empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
Re: Westar finally releases Acts Seminar Report
Is this called "scholarship" when they know perfectly well that there is no empirical evidence that there was a person named Paul in the 1st or 2nd century; that there is no evidence that any letters were ever actually written by him or received by the alleged recipients; or that communities existed under those names at that time at all.
They accept all the fundamental church doctrines about the chronology of Christian history.
They accept all the fundamental church doctrines about the chronology of Christian history.
Re: Westar finally releases Acts Seminar Report
This is one of those pavlovian posts sometimes seen injected into an unsuspecting thread. While we're at it, we may as well consider who else we should think about who has no empirical evidence going for them, people like Hillel, not a scrap of contemporary evidence to support his existence. I guess Shammai goes at the same time. Oh Shemaiah, Abtalion, and most of the zugot. Fuck it, let's get rid of Shimeon ben Shetai as well. The only evidence for him that approaches tenable is from Josephus, but then, you want him to be "Josephus", so Shimeon disappears in a puff of irony.Duvduv wrote:Is this called "scholarship" when they know perfectly well that there is no empirical evidence that there was a person named Paul in the 1st or 2nd century; that there is no evidence that any letters were ever actually written by him or received by the alleged recipients; or that communities existed under those names at that time at all.
They accept all the fundamental church doctrines about the chronology of Christian history.
Good thing history isn't done like that. Now this thread was about a book with an analysis of Acts. Ya wanna talk about it?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
You hit the nail on the head. The fact is that acceptance of historical realities that cannot be proven empirically, especially in the case of mutually antagonistic groups who advocate the same history, depends on FAITH. Plain and simple. FAITH. Let's say it together. FAITH in the historical claims of traditional Christianity.
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH.
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH.
spin wrote:This is one of those pavlovian posts sometimes seen injected into an unsuspecting thread. While we're at it, we may as well consider who else we should think about who has no empirical evidence going for them, people like Hillel, not a scrap of contemporary evidence to support his existence. I guess Shammai goes at the same time. Oh Shemaiah, Abtalion, and most of the zugot. Fuck it, let's get rid of Shimeon ben Shetai as well. The only evidence for him that approaches tenable is from Josephus, but then, you want him to be "Josephus", so Shimeon disappears in a puff of irony.Duvduv wrote:Is this called "scholarship" when they know perfectly well that there is no empirical evidence that there was a person named Paul in the 1st or 2nd century; that there is no evidence that any letters were ever actually written by him or received by the alleged recipients; or that communities existed under those names at that time at all.
They accept all the fundamental church doctrines about the chronology of Christian history.
Good thing history isn't done like that. Now this thread was about a book with an analysis of Acts. Ya wanna talk about it?
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
It's not the Paul Seminar, it's the Acts Seminar. It's specifically about the book of Acts, not about the historicity of Paul. For the purposes of analyzing Acts. it doesn't matter who actually wrote the Pauline letters anymore than it matters who wrote the Iliad. If the author of Acts used them as a source, he used them as a source. Their provenance is immaterial.
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
From the way you continue, you have obviously misunderstood what was said to you.Duvduv wrote:You hit the nail on the head.
Duvduv wrote:The fact is that acceptance of historical realities that cannot be proven empirically, especially in the case of mutually antagonistic groups who advocate the same history, depends on FAITH. Plain and simple. FAITH. Let's say it together. FAITH in the historical claims of traditional Christianity.
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH.
spin wrote:This is one of those pavlovian posts sometimes seen injected into an unsuspecting thread. While we're at it, we may as well consider who else we should think about who has no empirical evidence going for them, people like Hillel, not a scrap of contemporary evidence to support his existence. I guess Shammai goes at the same time. Oh Shemaiah, Abtalion, and most of the zugot. Fuck it, let's get rid of Shimeon ben Shetai as well. The only evidence for him that approaches tenable is from Josephus, but then, you want him to be "Josephus", so Shimeon disappears in a puff of irony.Duvduv wrote:Is this called "scholarship" when they know perfectly well that there is no empirical evidence that there was a person named Paul in the 1st or 2nd century; that there is no evidence that any letters were ever actually written by him or received by the alleged recipients; or that communities existed under those names at that time at all.
