liamconnor wrote:
We see that such a person has shifted from an indefinite plural to a definite singular.
Hardly. Because you have made multiple claims that multiple people have no provided rational doubt to your supernatural scenarios. Therefore it's still plural even though it refer solely to your
multiple accusations against others. Multiple accusations (or
claims that people aren't responding to you rationally) are still multiple claims of a singular nature. Although in ever individual case all these different members have offered multiple rational alternatives to your theological demands.
And you even continually refuse to confess that your demands are indeed theologically based and NOT historically based. There is no rational historical reason to believe that a person was supernaturally resurrected from the dead, when the perfectly secular explanation that the person never fully died in the first place is far more rational.
So if your arguments are so extremely feeble that you need to nit-pick with an accusation like this against me I would say that your theological arguments are in serious trouble. Clearly you can't make a rational case for them or you wouldn't need to resort to such absurdities.
liamconnor wrote:
If such a discrepancy occurred in the Pauline corpus (the contents of which were written over several years) what should we make of it?
There are extreme discrepancies in the writings attributed to Paul, especially if you are willing to compare them with the Gospels that claim to speak for Jesus. Paul contradicts the teachings attribute to Jesus big time.
liamconnor wrote:
What should we make of the discrepancy here, which occurred within a day?
To begin with no such discrepancies occurred here. That's your own created fallacy.
liamconnor wrote:
Should we "read to understand" the member's discrepancy? Should we read to understand authors of the N.T.?
In this case people can just ASK the author of the posts that YOU CLAIM contain discrepancies and the author of that post can clarify where YOU WERE WRONG IN YOU CLAIM.
Being that Paul is long since dead it would be quite difficult to ask him to explain his discrepancies now.
liamconnor wrote:
Should we dismiss everything the member has ever said on this forum? Should we dismiss everything ever written by Paul?
Non-sequitur. You can ASK a live poster for clarification. You can't talk to a dead Paul.
liamconnor wrote:
Note, "everything written by Paul" does not mean "supernatural", since he wrote of things that were not supernatural. Note: "Beliefs" are not supernatural. IF Paul believed that there were some 500 people who themselves said they believed they saw the risen Jesus, none of this is supernatural. There was a member here (Danmark, I believe, but only the records can show) who once relayed an experience he had on a boat where 'Jesus' 'appeared' to him and told him he was not god. Assuming this member was not lying, most here can assess that though this member did not have an objective encounter with Jesus, still, he had a sensory perception of a figure which he identified as Jesus.
Please provide reasons for your judgments:
So how did Paul become the superstar of this religion? Why couldn't Jesus have made things crystal clear himself?
Why should Jesus need to lean on Paul to correct the misunderstanding that Jesus taught?
Also, why didn't Jesus predict the coming of Paul? To the contrary Jesus not only did not mention Paul at all, but Jesus actually stated that false prophets would come and preach in his name. So if anything we should suspect that Paul is a false prophet if we take Jesus at HIS WORD.
This whole religious paradigm has extreme self-contradictory problems.
Yet, you claim to be looking at this entirely from a "Historical Perspective". But that is clearly a false claim on your behalf.
You are CLEARLY attempting to push a Christian Theological Paradigm here. There can be no doubt about that in the mind of any alert reader of your posts.
So I question the validity of your claims to be solely approaching this from a historical perspective and NOT a theological perspective.
You seem to totally
reject any and
ALL secular explanations. No matter how rational they clearly are.
So I call you out on your claim to be interested in the historical perspective of these ancient tales.
As far as I can see the ONLY perspective you are even remotely interested in considering is the theological perspective.
And you flat out reject every rational secular historical explanation. Period. Without exception.
So how dare you try to attack me in a thread based on some superficial nonsense about plural versus singular claims that you have made. When you are clearly misrepresenting your entire agenda.
This is an all-time low on these forums if I've ever seen one.
Clearly you can't make any case for your arguments if you need to stoop to this tactic.
If your arguments can't stand on their own two feet, than attacking other members in all these ridiculous superficial ways isn't going to help your arguments at all.
