| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2008 12:51:02 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul's conversion should give at least some pause for thought. Something must have happened to him to cause such an about face. Not only does Paul go from persecuting Christians to their champion, but he also goes from devout Pharisee, the utmost keepers of the law, to one who feels that freedom of the law is critical. These are BIG changes.
Sure, I agree, it doesn't prove anything. It is however, one piece of information to tie in with lots of others. All the disciples died violent deaths (except John). To me that indicates at the very least they believed Jesus had risen from the dead (or you'd figure at least one would have recanted at the prospect of being flayed or crucified or boiled, etc). This makes them unlikely candidates for having moved the body and I'm not really sure who else would have done it. That argument may not speak to you, but it does to me. |
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 12:55:54 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul's conversion should give at least some pause for thought. Something must have happened to him to cause such an about face. |
For the same reason, that story would be a very good strategy if you wanted to attract a following. Paul probably wasn't the first person who claimed to have "seen the light," and he certainly wasn't the last. *cough*Jim Jones*cough*
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All the disciples died violent deaths (except John). To me that indicates at the very least they believed Jesus had risen from the dead (or you'd figure at least one would have recanted at the prospect of being flayed or crucified or boiled, etc). |
To me it says that praying for help when your life is in jeopardy has a very low rate of success. You'd figure that some of Jim Jones' senior followers would have changed their minds to prevent a very brief future, too. Maybe they really did believe in him?
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:08:46. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 12:57:59 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that. . |
I think about that. What I think about that is that people who think this sort of comment has anything to do with evolution, have no clue what evolution is about.
Write it three times fast 'Evolution is not a theory of random chance' About as far away from that as it is possible to get, really. |
You have me intrigued. I was under the impression that the theory of evolution held that everything came from One celled organisms that came from a chance configuration of amino acids and other stuff (now theres science- stuff -lol). I further thought that evolution presupposes that random mutations led to more and more complex organisms that had some advantage that allowed them to out-survive their premutated predecessors and that this continued on until voila: Human beings. In short I indeed did think evolution depended upon random chance mutations. Did the one celled organisms get together and decide to build animals? If it's not random chance then what is it? |
Evolution by natural selection is not a process of chance. It's the exact opposite of chance. That's a misconception that people who have no idea what they're talking about often have. Yes, the mutational elements are chance mutations, but the evolution of an organism through natural selection is not chance.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:01:13. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:00:34 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul's conversion should give at least some pause for thought. Something must have happened to him to cause such an about face. Not only does Paul go from persecuting Christians to their champion, but he also goes from devout Pharisee, the utmost keepers of the law, to one who feels that freedom of the law is critical. These are BIG changes.
Sure, I agree, it doesn't prove anything. It is however, one piece of information to tie in with lots of others. All the disciples died violent deaths (except John). To me that indicates at the very least they believed Jesus had risen from the dead (or you'd figure at least one would have recanted at the prospect of being flayed or crucified or boiled, etc). This makes them unlikely candidates for having moved the body and I'm not really sure who else would have done it. That argument may not speak to you, but it does to me. |
All this {{proves}} is that whoever wrote the biblical stories had an excellent literary grasp of the dramatic and the inspiring. This argument goes over well trod ground. Throughout history people have devoted themselves, even to detriment, dismemberment, and death to causes and beliefs -- the vast majority of which you would not credit -- toward which they themselves had a deep and unshakable faith. If this willingness to die and sacrifice for a belief or cause makes every belief and cause which such people have died and sacrificed for true, then we are left with a distinctly difficult and irreconcilably contradictory dogmatic landscape on which to navigate.
We -- rightly -- don't credit the beliefs of everyone who is willing to die and sacrifice for those beliefs, however -- we evaluate their beliefs based on available evidence for their truth and accuracy outside of the sufferers own personal expressions of faith. (Or, if not, then how do you distinguish between a religious terrorists willingness to sacrifice himself based on his belief -- something for which we have direct, observed, and verifiable data -- and the disciples supposed willingness to sacrifice themselves for their own beliefs? Of which we only have hearsay and third-hand accounts?)