They accept all the fundamental church doctrines about the chronology of Christian history.
Good thing history isn't done like that. Now this thread was about a book with an analysis of Acts. Ya wanna talk about it?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
It is sometimes difficult for duvduv to turn off the selective reading skill he learned from Pete.From the way you continue, you have obviously misunderstood what was said to you
Everyone loves the happy times
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
In the old forum, Duvi somehow wound up arguing that the Black Madonna of Częstochowa was actually Jacob Frank's daughter Eve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cz%C4%99stochowa
Granted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Frank says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cz%C4%99stochowa
The city is known for the famous Pauline monastery of Jasna Góra, which is the home of the Black Madonna painting (Polish: Jasnogórski Cudowny obraz Najświętszej Maryi Panny Niepokalanie Poczętej), a shrine to the Virgin Mary. Every year, millions of pilgrims from all over the world come to Częstochowa to see it. The city also was home to the Frankism in the late 18th and 19th Century.
I was unable to get Duvi to see that these were two different things.In 1760, Jacob Frank, the leader of a Jewish sect mixing Kabbalah, Catholicism and Islam, was imprisoned for heresy in the monastery by the church. His followers established near him, later establishing a cult of his daughter Eve Frank.
Granted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Frank says
For much of her life, she accompanied her father during his travels and after the death of her mother in 1770, the then 16-year-old Eve was declared to be the incarnation of the Shekinah, the female aspect of God, as well as the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary and thus became the object of a devotional subcult herself in Częstochowa, with some followers keeping small statues of her in their homes.[3] According to historian Jerry Rabow, she was the only woman to have been declared a Jewish messiah.
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
No, that is not what I argued. Jacob Frank simply attributed to his daughter Eve the female spiritual force that he believed had existed in the (Jungian?) Madonna Mary figure.
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
Moses versus Paul:
Moses wanted to conquer little Canaan, but Paul wanted to conquer the mighty Roman Empire.
Moses gave their followers 613 mitzvot, but Paul gave their followers Romans 3:28
Moses had to climb a mountain to speak to God, but the same God descended from the mountain to speak to Paul.
Moses was the servant of an unknown God, but Paul was the ambassador of a human God
Moses wanted to conquer little Canaan, but Paul wanted to conquer the mighty Roman Empire.
Moses gave their followers 613 mitzvot, but Paul gave their followers Romans 3:28
Moses had to climb a mountain to speak to God, but the same God descended from the mountain to speak to Paul.
Moses was the servant of an unknown God, but Paul was the ambassador of a human God
http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index. ... -emotions/All of this means that believing that Hashem has emotions is avodah zorah, since by saying that you are making Hashem into a finite, composite, and measurable being.
When we say G-d “loves us” it means that G-d caused things to happen in such a way that it feels like He loves us. If someone else would have done that to us, it would be driven by love.
Hashem has no accidental attributes at all, meaning that there’s no such thing as anything being part of Hashem. There is no such thing as “G-d's knowledge”, “G-d's strength”, or “G-d's love” - all of those things would mean that He has components, which is not true.
- A_Nony_Mouse
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am
Re: empirical proof of Moses better than Paul
In the real world when there is mention of multiple sources it is required that they be independent sources not copies of each other. You are talking copies of each other not independent.Duvduv wrote:In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
And as for over a century the entire idea Exodus and thus Moses has been rejected by all researchers save those who put their religious beliefs ahead of the science -- think creationists -- it is difficult to imagine what physical evidence you intend to conjure for the existence of Moses.
In fact, according to Josephus, if you believe Exodus is a true story then you hate Jews. Obviously priests in his day didn't take the story seriously.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster