Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apart from the reason that it reads that way. Even Ehrman agrees.
I know what Ehrman says. He's wrong.
Quote:
Paul did not write Matthew.
I didn't say that he did. I quoted Matthew 10:40 with reference to what Jesus said concerning the fact that those who receive who Jesus sends, also receive him, and related that to Paul's statement that the Galatians had received Paul as they would have received an angel of the Lord, or Jesus Himself. Created angels are messengers of God. Jesus was a messenger sent by God the Father. That does not make him a created angelic being. Paul was a messenger of God, but Paul was not a created angelic being either.
Quote:
Wrong way round. Why would Paul say in Philippians that Jesus existed in the form of God and took the form of a man, being found in the likeness of man when he says he was an angel? And nowhere does Paul definitely put this likeness of a man on earth.
Paul DID say that Jesus existed in the form of God and took the likeness of men. And denying that Paul didn't place Jesus on earth simply ignores the fact that Paul stated that Jesus was a descendant of David, and that he was born of a woman, and that he died on a cross.
Quote:
Blatantly false, Romans 1:2 says this was a revelation from scripture, so not a historical fact. And Paul NEVER uses the word for born when talking about Jesus, where he does when referring to humans. I will leave it to you to check the Greek, Mr Yap needs his walk.
Paul was speaking after the fact. The man Jesus had been born, and had been crucified. These are historical facts that just about every scholar on earth who does Jesus studies agrees on.
Quote:
But we do not know if he was talking about a historical Jesus, or if this is another OT revelation. Paul does not tell us, so we can not presume it refers to an earthly Jesus just because you want it to. I will avoid the plausible argument that the latter part of the verse was a later anti-Marcion interpolation, I do not need it.
Again, Paul was speaking after the fact. Saying that Jesus was born of a woman absolutely assumes an historical Jesus.
Quote:
And is that something men do or something a divine being who created the universe would do? Obviously the latter, so this is NOT historical, is it? Paul here is clearly talking about something that is NOT human.
Again, it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified. Paul's statement that ''He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.'' is a matter of historical fact which, again, most scholars who do Jesus studies agree is fact.
Quote:
And most of them are even more valid as a divine, mythical being.
No, they are not. The statements made by Paul, namely, ''Jesus being born a descendant of David, being born according to the flesh, being born of a woman, and dying on a cross,'' assumes a historical Jesus.
Quote:
Why are you using Paul to what Hebrews specifically said? Paul did not write Hebrews.
I didn't. I specifically referred to Paul's own statements concerning Jesus - ''Jesus was born a descendant of David, he was born according to the flesh, he was born of a woman, he died on a cross.'' All matters of historical fact.
Your assertion is noted. That you dislike argument from authority when it disagrees with you is an indication that your cognitive bias is clouding your judgement. You are too smart to allow that to happen, Mike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I didn't say that he did. I quoted Matthew 10:40 with reference to what Jesus said concerning the fact that those who receive who Jesus sends, also receive him, and related that to Paul's statement that the Galatians had received Paul as they would have received an angel of the Lord, or Jesus Himself. Created angels are messengers of God. Jesus was a messenger sent by God the Father. That does not make him a created angelic being. Paul was a messenger of God, but Paul was not a created angelic being either.
Reading later fiction back into a text that does not support that fiction is not how you do history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Paul DID say that Jesus existed in the form of God and took the likeness of men.
I know he did, I never said otherwise. My point was he just never said where this took place. And it is what Paul would say if Jesus was a divine being. It is not the sort of thing you say about historical beings. That whole section makers no sense for a historical person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And denying that Paul didn't place Jesus on earth simply ignores the fact that Paul stated that Jesus was a descendant of David, and that he was born of a woman, and that he died on a cross.
No, Paul never says Jesus was a descendant of David, Paul says he came into being (genomai) from the seed of David, and that was revealed in scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Paul was speaking after the fact. The man Jesus had been born, and had been crucified. These are historical facts that just about every scholar on earth who does Jesus studies agrees on.
Your assertion sans evidence is noted, and you are ignoring the relevant scholars who doubt Jesus existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, Paul was speaking after the fact. Saying that Jesus was born of a woman absolutely assumes an historical Jesus.
No, it says the exact opposite. Paul would have very little reason to say Jesus was born of a woman if he was historical, as that is a given for historical people. So something else is going on here,especially as he does not say born, he uses the more vague ginomai (to come into being). A word he uses for Jesus, Adam, and our future heavenly spiritual bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Again, it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified. Paul's statement that ''He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.'' is a matter of historical fact which, again, most scholars who do Jesus studies agree is fact.
You are missing the rest of the passage out, which makes no sense when talking about a historical person. Now maybe Paul thought Jesus was a divine being who was crucified on earth, but he never, ever claims that. That is your reading of the text, biased by what is in the later gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, they are not. The statements made by Paul, namely, ''Jesus being born a descendant of David, being born according to the flesh, being born of a woman, and dying on a cross,'' assumes a historical Jesus.
Apart from dying on a cross, the rest of those are not in the passage you quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I didn't. I specifically referred to Paul's own statements concerning Jesus - ''Jesus was born a descendant of David, he was born according to the flesh, he was born of a woman, he died on a cross,''
These have been dealt with above. Hebrews has not.
Your assertion is noted. That you dislike argument from authority when it disagrees with you is an indication that your cognitive bias is clouding your judgement. You are too smart to allow that to happen, Mike.
Reading later fiction back into a text that does not support that fiction is not how you do history.
I know he did, I never said otherwise. My point was he just never said where this took place. And it is what Paul would say if Jesus was a divine being. It is not the sort of thing you say about historical beings. That whole section makers no sense for a historical person.
Quote:
No, Paul never says Jesus was a descendant of David, Paul says he came into being (genomai) from the seed of David, and that was revealed in scripture.
Playing word games won't do you any good. Being of the seed of David means that Jesus was born a descendant of David.
Quote:
Your assertion sans evidence is noted, and you are ignoring the relevant scholars who doubt Jesus existed.
No, it says the exact opposite. Paul would have very little reason to say Jesus was born of a woman if he was historical, as that is a given for historical people. So something else is going on here,especially as he does not say born, he uses the more vague ginomai (to come into being). A word he uses for Jesus, Adam, and our future heavenly spiritual bodies.
You are missing the rest of the passage out, which makes no sense when talking about a historical person. Now maybe Paul thought Jesus was a divine being who was crucified on earth, but he never, ever claims that. That is your reading of the text, biased by what is in the later gospels.
Apart from dying on a cross, the rest of those are not in the passage you quoted.
These have been dealt with above. Hebrews has not.
Good grief. I really don't need to keep going over this with you. Anyone with any common sense would realize that by speaking of Jesus as being born of the flesh, being born of a woman, and dying on a cross, Paul is speaking of a real flesh and blood historical person. Its just that simple, and if you can't understand that, then so be it. But your denials that Paul didn't think of Jesus as an historical person simply don't hold any water and are quite frankly, pathetic attempts to deny the obvious. You're just making yourself look foolish by doing so. But suit yourself.
And yes, I'm done here. I have no need to keep arguing the fact that Paul understood Jesus to be a historical person. I've already posted his statements to that fact.
Being of the seed of David means that Jesus was born a descendant of David.
So you assert. But that is not what it literally says, despite your word games. And even if it did, Paul STILL says this was a revelation in scripture. Whoops.
And here is probably the scripture, the prophecy of 2 Samuel 7:12 that literally says the established kingdom will come from the seed from David's body.
Good grief. I really don't need to keep going over this with you.
Good, your apologetics and ignoring the rebuttals is getting boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Anyone with any common sense would realize that by speaking of Jesus as being born of the flesh, being born of a woman, and dying on a cross, Paul is speaking of a real flesh and blood historical person.
Except Paul never says Jesus was born of a woman. And you are ignoring the possibility that the produced of a women, born of flesh could very well be anti-Marcion interpolations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Its just that simple, and if you can't understand that, then so be it.