A willingness to suffered and/or died for your belief, says something about the strength of your belief, but says little or nothing about the truth of your beliefs.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:12:47. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:01:31 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
If it's not random chance then what is it? |
Natural selection. Random mutation offers a mechanism for differentiation, but natural selection is very specific in determining which differences continue on. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:09:20 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
One should note that God does not want to be 'provable' scientifically. His is not a scientific phenomenon to be studied. |
Those who want to teach Intelligent Design in science class apparently didn't get that memo. |
Yeah, gotta agree with you here. Intelligent design discussions are not germane to the issues of science. No matter what your beliefs are or what knowledge one my have regarding God or the lack thereof, science class should indeed be just that: science. Science, By it's very nature and definition seeks to create knowledge by using verifiable evidence to form a logical hypothesis which then can be tested. If the hypothesis holds and the experiments can be repeated with the same outcome then knowledge is produced. It does not even seek to determine the origin of what it has discovered but simply that it exists. Sir Isaac Newton determined that gravity is a constant on earth by the fact that all falling objects accelerate at the same rate. He did not try to figure out why that scientific law exists. Just that it does. Science and Intelligent design are two seperate subjects of study. One involving provable facts and the other is so much conjecture and is biased by ones own beliefs. In science the Christian God holds about as much water as the turtle holding the earth up on it's back I read about in the previous thread. You can't prove it by things you can have knowledge of by use of our 5 senses. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means you can't prove it. It is most definitely not science at all and does not belong in a science class.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:10:24 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
A willingness to suffered and/or died for your belief, says something about the strength of your belief, but says little or nothing about the truth of your beliefs. |
As has been argued before - to which I actually agree with the logic in the conclusion.
That said, for Paul to convert, then some significant event occured. That significant event could have been an electrical short circuit in his brain, but it is recorded as having been caused by "hearing the word". |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:11:44 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That significant event could have been an electrical short circuit in his brain, but it is recorded as having been caused by "hearing the word". |
...by Paul, who wouldn't know if his brain had short circuited. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:18:58 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
That significant event could have been an electrical short circuit in his brain, but it is recorded as having been caused by "hearing the word". |
...by Paul, who wouldn't know if his brain had short circuited. |
Good thing we have other accounts of testament to the life and times of Jesus. I doubt you are suggesting that every author of every book/passage had an electrical short circuit - are you? |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:19:58 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
. . . In science the Christian God holds about as much water as the turtle holding the earth up on it's back I read about in the previous thread. You can't prove it by things you can have knowledge of by use of our 5 senses. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just means you can't prove it. It is most definitely not science at all and does not belong in a science class. |
All excellent and good, but the minute you wish to make public policy or dictate how individuals should interact with each other -- not to mention determining what should be taught in science and other school classrooms -- you must provide some "proveable" reason for doing so. "Because my holy book says..." or "Because I believe..." is inadequate and awash in galling amounts of hubris. If we lived in a perfect world, anyone attempting to persuade based on such would be laughed and jeered off of the public stage -- perhaps some rotten apple throwing would also be appropriate.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:20:44. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:20:45 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
A willingness to suffered and/or died for your belief, says something about the strength of your belief, but says little or nothing about the truth of your beliefs. |
A willingness to die says something if there are competing theories that you were among the very people to perpetrate one of the largest and most damaging hoaxes in history. I agree with you that people die for their faiths these days, all sorts of faiths. That analogy, however, differs when we are talking about the first generation of believers and what they believed.
The reason for pointing out the disciples deaths is to use as damning evidence to the theory that they moved the body themselves and then started preaching that he rose from the dead.
And I see new people joining the conversation that are back on the "everybody is fictional" kick. You are welcome to this belief, but you need to realize in historical circles you are waaaaay out on a limb and very few scholars are willing to follow. Yes, it is difficult to prove exactly what happened in any part of the world 2,000 years ago, but the amount of historical evidence for early Christianity is an embarassment of riches compares to other historical events we simply take for granted. Take Louis and his Mithras. He was willing to argue for a whole day about it when there is actually very little written evidence around (hell, we were down to the only textual evidence for a BC Mithras being an inscription on a temple that Shannon could never confirm actually had been found.)
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:22:40.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:30:38 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that. . |
I think about that. What I think about that is that people who think this sort of comment has anything to do with evolution, have no clue what evolution is about.
