Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 10:41 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:35 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 10:23 AM)Free Wrote:  I don't see you questioning Bucky's assertion that ALL scholars contend that a number of Paul's letters are forgeries. Why not ask him to supply his resources for that assertion? But no ... you are gullible and ignorant, and will swallow whatever he feeds you.
Reduced you to personal attacks, huh? You shouldn't be acting so arrogant when you know nothing about my previous interactions with Bucky Ball.
How about answering the question?

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
04-11-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:You obviously utterly fail to understand what an "Argument from Authority" actually is. What it is not is when a collective of intelligence of experts is assembled to arrive at a consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I am NOT making an Argument from Authority. You are insisting that is the ONLY way to argue.
YOU fail to understand what you are insisting on.

You again failed to understand that I did not say YOU were making an argument from authority, but instead YOU are saying that I am making an argument from authority while you do not understand what Argument from Authority actually is.

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
04-11-2012, 10:50 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
When Julius Wellhausen proposed, (or assembled)in the 1850's, the pieces of the Documentary Hypothesis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Wellhausen , which now IS the "scholarly consensus", he was way out on a limb. He turned out to be correct. The notion that anything is acceptable only because it exists in a (supposed) "consensus" is ignorance of both the way scholars actually work, and the necessity of a certain method. The only way they get anywhere, is precisely because NEW ideas are proposed. They are not shot down by the argument "does not meet standard of scholarly consensus".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:51 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Nonsense? Here's the Wiki article AGAIN, genius, so how about checking out the references & links to the scholars at the bottom? Here's let me actually POST them for you:

Quote:Bibliographic Resources

Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 39-49.
Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.
Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 469-94.
Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857-64.
Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998): 629-46.
Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.
Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Scripture and Truth. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101-14.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Bulletin Research 8 (1998): 151-66. idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 288-301.
Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369-91.
Again, you're talking about a different article. My posts are written in reference to the first one.

(04-11-2012 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Actually, you did. You suggested I click his links.
Once again, you're wrong. Here are the two posts that we're talking about. Notice how I explicitly said that I haven't read them myself. Which, again, makes me wonder how you came to the conclusion that I agree with his links.

(03-11-2012 10:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  In conclusion:

This poster failed to produce any evidence to support his assertions and opinions. No scholarly consensus provided. No historical method employed. Ignored obvious Biblical evidence in favor of Mythicism.

This poster cannot be taken seriously.
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?

(03-11-2012 10:57 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 10:50 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes.

1. All assertion.
2. No scholarly consensus.
3. No historical method employed.


Did you not notice that?
I haven't read it, though I did notice that he had a bunch of external references, making me wonder how you came to conclusion number one. That being said, I don't know whether or not Jesus as a historical person existed, all I know is that it's doubtful for reasons mentioned earlier.
Feel free to respond once you've learned how to stay civil and clear of insults and personal attacks during a discussion.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I am NOT making an Argument from Authority. You are insisting that is the ONLY way to argue.
YOU fail to understand what you are insisting on.

You again failed to understand that I did not say YOU were making an argument from authority, but instead YOU are saying that I am making an argument from authority while you do not understand what Argument from Authority actually is.
No.
YOU are insisting that I make an Argument from Authority. You keep saying "no scholarly concensus".
YOU are insisting that any argument I make, rest within that (supposed) consensus.
YOU are requiring an Argument from Authority.
I don't buy that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I realize that I don't really give a flying fuck who Saint Paul was.

I would like to be able to ignore particular threads; mark them 'not interesting'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 02:36 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:You again failed to understand that I did not say YOU were making an argument from authority, but instead YOU are saying that I am making an argument from authority while you do not understand what Argument from Authority actually is.

No.
YOU are insisting that I make an Argument from Authority. You keep saying "no scholarly concensus".

And you utterly fail to understand that by using scholarly consensus you would NOT be making an Argument from Authority! Here, learn what the fallacy of Argument from Authority actually means:

' Wrote:Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a special type of inductive-reasoning argument that usually is presented in the form of a statistical syllogism, which argues the case from the general to the specific.

Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority usually is applied fallaciously, either the Authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.

The Argument from Authority fallacy is when you attempt to use the statements from an authority who is NOT an expert in the field, and who's statements are NOT found in scholarly consensus.

It is NOT an argument from authority if you use the statements of a person who IS an expert in the field and who's statements AGREE with the scholarly consensus.

Learn this, ffs. It's common knowledge.

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
04-11-2012, 02:46 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I know pea brain. YOU are insisting I make any and all arguments FROM authority.
That is NOT the ONLY way to make an argument. YOU demand ALL arguments be done from authority.
THAT is not the only way to argue a point.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 11:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  I realize that I don't really give a flying fuck who Saint Paul was.

I would like to be able to ignore particular threads; mark them 'not interesting'.
He don't give a fuck about you either. Tongue

Besides, it ain't about Paul no morez, but rather Bucky and Free going at it. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
04-11-2012, 05:23 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-10-2012 06:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul (aka Saul) of Tarsus was probably the founding figure of what became Christianity. He was an enthusiastic evangelist and, by the standards of the time, a prolific author. His theology is more important than that purportedly taught by Jesus. Without his influence it is probable that Christianity, as we know it, would not exist today. Copies of many of Paul’s letters to various communities have survived and now form roughly one quarter of the New Testament.


Christians worship not Christ, but the teachings of Paul. They are not Christians. They are Paulists.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: