claims to be a secularist, really isn't

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
09-08-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 08:16 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 07:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "Completely inconceivable" is it? Utterly blows your mind? Somehow because Justin doesn't mention Paul, well golly gee now ... Paul never existed?

Should we chalk that up with your Jesus never existed, and your Nazareth never existed?

What next? Rome never existed?

Laugh out loadLaugh out load

Let's inform the readers with a better approximation of the truth than your B.S..

1Clement - Dated C.E. 93:

1Clem 5:5 - 5:6

By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 47:1 - 47:4:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight.

So what now? Oh yes ... let me guess ... hmmm ... oh! I got it!

Clement never existed, right?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

NOTE: Every time you attempt to use the bible as truth, I think "theologian" and not "historian".

You claim to be an historian, yet most historians are sceptical until they get direct evidence. Such as Caracalla having his brother removed from statues and shrines. You can see the sites.

You are completely unlike this. And then you do the classic twist and claim non belief whilst pushing belief.

I thought you were Q. But he was never so sly.

I am only doing what is necessary to provide an evidenced counter-point to the Mythicist position.

If you want to believe- for whatever reason- that Paul never existed, or Jesus, or Nazareth, then go right ahead and believe it.

But when there's evidence to be presented, and then people merely "assert" against it with absolutely no evidence to counter it, how the hell is that better than my argument where not only can I assert it, but provide actual evidence to support it?

Why is you are so quick to grasp on to, and support, arguments from silence, assertions without evidence, and irrational conspiracy theories while railing against documented evidence that can be traced back to their points of origin and which are considered authentic by virtually all of the world's authorities?

What motivates you to do this? What motivates any of you to demonstrate a complete and total disrespect for the methodology historians use to approximate history?

Is your hatred for religion so fierce that you make hypocrites of yourselves? You boast and rave here on this forum regarding the value of logic, reasoning, the value of evidence, rationalism, and hail as if they are gods the professionals you admire such as Hawking, Dawkins, Lawrence etc, yet when it comes to just this tiny part of history regarding the origins of Christianity you come so completely apart that froth runs out of the sides of your mouths until it seems like your head is going to spin right around.

You make a fucking joke of yourselves. You look like fucking idiots crying over religion like a child cries over spilled milk.

Get the fuck over it, and think rationally.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 08:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Get the fuck over it, and think rationally.

Of course only YOUR positions on any given subject are rational. Anything that you don't agree with is irrational.

Hint : It's not hatred. It's skepticism. You are biased, and unable to think objectively.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-08-2016, 11:32 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Yep, when all else fails, just throw in the forgery card.


I suppose it is possible that in 1876 someone may have written a history of the American Revolution without once mentioning George Washington. Why they would do that is beyond me. That's the equivalent of Justin writing a whole series of bullshit letters and apologies without mentioning your saul/paul fantasy.

You, however, are so desperate to believe in your fucking bullshit stories that you will gladly grasp at any straw you can find.

You're pathetic.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
10-08-2016, 01:25 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Good post.
As far as both Jesus and Paul are concerned, we have, as Price rightly says, little to go on. If searches for plausible, objective evidence of the existence of either draw a blank, it's most likely because neither man existed or because the painstakingly slow creation of the New Testament canon has obscured, certainly in Paul's case, his identity. How accurately the epistles reflect the cosmology of Paul [whoever the writer of the 'genuine' letters may or may not have been] is a matter of detective work. Blinding insights into his personality and work ["Paul was gay", "Paul was an informer who spied for the Roman authorities", "Paul was an unattractive misogynist" etc] make for interesting clickbait, but little more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(03-08-2016 10:47 AM)Gert Heide Wrote:  We have almost nothing to go on concerning Paul's identity save the seven genuine epistles. For a few years, I've been reading works by Hermann Detering and Robert M Price in an effort to tie together the clearly Gnostic threads contained in all sorts of sources such as [certain of] the Nag Hammadi codices, St John's Gospel and, of course, the real Pauline epistles and, of course, what little is demonstrably true of Simon. Some, like Raphael Lataster and David Fitzgerald, do not hesitate to portray 1st century "Christianity" as some sort of evolutionary outcropping of Gnosticism. Others - I don't recall Carrier mentioning this at all - avoid this meme or are equivocal when talking or writing about Christianity's origins.