Write it three times fast 'Evolution is not a theory of random chance' About as far away from that as it is possible to get, really. |
You have me intrigued. I was under the impression that the theory of evolution held that everything came from One celled organisms that came from a chance configuration of amino acids and other stuff (now theres science- stuff -lol). I further thought that evolution presupposes that random mutations led to more and more complex organisms that had some advantage that allowed them to out-survive their premutated predecessors and that this continued on until voila: Human beings. In short I indeed did think evolution depended upon random chance mutations. Did the one celled organisms get together and decide to build animals? If it's not random chance then what is it? |
Evolution by natural selection is not a process of chance. It's the exact opposite of chance. That's a misconception that people who have no idea what they're talking about often have. Yes, the mutational elements are chance mutations, but the evolution of an organism through natural selection is not chance. |
Oh okay I understand what you mean and I agree with that. Natural selection isn't by chance. An advantage is an advantage and if that advantage allows survival over the premutated then there is a logical end to any chance mutation. Some will be a benefit and others will be a hindrance or disadvantage. I don't pretend to be an expert at evolution theory but I think I've got the basics down anyway. I agree 100% that evolution has and in fact is taking place. I just don't see the evidence that chance mutations could, based on statistical probabilities, ever be able to result in the construction of complex organs such as eyes. The Rollex is a lot less complex and it didn't come into existence by chance so why should or would an eyeball? An eye wouldn't be much of an advantage if it took chance mutations to occur over a vast span of time to achieve its current usable form. It wouldn't have been the result of one or two chance mutations but millions it would seem. Why would natural selection favor an organ that performed no function until complete? What is the source or cause of the mutations to begin with?
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:33:59 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Louis:
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
There is every bit as much historical evidence to suppose Paul existed as Shakespeare. If you are willing to entertain that Shakespeare was not real, then we can talk.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:35:18 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take Louis and his Mithras. He was willing to argue for a whole day about it when there is actually very little written evidence around (hell, we were down to the only textual evidence for a BC Mithras being an inscription on a temple that Shannon could never confirm actually had been found.) |
See, that's just faulty knowledge on your part. I cited Puhvel for corn sakes, even cited a page number, 100, where he states that a Hellenized Mithras arrived in Rome BCE with all his mysteries intact. Puhvel has no agenda, he's a learned scholar. Mithras' Persian counterpart ultimately made palatable to Rome (if one is to interpret his "Hellenized Mithras" comment in context) is even older, much, much older. A statement of a pre-Christian Mithras is not a statement of a opinion, it's a rather prosaic fact. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:36:14 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
There is every bit as much historical evidence to suppose Paul existed as Shakespeare. If you are willing to entertain that Shakespeare was not real, then we can talk. |
Read carefully. I didn't suggest Paul was fictitious. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:42:36 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I just don't see the evidence that chance mutations could, based on statistical probabilities, ever be able to result in the construction of complex organs such as eyes. The Rollex is a lot less complex and it didn't come into existence by chance so why should or would an eyeball? An eye wouldn't be much of an advantage if it took chance mutations to occur over a vast span of time to achieve its current usable form. It wouldn't have been the result of one or two chance mutations but millions it would seem. Why would natural selection favor an organ that performed no function until complete? What is the source or cause of the mutations to begin with? |
Your watch example is absurd. Is there a survival advantage to be gained from wearing a Rolex? Is there a clear path one could follow in the fossil record in species that have worn Rolexes that show the progression of a less complex Rolex to a more complex Rolex? You have stated that you now understand evolution by natural selection better, but I don't think you're there yet.
In reference to the eye, Watch Richard Dawkins explain its evolution using models. As the world's best authority on the subject, he can explain it better than anyone here.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:43:37. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 01:54:45 PM · #67 |
Rolexes, eyeballs, Shakespeare, Paul...this thread sure is like a box of chocolates! :)
I'm a former middle school science teacher, certified in Life/Earth science. I know about evolution and gene mutations and natural selection. I taught middle schoolers exactly what the state of Texas asked me to teach them, and I fully believe every scientific fact I imparted into their heads. I am also a Christian, and I believe that God exists. I choose to believe because I have absolutely nothing to lose from my beliefs, and everything to gain.
Perhaps, when I die, it's simply the end and there will be nothing but blackness and nothingness, and Christianity will have just been an elaborate mind-controlling hoax. BUT...I know in my heart that I will live in eternity with my Lord and Savior, as well as my Christian family members who have gone on before me, and that brings me comfort and hope. Believing that doesn't make me crazy. If I die today and nothing happens even though I choose to believe God and Heaven exist, no harm, no foul. But if God and Heaven DO exist and I were to die today WITHOUT knowing Jesus as my personal savior, then I don't wan't to find out what becomes of me in the afterlife. Being cast off into a lake of fire isn't my idea of a good time.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. :)
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:00:08 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
A willingness to suffered and/or died for your belief, says something about the strength of your belief, but says little or nothing about the truth of your beliefs. |
A willingness to die says something if there are competing theories that you were among the very people to perpetrate one of the largest and most damaging hoaxes in history. I agree with you that people die for their faiths these days, all sorts of faiths. That analogy, however, differs when we are talking about the first generation of believers and what they believed. |
There is no need to limit this willingness to die and suffer for faith to "these days." History is replete, veritably stuffed, with people and societies willing to die and suffer for their beliefs. In ancestral times -- as well as current and modern time -- some of these people even believed that they walked and talked with their Gods. Do we take this willingness as proof of the beliefs of these old religions? Perhaps you do, but I suspect you do not. You take evidence or accounts of the suffering and deaths of the disciples as "proof" or evidence of the beliefs that they suffered and died for because they are also the beliefs that you hold. You discount the beliefs of others that have suffered an died for when they do not match up with your own beliefs. Again, on what evidentiary basis?
Strong individual or societal belief -- in anything -- should lead us to the question of why these beliefs are held and held so strongly, but it does not lead us to the conclusion that such belief is justified.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason for pointing out the disciples deaths is to use as damning evidence to the theory that they moved the body themselves and then started preaching that he rose from the dead. |
I need not believe that the disciples were actively engaged in a conspiracy to commit the "largest and most damaging hoax in history," to be skeptical of miracle claims that appear to have no basis in scientific fact or to question underlying truth of their belief. They may indeed have been active parties to the "hoax," they may have been victims of the "hoax," they may have just been mistaken, etc. There are a number of possibilities, with only the most unlikely one being that they were accurate in their belief and that Christ rose physically from his tomb and ascended bodily to heaven.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And I see new people joining the conversation that are back on the "everybody is fictional" kick. You are welcome to this belief, but you need to realize in historical circles you are waaaaay out on a limb and very few scholars are willing to follow. Yes, it is difficult to prove exactly what happened in any part of the world 2,000 years ago, but the amount of historical evidence for early Christianity is an embarassment of riches compares to other historical events we simply take for granted. Take Louis and his Mithras. He was willing to argue for a whole day about it when there is actually very little written evidence around (hell, we were down to the only textual evidence for a BC Mithras being an inscription on a temple that Shannon could never confirm actually had been found.) |
FWIW I am not "new," although I haven't contributed to the conversation in a while. You are automatically assigning me the most strident position in this argument as to the historical validity of the biblical stories, which neither my latest post, nor any of my prior posts would justify. I don't have any problem with the idea that many of the people, events, and places in the biblical histories existed -- just as I have no problem when I watch a Merchant Ivory film believing that Elizabethan England existed to either a lesser or greater extent as portrayed in the movie. Where I jump ship is crediting the theologically relevant stories as literal history when we do not have credible evidence to back such up, and when all probabilities point to the opposite.
The focus of the thread lately on whether early Christianity was directly influenced by the Mithras is a distraction, IMNSHO, from the larger point that there is abundant evidence that the relatively more modern monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) were all influenced by, and to one extent or another adaptations of, the polytheistic religions that preceded them.
Faiths evolve and change over time as they are exposed to other beliefs and cultural and social changes. Christian fundamentalists who like to think they are practicing the same religion as were the Christians of 200CE (or any early period, or even the Christian practices and beliefs held by the early U.S. settlers for that matter) would be in for quite a rude awakening were they ever able to actually sit down and have a conversation with one.
