Raf

3 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

until you find out he was a fervent flat earther. Then, it's, "Ohhhhhh..."

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.

On 4/8/2024 at 9:05 AM, penworks said:

Sometimes I wonder how people woud view the N.T. if the order of the books were put in order of when they were written. That would result in the gospels coming AFTER Paul's epistles. 

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.

12 hours ago, chockfull said:

I would just take OS post as he doesn’t feel welcome here with a Christian view and he has his reasons.  So hopefully focusing on the openness and not the lying or whatever other perception you are putting forth is better.

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. :)

On 3/1/2024 at 6:59 PM, oldiesman said:

A friend recently sent me this and thought I would place it here in support of the apostles' commitment to Jesus.   Have no idea if one or more of these statements are true but if so, could be powerful anecdotal evidence.    Please feel free to post any historical inaccuracies of the statements made here:

HOW THE APOSTLES DIED.

1. Matthew.  Suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia; killed by a sword wound.

 

2. Mark. Died in Alexandria Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.

 

3. Luke. Was hanged in Greece as a result of his preaching to the lost.

 

4. John. Faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome.  However, he was miraculously delivered from death.

John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos.   He wrote the Book of Revelation on Patmos.   The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey.   He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

 

5. Peter.  He was crucified upside down on an x shaped cross.  According to church tradition it was because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die the same way that Jesus had died.

 

6. James.   Leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Jesus.   When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat him to death with a fuller's club.   This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.

 

7. James the Son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him.  As a strong leader of the church, James was beheaded at Jerusalem.   The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial.   Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution.   Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

 

8. Bartholomew.   Also known as Nathaniel, was a missionary to Asia.   He witnessed for Jesus in present day Turkey.   Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia where he was flayed to death by a whip.

 

9. Andrew.   He was crucified on an x shaped cross in Patras, Greece.   After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords.  His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words, "I have long desired and expected this happy hour.   The cross has been consecrated by the body of Jesus hanging on it".    He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

 

10. Thomas.   Stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent.

 

11. Jude.  He was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Jesus.

 

12. Matthias.  The apostle chosen to replace Judas.   He was stoned and then beheaded.

 

13. Paul.  He was tortured and then beheaded by Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67.   Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment, which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire.   These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament.   

 

 

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.

You're not. Let's return to topic.

By the way, when you file a frivolous lawsuit, you are required to pay fees and costs when you lose. So if I were you I would be REAL careful about threatening legal action. You may be able to afford your lawyer but I assure you, you cannot afford mine.

Are you threatening to sue me?

Wow. 

For the record, I insulted your pointless post, not you. But if you'd like to get lawyers involved, I'm listed.

Well, What you said did a very poor job of reflecting your overall intelligence.

Contradiction is not rebuttal. "But I believe it" is not a resoonse to valid points raised. Or invalid points for that matter. I understand that it pisses you off to hold a position that has no supporting evidence, but that's not my fault and it doesn't help your position to call out "yuh huh" when your bulls hit argument is successfully refuted.

To me the most amazing thing about Thomas is how crucial his witness is and, subsequently, how we never hear from him again, not even in Acts of Some of the Apostles,  where his name shows up on a list and then he disappears from the narrative. Probably hiding out with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who likewise vanish from the story once they've outlived their usefulness.

They probably all hid out in Arimathea, which has a crucial property in common with Narnia, Mordor and Hogwarts.

Any wagers?

I understand if you are a believer you will take the gospels as, well, gospel. But to a historian, the gospels cannot reasonably treated as evidence. They are the claims for which history seeks evidence. 

That the story of Thomas is left out of Matthew and Luke should arouse suspicion as to its authenticity. Neither writer had any good reason to leave it out. Same with the raising of Lazarus. Why would anyone recounting the ministry of Jesus leave out that story?

And where TF did Lazarus go? Arimathea?

The gospel of John is fiction. That the moral of the story is "blessed are those who do not see yet believe" should be a giant red flag. No one in the act of providing evidence, which the gospel of whoever the hell wrote John purports to be, would cap his story off with an admonition against seeking evidence.

The ONLY people who speak out against the value of evidence are those who know they have none.

I mean the easiest way to refute this would be to request documentation. 

The James story is especially of interest because it is recorded in Acts 12, but zero mention is made of him converting a guard who agrees to be beheaded by his side. My guess is that the writer of Acts found that story less credible than a zombie taking flight and disappearing behind a cloud bank, so he left it out.

Looking at Chockfull's excellent post on a new thread, I think it becomes interesting to look at how various agruments are made and presented. We would all like to think our approach is logical, but i submit that no argument is purely ANYTHING. All combine logic, "authority" and emotion to some degree. Some, no doubt, rely more on one than others.

I humbly submit (pathos) that the majority of arguments in favor of the historicity of Jesus rely more on the argument from authority (ethos) than on actual evidence (logos).

I'll try to shut up and hear you guys out if you'd like to explore the topic without my interference. (Caveat: it's not about ME and I will jump in if the attempt is made [AGAIN] to make it about me).

10 minutes ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

Don't be mean.

George

Boy, why are you so hostile? :)

Angry Men?