Oh I do understand the apologetics. I accepted them myself until I read Hebrews. It is you who has the problem of seeing the other side due to your cognitive bias. Or maybe I overestimated your intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
But your denials that Paul didn't think of Jesus as an historical person simply don't hold any water and are quite frankly, pathetic attempts to deny the obvious.
Except they DO hold water, that is why I accept them. So keep your pathetic bias and insults to yourself until you know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You're just making yourself look foolish by doing so. But suit yourself.
No, you ignoring the actual arguments I made and what the text literally says make you look biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And yes, I'm done here. I have no need to keep arguing the fact that Paul understood Jesus to be a historical person. I've already posted his statements to that fact.
Bye bye, your assertions and ignoring of the evidence was amusing while you was here.
I mean yeah, you have a point. no doubt about it. But I look at your adjectives
doesn't give a damn
oblivious
dead beat dad
head cases
need a shrink
crazy insane way
abuse from jesus heaps on them
I honestly think your evaluation is also based on the feeling that you were tricked by religionist type people.
I have come to the conclusion that we are/can be best be described as surrounded by life. I assign no positive feelings or negative feeling to that system.
If I just look at the adjectives you listed, it shows that the claim "there is something" is more valid than "there is nothing."
If I am honest, I start all my logic with "something is more logical than "nothing"". Then, lets describe this something's properties.
its certifiably more logical than starting at "religious people are the cause of all evil."
your case is strictly confined to "anti-christian.", which, I am totally fine with. and you do a good job at not bleeding to much over to anti-god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yeah, again, you make good points.
don't forget people like me though. I don't care if there is or is not a god. I make no choices based on a statement of belief about god. People make claims ... lets see how valid they are. I see anti-god and my-god-only as serous threats to liberty and freedom everywhere. Yes, Fundy theism, due to numbers, is more of a problem.
That is not reason enough for me to change how the universe works.
I hear what you're saying, Arach. I am angry I was tricked by Christian flim-flam men for so long. But I lay the blame for that on myself for not being more street-wise. No shame on them. They're just doing what they're programmed to do to make a dishonest buck. Shame on me!
Far as God goes I'm sort of trapped in the center. I'm not atheist because I cannot escape that some Higher Being is out there even if He doesn't give a damn about us. The reason I cannot escape the notion of God is because of videos like the one below. It's ten minutes but it gives a good picture of the odds of a single amino molecule coming together by random chance. Actuaralists or whoever calculates these incredible figures put the odds at 10 to the 164th power to 1. It's really a spectacular video and I encourage people to watch it.
But this only gets us to the possibility there is an infinite Being. It doesn't nor is it intended to get us to Jesus and all that other Christian nonsense.
So if I were straight atheist I'd have no problem with leaving off the adjectives I use. They are mostly directed not at what this Being is in reality, but what the Christians have painted this Being as: a loving, benevolent Father who loved us so much He gave His only begotten....bla bla. What complete and absolute rot this picture of their Christian god is. That's the people I'm directing my diatribe to. I'm trying to shake them out of their religious stupor to wake up and come to the realization this loving god they preach is nothing of the kind.
Far as God goes I'm sort of trapped in the center. I'm not atheist because I cannot escape that some Higher Being is out there even if He doesn't give a damn about us. The reason I cannot escape the notion of God is because of videos like the one below. It's ten minutes but it gives a good picture of the odds of a single amino molecule coming together by random chance. Actuaralists or whoever calculates these incredible figures put the odds at 10 to the 164th power to 1. It's really a spectacular video and I encourage people to watch it.
First, we do not need to calculate the probability of a protein, as the fore-runner to life must have been smaller. If I remember correctly, the latest research limits this to 1 * 10 to the power of 47, a much reduced number.
Second, the video presumes the atoms would be in isolation. This is false, they would be swimming in a sea of atoms, which would improve the odds. If we took the same ration of atoms in an area of 1 square meter, that would reduce the odds. You need to look at the Avogadro number to work this out, but I think it has been calculated it would be reduced by the 19th power.
Third, compared to the size and age of the universe, 10 to the power 164 is not that improbable. The odds of you winning the Lotto is unlikely, but the chance someone will win it is much reduced when you look at the size of the US.