In the beginning man made God in his own image. He/she/it has always embodied the very best, the very worst, and the most banal of who we are as a species. For ever and ever, amen.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 14:03:43. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:02:06 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by L1:
If I die today and nothing happens even though I choose to believe God and Heaven exist, no harm, no foul. But if God and Heaven DO exist and I were to die today WITHOUT knowing Jesus as my personal savior, then I don't wan't to find out what becomes of me in the afterlife. Being cast off into a lake of fire isn't my idea of a good time. |
For God so loved the world, he created a lake of fire to punish people in for all eternity? Anyway, you may be interested in Pascal's Wager. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:04:58 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take Louis and his Mithras. He was willing to argue for a whole day about it when there is actually very little written evidence around (hell, we were down to the only textual evidence for a BC Mithras being an inscription on a temple that Shannon could never confirm actually had been found.) |
See, that's just faulty knowledge on your part. I cited Puhvel for corn sakes, even cited a page number, 100, where he states that a Hellenized Mithras arrived in Rome BCE with all his mysteries intact. Puhvel has no agenda, he's a learned scholar. Mithras' Persian counterpart ultimately made palatable to Rome (if one is to interpret his "Hellenized Mithras" comment in context) is even older, much, much older. A statement of a pre-Christian Mithras is not a statement of a opinion, it's a rather prosaic fact. |
This is just sooooo funny Louis. You are stating that Puhvel, a comparative mythology scholar of modern times should simply be taken as "prosaic fact"? I've really lost a bit of respect for your arguing ability here. What about the people who disagree with Puhvel about such things? Shouldn't what they write be "prosaic fact" as well? We've already seen wiki shows at least somebody disagrees that there is much evidence that Mithras worship was pre 1st century.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:06:53 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take Louis and his Mithras. He was willing to argue for a whole day about it when there is actually very little written evidence around (hell, we were down to the only textual evidence for a BC Mithras being an inscription on a temple that Shannon could never confirm actually had been found.) |
See, that's just faulty knowledge on your part. I cited Puhvel for corn sakes, even cited a page number, 100, where he states that a Hellenized Mithras arrived in Rome BCE with all his mysteries intact. Puhvel has no agenda, he's a learned scholar. Mithras' Persian counterpart ultimately made palatable to Rome (if one is to interpret his "Hellenized Mithras" comment in context) is even older, much, much older. A statement of a pre-Christian Mithras is not a statement of a opinion, it's a rather prosaic fact. |
This is just sooooo funny Louis. You are stating that Puhvel, a comparative mythology scholar of modern times should simply be taken as "prosaic fact"? I've really lost a bit of respect for your arguing ability here. What about the people who disagree with Puhvel about such things? Shouldn't what they write be "prosaic fact" as well? We've already seen wiki shows at least somebody disagrees that there is much evidence that Mithras worship was pre 1st century. |
You're a literalist. There's really no point. Mithras is to ancient mythological lineage as Zeus is, as Kronos is. You may as well dispute that either of those two predate year zero, for all the sense it makes. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:07:46 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
There is every bit as much historical evidence to suppose Paul existed as Shakespeare. If you are willing to entertain that Shakespeare was not real, then we can talk. |
Uh ... I've seen Shakespeare's signature, visited his grave (he and his wife are buried in the church in Stratford - I could post a picture, if you'd like), seen his birth house and in-law's homes. Not that I think Paul is fictitious. I'm just sayin'.
If Shakespeare was fictitious, the residents of Stratford-upon-Avon have done a fabulous job of faking it. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:09:26 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
There is every bit as much historical evidence to suppose Paul existed as Shakespeare. If you are willing to entertain that Shakespeare was not real, then we can talk. |
Read carefully. I didn't suggest Paul was fictitious. |
Yes, quite true. I see that now. Well, we can switch to Peter. External evidence exists for his being a real person outside the bible as well. Clement of Rome mentions him in letters from the latter part of the 1st century. Peter's death is attributed to about 64 AD. You can read the wiki about it. Once again, an embarassment of riches...
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 02:11:18 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
One should note that God does not want to be 'provable' scientifically |
How convenient for him. |
Not convenient, necessary to achieve his goal for us. He wants to have a spiritual relationship with us because he is spiritual. He has given us ample proof of his existence by the very creation around us. It's not however scientific proof.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:46:35 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
This all presupposes that Paul actually had a conversion, that the disciples were actual people and not allegories using the well-known motif of "twelve followers" lifted from older stories, and that the entire text is completely reliable in all that it says without needing any collaborative data from other sources whatsoever. |
There is every bit as much historical evidence to suppose Paul existed as Shakespeare. If you are willing to entertain that Shakespeare was not real, then we can talk. |
Read carefully. I didn't suggest Paul was fictitious. |
Yes, quite true. I see that now. Well, we can switch to Peter. External evidence exists for his being a real person outside the bible as well. Clement of Rome mentions him in letters from the latter part of the 1st century. Peter's death is attributed to about 64 AD. You can read the wiki about it. Once again, an embarassment of riches... |
There is nothing surprising about an historical figure, especially one as important as Peter in the organization of the church, from becoming associated with the mythology.
|
|