Mark. Any thoughts, either about the Gnostic theme or Deterring's and Price's theses about Paul's identity? I'm a 'newbie' and have read most but not all of your posts.

Hi...I'm not ignoring you. I need to find some time to do some more reading. Thanks for your comments.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 03:13 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 08:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You make a fucking joke of yourselves. You look like fucking idiots crying over religion like a child cries over spilled milk.

Get the fuck over it, and think rationally. IRONIC

Drinking Beverage

Ooh, don't lose your cool. Those saintly guys who taught you that same technique I learned and recognise may call you, wait for it, it's awful.......Potty mouth! Gasp

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 09:49 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 09:52 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 09:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2016 08:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Get the fuck over it, and think rationally.

Of course only YOUR positions on any given subject are rational. Anything that you don't agree with is irrational.

Hint : It's not hatred. It's skepticism. You are biased, and unable to think objectively.

Dude, there's no skepticism here with you whatsoever. Are you fucking joking? Any idiot can see what your agenda actually is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism.

Point blank; you are purposely denying evidence and actual history in favor of doing whatever it takes to discredit Christianity, and history be damned.

You, and others like you, don't give a rat's ass about history. The only reason you learned anything about it at all was to scream bloody murder at Christianity like somebody who subscribes to another religious belief system, such as Mythicism.

No, there's not one ounce of honest skepticism in your head. None.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2016, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2016 10:33 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(09-08-2016 11:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Yep, when all else fails, just throw in the forgery card.


I suppose it is possible that in 1876 someone may have written a history of the American Revolution without once mentioning George Washington. Why they would do that is beyond me. That's the equivalent of Justin writing a whole series of bullshit letters and apologies without mentioning your saul/paul fantasy.

You, however, are so desperate to believe in your fucking bullshit stories that you will gladly grasp at any straw you can find.

You're pathetic.

Let me just show you how fucking stupid you dumbass Mythicists actually are.

Firstly, you are NOT supplying one iota of actual evidence to qualify your argument from silence, making your fucked up argument irrational, unreasonable, and subsequently fallacious.

Secondly, the reason your stupid argument from silence fails is your have not shown where and why the author had opportunity and need to mention Paul. Not even once did you do anything to demonstrate the validity of your position by examining the text to see if you even had a point.

Thirdly, you assert your position without evidence, and then look like a totally uneducated buffoon because you have no evidence and no reasoning to support your worthless and totally baseless assertion.


Here is how Arguments from Silence work, and pay attention to the underlined text:

Argument from Silence:

"An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

"Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

"Professors of history Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier thus state that an argument from silence can act as presumptive evidence only if the person failing to mention the information was in a position to have the information, and was purporting to be giving a complete account of the story in question. Howell and Prevenier state that arguments from silence face the difficulty that a historian can not just assume that an author would have recorded the fact in question; for if the fact did not seem important enough to an author it would have been excluded.

"Professor of English Michael Duncan states that there are very few scholarly analyses of arguments from silence; but these typically view it as fallacious. Duncan adds that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies, but both of these texts discuss the somewhat similar case of argument from ignorance. Errietta Bissa, professor of Classics at University of Wales flatly states that arguments from silence are not valid. David Henige states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.

"However, arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases, or are considered as fallacies."


Source: Wikipedia

Therefore, you have completely failed to qualify your argument from silence as even being a WEAK argument- the best it could possibly be- and therefore it is 100% fallacious.

You are a fucking disgrace to reason, logic, rationalism, and the human race.

Now fuckoff.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: