Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-08-2016 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 09:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Well excuse me, but i don't see them or you presenting any of their arguments here, now do I?

I gave you the video. You told us you were not going to watch it. Liar.

Quote:Somebody needs to tell YOU what to think because it is self evident that you cannot think for yourself. You completely lose the plot on this subject of Christianity, Jesus, Paul and all relevant peripherals as it has been demonstrated over and over how ridiculously fallacious your stupid ass assertions actually are.

Says the fool "historian" who committed the "Historian fallacy" himself, and had to be schooled on the very fallacy he was committing.

Quote:Ya think? Carrier will never make any best seller list at any time. Nobody gives a fuck for a Jesus Mythicist who can't get a job because of his radical views, and who brings disgrace to any learning institution because he can't keep his dick in pants long enough to stop stepping out on his former wife, nor stop himself from making unwanted sexual advances.

And that has to do with which argument, gramps ? Great to see you stay on point here.

Quote:So you keep saying, yet provide no argument.

I asked for references. You obviously have none. Thanks for proving it.

Quote:You are so full of shit that if you ever took a crap I am absolutely fucking certain Donald Trump would be what we would see in the toilet.

Lovely. You say that stuff to your students who don't buy your party line ?
BTW, Carrier is a member of Westar also. I see you have no references. All you can do is tell others what they think. You are no educator. You are a fraud. No educator acts or talks that way. I "seen" that "ad nausium". Laugh out load

The Christian religion undermines itself, and needs no one to undermine it. The things it claims concerning it's Biblical origins and basis in the OT are totally false.
It doesn't need the bullshit in the NT debunked. It debunks itself by the fallacious way it uses the now debunked OT.

They have plenty of arguments. Which one do you want to present? Pick a specific point, and watch what happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 02:38 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-08-2016 11:55 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(10-08-2016 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I gave you the video. You told us you were not going to watch it. Liar.


Says the fool "historian" who committed the "Historian fallacy" himself, and had to be schooled on the very fallacy he was committing.


And that has to do with which argument, gramps ? Great to see you stay on point here.


I asked for references. You obviously have none. Thanks for proving it.


Lovely. You say that stuff to your students who don't buy your party line ?
BTW, Carrier is a member of Westar also. I see you have no references. All you can do is tell others what they think. You are no educator. You are a fraud. No educator acts or talks that way. I "seen" that "ad nausium". Laugh out load

The Christian religion undermines itself, and needs no one to undermine it. The things it claims concerning it's Biblical origins and basis in the OT are totally false.
It doesn't need the bullshit in the NT debunked. It debunks itself by the fallacious way it uses the now debunked OT.

They have plenty of arguments. Which one do you want to present? Pick a specific point, and watch what happens.

"Salvation" (by substitutionary atonement). It's meaningless bullshit, and not ever a part of Jewish culture, nor is it the job of a messiah to save anyone ''from their sins". Jesus never said he was about that. When the young man in Matthew asked what he should do to get into heaven, Jesus said "Keep the commandments" ... not "Wait, I'ma gonna be dying for ya". LMAO.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-08-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-08-2016 02:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:55 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  They have plenty of arguments. Which one do you want to present? Pick a specific point, and watch what happens.

"Salvation" (by substitutionary atonement). It's meaningless bullshit, and not ever a part of Jewish culture, nor is it the job of a messiah to save anyone ''from their sins". Jesus never said he was about that. When the young man in Matthew asked what he should do to get into heaven, Jesus said "Keep the commandments" ... not "Wait, I'ma gonna be dying for ya". LMAO.

Okay, I agree.

So?

Your problem is obvious. You can't get it into your head that I am not a theist, and therefore your arguments are geared towards a theist.

Good luck with that approach.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-08-2016 03:10 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  They have plenty of arguments. Which one do you want to present? Pick a specific point, and watch what happens.

"Salvation" (by substitutionary atonement). It's meaningless bullshit, and not ever a part of Jewish culture, nor is it the job of a messiah to save anyone ''from their sins". Jesus never said he was about that. When the young man in Matthew asked what he should do to get into heaven, Jesus said "Keep the commandments" ... not "Wait, I'ma gonna be dying for ya". LMAO.

Okay, I agree.

So?

Your problem is obvious. You can't get it into your head that I am not a theist, and therefore your arguments are geared towards a theist.

Good luck with that approach.