Fourth, even if life is so improbable, it still only needs to happen once.
Fifth, a god who knows how to create a universe, who somehow knows the 6 values needed to create a stable universe must be so complex (and specific) as to be even more improbable. Which is why creationists argue their god can not exist without realizing they are doing so.
If gods do exist, they need a simpler explanation than the usual assertion they simply existed with all their knowledge.
It is, which is why he pointed it out.
If you could just look at yourself as others see you, you would see someone who sets themselves up as a prophet, inspired with true knowledge by the Cosmic Mind that you try to sell us as the Reality (1) which you know you cannot show to be intelligent.
On the basis of this 'revelation' (remember your thread with ImpossibleIronbru arguing for the reliability of divine revelation? If you don't, I do) you dismiss anything you don't like (including all science and logic) and replace it with a string of faith -claims.
And you simply cannot see yourself as others see you.
If this seems harsh, I didn't even mention the staggering hubris of your posts. Nor of course how it is par for the Faith-based course, just dressed up in a few ideas that you once inadvertently showed were borrowed anyway, some Chophraesqe Wooism and the attempted water - muddying of 'Quantum'. But, like I said, I won't mention that.
(1) and Please save the appeal to the (95%) unknowns which are -Unknown - not Evidence of anything. If your head is so screwed that you don't understand the venomfang fallacy, everybody else does.
I readily acknowledge the impressions and perspectives that you present Arq, but you have NOT had the experiences I have that totally uprooted my sense of Reality and what I thought I knew about it. My quest to explain it to my intellect has supplied a much-needed anchor to my sense of that Reality that places me back on a similar platform as yours but with a decided skew toward the woo. You and others perceive an arrogance and certainty in my posts that are in part professorial habit but probably also deserved. But the experiences were FOR ME unmistakable and undeniable. There is no doubt in me whatsoever.
I didn't say that he did. I quoted Matthew 10:40 with reference to what Jesus said concerning the fact that those who receive who Jesus sends, also receive him, and related that to Paul's statement that the Galatians had received Paul as they would have received an angel of the Lord, or Jesus Himself. Created angels are messengers of God. Jesus was a messenger sent by God the Father. That does not make him a created angelic being. Paul was a messenger of God, but Paul was not a created angelic being either.
Paul DID say that Jesus existed in the form of God and took the likeness of men. And denying that Paul didn't place Jesus on earth simply ignores the fact that Paul stated that Jesus was a descendant of David, and that he was born of a woman, and that he died on a cross.
Paul was speaking after the fact. The man Jesus had been born, and had been crucified. These are historical facts that just about every scholar on earth who does Jesus studies agrees on.
Again, Paul was speaking after the fact. Saying that Jesus was born of a woman absolutely assumes an historical Jesus.
Again, it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified. Paul's statement that ''He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.'' is a matter of historical fact which, again, most scholars who do Jesus studies agree is fact.
No, they are not. The statements made by Paul, namely, ''Jesus being born a descendant of David, being born according to the flesh, being born of a woman, and dying on a cross,'' assumes a historical Jesus.
I didn't. I specifically referred to Paul's own statements concerning Jesus - ''Jesus was born a descendant of David, he was born according to the flesh, he was born of a woman, he died on a cross.'' All matters of historical fact.
Mike555 is typical of Christians who are otherwise pretty intelligent people but who throw the rational half of their brains to the wind in favor of their religious beliefs/biases which have no basis in fact.
Take for example Mike's grand sweeping statement, "it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified"
The simple fact of the matter is it is NOT a "historical fact". Mike would do well to read a little of Ehrman instead of grandly pronouncing out-of-hand that one of the most respected ancient Biblical historians working today "is wrong". Here's what Ehrman and Lawrence Mykytiuk, an associate professor of library science at Purdue University and author of a 2015 Biblical Archaeology Review article on the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus has to say about the crucifixion of Jesus far as being a "historical fact":
Archaeological evidence of Jesus does not exist.
"There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. There’s nothing conclusive, nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says.
