Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[Minimalist]

The second assumption is that Paul didn't write about Jesus.  This is just false. 

He didn't write about your gospel jesus.  He talks about a cosmic jesus living in the heavens who spoke to "paul" through dreams and shit.  But he knows nothing of Pilate, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Calvary, "good thieves,"  big-ass earthquakes, and fucking zombies wandering around Jerusalem. 

And why should he?  That part of the story had not been concocted that early.

So your bitching about an argument of silence is misplaced... as is most of your apologetic bullshit.  "Paul" is not "silent."  He just does not know your story.  And no matter how you twist your nuts into a pretzel that is a big fucking problem for you jesus freaks.

[Amarok]

Steve & RR,

You've been told this already, but I wanted to tell you, also:

You're both cherry-picking your sources.

It way worst then that they are straight up lying

[Minimalist]

I hope they are lying.  The alternative is that they are stupid.

[Amarok]

The second assumption is that Paul didn't write about Jesus.  This is just false. 

He didn't write about your gospel jesus.  He talks about a cosmic jesus living in the heavens who spoke to "paul" through dreams and shit.  But he knows nothing of Pilate, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Calvary, "good thieves,"  big-ass earthquakes, and fucking zombies wandering around Jerusalem. 

And why should he?  That part of the story had not been concocted that early.

So your bitching about an argument of silence is misplaced... as is most of your apologetic bullshit.  "Paul" is not "silent."  He just does not know your story.  And no matter how you twist your nuts into a pretzel that is a big fucking problem for you jesus freaks.

He will chant " argument from silence " like a voodoo charm hoping it makes the truth go away .

[RoadRunner79]

Steve & RR,

You've been told this already, but I wanted to tell you, also:

You're both cherry-picking your sources.

If you would like to cite something, I’d be happy to look at it.  Where do you think I’m cherry picking or  more specifically, what do you think I’m ignoring?

[Amarok]

If you would like to cite something, I’d be happy to look at it. 

Which you will ignore or misrepresent or provide apologetic excuses against . 

 Where do you think I’m cherry picking?

He will source it to death and you will pretend she had not .

[Minimalist]

He will chant " argument from silence " like a voodoo charm hoping it makes the truth go away .

I've seen that bullshit before, Tiz.  When archaeologists dig down to 10th century levels in Jerusalem and can't find any magnificent capital city of an empire but only the remains of a shitty little one-horse hamlet we hear the same shit.  "It's an argument from silence," they whine piteously.  But it isn't.  There is no silence.  What there is is evidence which disproves their fucking OT bullshit.  10th century Jerusalem could not have conquered a vacant lot let alone a great empire!  But, unable to dispute the findings they simply latch onto the argument from silence bullshit as if they have any fucking clue what it means.

[Graufreud]

actually Torah underpins Western thought.

Not according to facts.

Piousness does't need any facts. Hence it allows you to make any claim you want.

[The Grand Nudger]

If Paul's epistles only referred  to how the Church should conduct itself, and how to live a Christian life; it still doesn't follow that Paul didn't know about Jesus, or that he believed in some "celestial Jesus".  This is an unnecessary interjection which isn't supported by anything historical  

I missed this gem earlier, nestled in the middle of a rant.  You're absolutely correct here...there is no historical source to be had for that contention..there is only the content of the gospels.  

A modern christian person™ might enjoy believeing that "paul" believed as they believe, and it might even be the dogma of their subsect that this is the case.....but a very smart man once commented on unnecessary interjections and I think he got that right too.

[RoadRunner79]

If Paul's epistles only referred  to how the Church should conduct itself, and how to live a Christian life; it still doesn't follow that Paul didn't know about Jesus, or that he believed in some "celestial Jesus".  This is an unnecessary interjection which isn't supported by anything historical  

I missed this gem earlier, nestled in the middle of a rant.  You're absolutely correct here...there is no historical source to be had for that contention..there is only the content of the gospels.  

A modern christian person™ might enjoy believeing that "paul" believed as they believe, and it might even be the dogma of their subsect that this is the case.....but a very smart man once commented on unnecessary interjections and I think he got that right too.

The indication seems to be, that Paul had the support of the other disciples, and the support of the early Church.   They say that they taught the same thing. As well Paul endorsed them, and said that they believed the same Gospel.   While I think it's reasonable, that there may have been some differences, the evidence seems to point to the opposite of the conclusion from the argument from silence.