(June 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Paul Wrote:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:11-12

So is that a leftover of the idea of Christ as mythical figure, not actual human being on earth?

We point out that a guy is trying to build a golden house out of normal bricks right on top of quicksand.

He wanders off...

And comes back with another lorry load of normal bricks, carrying on regardless.

(June 27, 2015 at 12:39 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 9:23 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

They were first hand witnesses and they had to "believe"? Didn't they know? Hadn't they witnessed enough miraculous events yet?!
Sounds like someone manufactured the story well after the alleged fact.

But you can go on believing that they believed it... Just shows how much thought you poured into your favorite myth.

As you know, I have argued the very point you are making in other threads. I do so because I HAVE thought about it.

Here, I am using Habermas' terminology.

But I agree with you; the apostles did not believe; they were in a position to know.

(June 27, 2015 at 12:59 pm)robvalue Wrote: They believed it but forgot to tell Mark about it, whoops. Then someone had to "remember" it.

Post #151.

(June 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Paul Wrote:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:11-12

Nice verses, Jorm. I'm happy to see that you are familiar with them.

In the passage you quoted, Paul says that he did not receive "the gospel" that he preached from man but through a revelation from Jesus Christ. Surely, as a atheist, this cannot help your case.

After meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul went to Arabia for three years on what probably amounted to an extended personally retreat. I believe that during this time, he was praying, studying the scriptures and learning much from the Lord. It was during this period that he developed much of the theology that is contained in his many epistles. However, upon his return, he went to Jerusalem. Here are his own words that follow immediately after the verses you quoted:

Quote:Galatians 1:13-24
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

Now, Paul's Gospel was directly from Jesus, but his knowledge of the events of Jesus' death and resurrection, etc. came from his meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem as described above.

He later repeated that journey.

Quote:Galatians 2:1-2
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Hope this helps.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:26 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: I could care less about appeals to authority regardless of Christian or Atheist stance Randy. I care about about where the evidence points. Grabbing a few quotes from the Internet and throwing them into a whirlpool of information does nothing to dispute the evidence.

When the mythicist ideas you hold are dismissed as absurd by theists, skeptics and atheists alike, it might be time for a mental reboot.

(June 26, 2015 at 2:37 am)robvalue Wrote: So... Eve sinned because she ate the fruit which would give her previously unknown information about what a sin actually is?

This all reminds me of the old "key locked in the safe" idea but somehow even more stupid, turned inside out and used to justify everything bad ever.

No, rob. Eve disobeyed God knowingly. You can argue about whether she had full knowledge of what "sin" was, but it doesn't change the fact that she was clear on God's command about eating the fruit:

Genesis 3:1-2
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

So, Eve knew God's command, and she disobeyed Him, anyway.

(June 27, 2015 at 6:28 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 26, 2015 at 2:37 am)robvalue Wrote: So... Eve sinned because she ate the fruit which would give her previously unknown information about what a sin actually is?

This all reminds me of the old "key locked in the safe" idea but somehow even more stupid, turned inside out and used to justify everything bad ever.

No, rob. Eve disobeyed God knowingly. You can argue about whether she had full knowledge of what "sin" was, but it doesn't change the fact that she was clear on God's command about eating the fruit:

Genesis 3:1-2
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

So, Eve knew God's command, and she disobeyed Him, anyway.

If she had no knowledge of good or evil, she would not be able to determine that disobeying gods command was bad.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:31 am)abaris Wrote: I asked you that before and you waved away it's relevancy: Do you know anything about church history besides what your church claims to be history? Do you know how a church, if you want to call it that - in Rome of all places - really looked like at that time? Do you know that the title "bishop of Rome" didn't even exist outside the minds of those, who came at a much later point in time? If for no other reasons than that there was no church as you understand it today. There were just people handing down oral traditions and legends, divided amongst themselves over what they actually should believe.

But I guess I could just as well speak to a wall, since you obviously have some difficulties to distinguish between fact and say so.

I'm not sure who you are speaking to since you did not quote a post. However, I will respond.

1. The New Testament uses the word "Church" 114 times, so yeah, the Church existed before the writing of the New Testament was completed.
2. Ignatius of Antioch gives us the name of that Church, the "Catholic Church" in a letter he wrote in AD 107.
3. The word "bishop" is derived from the Greek word "episcopoi" - a word that is very much in use in the pages of the New Testament.

I'm going to provide a little backgrounder on the hierarchy of the priesthood followed by a few quotes from the Early Church Fathers which prove your assertion that bishops "didn't even exist" is incorrect. Enjoy!

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos ("servant" or "minister"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos ("overseer"), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).

"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2).

"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience" (ibid., 7:2).

"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria

"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere" (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).

"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel" (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).

Quote:In the passage you quoted, Paul says that he did not receive "the gospel" that he preached from man but through a revelation from Jesus Christ. Surely, as a atheist, this cannot help your case.

His hallucinations are no more impressive than your own.