And Ehrman: “The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that [Jesus], like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
Quite simply, we don't a single word written outside the Bible about Jesus, or the apostles or Paul for the first 95 years of the 1st Century. That's up to 65 years after Jesus supposed crucifixion--not a single word. And even then when Josephus writes about a Jesus in 96 CE we don't know if he's referring to Jesus ben Joseph, or Jesus ben Damneus or any one of 20 other "Jesuses" he mentions in his writings. Not to mention his writings on Jesus are rife with controversy about whether he really wrote it or it is an interpolation by later Christians.
These are the facts which Mike555 cannot deny if he is going to be honest about the matter. If he has evidence that Jesus' crucifixion is mentioned by a reputable secular historian in the 1st century I wish he'd present it and prove Ehrman and Mykytiuk wrong, and refrain from dredging up Clement of Alexandria and his 1 Epistle which is not secular history.
That's is what you'd do, Mike if you had a shred of honesty and dignity about you--admit that there is no hard undisputed historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion anywhere in the secular record.
I readily acknowledge the impressions and perspectives that you present Arq, but you have NOT had the experiences I have that totally uprooted my sense of Reality and what I thought I knew about it. My quest to explain it to my intellect has supplied a much-needed anchor to my sense of that Reality that places me back on a similar platform as yours but with a decided skew toward the woo. You and others perceive an arrogance and certainty in my posts that are in part professorial habit but probably also deserved. But the experiences were FOR ME unmistakable and undeniable. There is no doubt in me whatsoever.
when we look at "life" as volumes of the universe that are "living", and couple that QED, see youtube "how small is it 05", the deny everything stance becomes so much more less valid. Anti-god is on the same footing as my-god-only.
"deny everything" was ok in 1970's for the average guy but by the 90's it was pretty much over. people that deny everything using the terms "woo", apologetic", and or semantics" basically conceded that theirs is less valid.
Some atheist always preach about theist as fear based. "deny everything" is totally fear based.
fear is how they cope
distorting what is real.
~ Linkin Park.
I hear what you're saying, Arach. I am angry I was tricked by Christian flim-flam men for so long. But I lay the blame for that on myself for not being more street-wise. No shame on them. They're just doing what they're programmed to do to make a dishonest buck. Shame on me!
Far as God goes I'm sort of trapped in the center. I'm not atheist because I cannot escape that some Higher Being is out there even if He doesn't give a damn about us. The reason I cannot escape the notion of God is because of videos like the one below. It's ten minutes but it gives a good picture of the odds of a single amino molecule coming together by random chance. Actuaralists or whoever calculates these incredible figures put the odds at 10 to the 164th power to 1. It's really a spectacular video and I encourage people to watch it.
But this only gets us to the possibility there is an infinite Being. It doesn't nor is it intended to get us to Jesus and all that other Christian nonsense.
So if I were straight atheist I'd have no problem with leaving off the adjectives I use. They are mostly directed not at what this Being is in reality, but what the Christians have painted this Being as: a loving, benevolent Father who loved us so much He gave His only begotten....bla bla. What complete and absolute rot this picture of their Christian god is. That's the people I'm directing my diatribe to. I'm trying to shake them out of their religious stupor to wake up and come to the realization this loving god they preach is nothing of the kind.
yeah, what they call infinite being I just "alive".
Since you seem to know qm. I hit it from a different angle too. I use the notion that "I" am really the universe doing me. I am not separate or 'something else". I am a volume of the universe.
its that simple. That alone ends deny everything.
now we can talk volume, or how big. well, "life" on this planet, compared to our size, would seem as infinite as the ocean seems flat standing on a shore line.
then I hit it again from another angle. just biology' definition of life.
the final nail in the coffin for deny everything is the measurement and basic calculation. its crude. I would publish it but i feel more important people than me already see it.
and I am a stone cold atheist by definition. I am an atheist that stands firm against anti-god atheism. they are as shameful to atheism as fundy theism is to theism.
see real progress in you.
keep up the good work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paul here is clearly talking about something that is NOT human.
I am angry I was tricked by Christian flim-flam men for so long. But I lay the blame for that on myself for not being more street-wise. No shame on them. They're just doing what they're programmed to do to make a dishonest buck. Shame on me! 
