Raf

Ohhhh!!!!!! I'll never forget the feeling that came over me when I realized that the firmament was a giant glass wall, the sky is blue because it's holding back an ocean, and the sun, moon and stars are all in the firmament and not in outer space (because there's no such thing). It's batcrap insane, I tell you.

I think a lot more people would consider the position I am exploring in another thread - that the religion of Christianity was not founded by a historical Jesus. Jesus, as revealed by Paul, is a celestial figure. Paul mentions Jesus appearing to the 12 after his resurrection rather than the 11 because the story of Judas' betrayal hadn't been made up yet. Paul didn't get the Lord's Supper from the gospels. The gospels got the Last Supper from Paul! When Paul talks about the crucifixion in "spiritual" terms rather than temporal, he's not inventing a spiritual explanation for what happened on earth. He's reporting what actually happened in heaven, the only place Jesus existed in his eyes. Why doesn't Paul mention the empty tomb when he talks about the evidence for the resurrection? Because it didn't happen on earth. Why does Paul actually BRAG that he got his info about Jesus from Jesus himself and absolutely positively not from the Apostles? Because the Apostles didn't know a historical Jesus any more than Paul did. Those stories were made up later. Anyway, that just answers the question Penworks posted and has nothing specifically to do with actual errors in PFAL. Sorry. I'll report myself to the idiot who started the thread.

And I would say that he is entitled to how he feels, but his statements have been made before and corrected before, so after a certain point it's a matter of actual fact. I invite anyone and everyone to go through the threads in Doctrinal and Open and About the Way. "Christian" posts are everywhere, and the overwhelming majority are unchallenged. We do have one subforum where such challenges are the norm and not the exception. Spend a disproportionate amount of time in that forum and you may leave with a disproportionate understanding of what happens at GSC. [For anyone still unaware, modcat5 and Raf are the same person]

I wouldn't put much stock in what Muslims think is historical. They accept as historical that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Oh yeah? Prove it didn't happen!

Best wishes. You're welcome back any time, whether I like it or not.

Exactly. But that is just one of many points raised in the article.

Trying to refrain from replying until I have time, but thank you cman for posting that wikipedia link, which neatly sums up most of the "evidence" mythicists need to overcome to be taken seriously. Some of that is easy. Some of it, not so much. The expert consensus is the easiest argument to overcome because in this field, the expert consensus is ludicrously biased in favor of tradition. When I hear about the consensus of experts, I tend to expect overwhelming evidence in favor of that consensus, not overwhelming excuses about why we shouldn't expect to find evidence even though, no, seriously, we should. The notion that we would have to reject other historical figures if we held Jesus to a more rigorous standard is also incorrect. I would submit that such claims would be refuted by asking for an example, one example, of a historical figure whose existence is taken for granted but for whom LESS evidence exists than for Jesus. You won't find one. What you'll find instead is a Jesus that has more in common with Robin Hood and King Arthur than with Nathan Hale and Alexander Hamilton. Amyway more later

Can't reply without violating my own admonition. Let's just say given the alternatives, I'd prefer killing the conversation. That said, Nathan, you and Mark were able to disagree with me without making it about me. It's not impossible.

I was going to come up with a clever comeback but I am not that clever. Well done.

This is actually Bram Stoker's Dracula

ok. Though I reserve the right to make "The Fate of the Apostles" as a separate thread. :)

Oldies, we were kind of dismissive of this post. Are you satisfied with my response? Or would you prefer greater detail? The lack of evidence for the martyrdom of the saints was the straw that broke the camel's back for me in my journey from faith, so it's not a topic I avoid. But in terms of THIS conversation, I think YOU get to decide whether I've adequately addressed it.

Alan, My humblest apologies. There actually ARE threads about me. You know that because you participated in them. And that was fine, because I made that/those thread(s) about me, so it was fair game. This thread is not about me. It's about a particular topic. In addressing that topic any one of us is welcome to accept or reject evidence that's presented. A healthy discussion allows challenges that are presented in good faith, and responses in good faith. [Dismissive posts are not conducive to a healthy conversation and are just being spit on this thread out of frustration at being unable to address the topic. I am treating those posts with the respect they earned. Yours is not one of those posts]. I cannot tell if you are citing scripture to address the topic at hand, in which case it would be fair game, or to express your disappointment at my personal journey, in which case you are off topic. Indirectly, you could make the case that one reason I am no longer Christian is my realization that the claims of the Bible cannot withstand honest inquiry [and those claims that can withstand inquiry are not really a big deal]. And this thread would be an example of one such claim. But that still doesn't make ME the topic and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing on that course. Thanks.

Seriously, did not insult his intelligence. Insulted his post. If it did a Good Job of reflecting his intelligence, that would be insulting the poster.

My attorney returns calls.