You said THEY, (not "you"). I gave you one. We watched what happened.
Weeping
I think I proved my point.

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
11-08-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-08-2016 03:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 03:10 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  They have plenty of arguments. Which one do you want to present? Pick a specific point, and watch what happens.

"Salvation" (by substitutionary atonement). It's meaningless bullshit, and not ever a part of Jewish culture, nor is it the job of a messiah to save anyone ''from their sins". Jesus never said he was about that. When the young man in Matthew asked what he should do to get into heaven, Jesus said "Keep the commandments" ... not "Wait, I'ma gonna be dying for ya". LMAO.

Okay, I agree.

So?

Your problem is obvious. You can't get it into your head that I am not a theist, and therefore your arguments are geared towards a theist.

Good luck with that approach.

You said THEY, (not "you"). I gave you one. We watched what happened.
Weeping
I think I proved my point.

Ummm ... since you have been hounding me about the arguments of Carrier and Price, who do you think the "they" would be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I'm still waiting for my 50 shekels. Sad

Who was Paul? A dead beat.

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
11-08-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-08-2016 04:26 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I'm still waiting for my 50 shekels. Sad

Who was Paul? A dead beat.

A charlatan clown ? Paul isn't different than today Christians liars pastors.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
12-08-2016, 03:23 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
The Huxley quote ought to be printed on thousands of laminated cards and anyone with a tenured position in a university should be asked to staple one to the middle of his desktop.

Within fields of study outside of the natural sciences, academics are frequently uninterested in the falsifiability of whichever theses underpin their own careers. The consensus view, with which Wikipedia's editors appear to have fallen in love, is evidence of nothing. Religious studies - I'm thinking of practitioners like Bart Ehrman - appears to remain one province where consensus is thought to be everything. This is understandable within a congregation of believers even though it amounts to nothing more than ignoring any and all inconvenient facts in the hope they'll just go away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Gert Heide's post
12-08-2016, 04:05 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Gert - Well said. My blood pressure went up a few points when someone, previously, used the analogy of denying evolution despite it being the consensus of scientists, and comparing people who question the consensus of historians/theologians to Creationists. The problem is that this isn't how science works at all. No one may cite to the consensus, but only to the evidence, and if someone can present a better-supported explanation of the evidence, they are lauded as heroes (often over the grumbling of those who'd prefer to hold on to the old paradigm, unfortunately) rather than derided as fringe lunatics. Many of the consensus ideas in modern science are from people who were the first voice to speak out against the old paradigm.

It is always a bad idea to refer to experts as the basis of your assertions. Look at the evidence and see if the new explanation of that evidence is better than what came before. Even if not always practiced to perfection because of human weaknesses, this principle is the root of all science... the opposite, apparently, of what is true among history types.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
12-08-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(12-08-2016 04:05 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Gert - Well said. My blood pressure went up a few points when someone, previously, used the analogy of denying evolution despite it being the consensus of scientists, and comparing people who question the consensus of historians/theologians to Creationists. The problem is that this isn't how science works at all. No one may cite to the consensus, but only to the evidence, and if someone can present a better-supported explanation of the evidence, they are lauded as heroes (often over the grumbling of those who'd prefer to hold on to the old paradigm, unfortunately) rather than derided as fringe lunatics. Many of the consensus ideas in modern science are from people who were the first voice to speak out against the old paradigm.

It is always a bad idea to refer to experts as the basis of your assertions. Look at the evidence and see if the new explanation of that evidence is better than what came before. Even if not always practiced to perfection because of human weaknesses, this principle is the root of all science... the opposite, apparently, of what is true among history types.

You act as if one cannot do both; look at the evidence, and then look to see who agrees with your findings. If no one agrees, then perhaps the evidence needs to be reexamined.

Acknowledging and utilizing the expertise of professionals is exactly how history is approximated. Previous discoveries are built upon, and then new approximations are presented.

Approximating history is the best that can be done. It is not as exact as 1 + 1 =2, because it cannot be. One can not go back to the past and conclusively prove any given position.

But in this situation in regards to the existence or non existence of Jesus, Nazareth, etc, the best explanation according to all available evidence conclusively demonstrates historicity as opposed to mythology. This evidence is evaluated using the Historical Method and the Criteria of Authenticity used by all noteworthy professional historians.

Even so, this by no means should indicate that the position of historians conclusively proves anything, but rather it is all about what the evidence indicates, and not what it proves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: