Random Thoughts Thread

[Forlorn Drifter]

I think you might be reading to much into the word.

Its a term used in cases of truth. Abraham Lincoln has a "story", George Washington has a "story", YOU have a "story".

It has multiple meanings, but I think the intended meaning is there.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

Forlorn Drifter's got it (and I hope no one doubts that Paul existed).

[MrPopo]

Forlorn Drifter's got it (and I hope no one doubts that Paul existed).

I doubt that half the people featured in every holy text existed.

[o.pwuaioc]

I think you might be reading to much into the word.

Its a term used in cases of truth. Abraham Lincoln has a "story", George Washington has a "story", YOU have a "story".

It has multiple meanings, but I think the intended meaning is there.

George washington cut down a cherry tree, Abraham lincoln could never tell a lie, and Paul of Tarsus was martyred. All useful fictions, even if there is a grain of truth.

[SamuraiMegas]

What's worse: Being weak or being a Reddit level atheist?

Seriously though, living your faith takes a lot of courage. A man who stands his convictions - and good convictions at that - shouldn't be called a coward or a weakling. Gamerforlife, you did imply that.

I'll go back to Paul of Tarsus. Does everyone know how his story ended?

Before you go further, you should keep in mind what word you used.

I live my faith well and don't degrade others for being another religion. I make jokes yes, but most anyone who knows at all knows I'm not serious.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I think you might be reading to much into the word.

Its a term used in cases of truth. Abraham Lincoln has a "story", George Washington has a "story", YOU have a "story".

It has multiple meanings, but I think the intended meaning is there.

George washington cut down a cherry tree, Abraham lincoln could never tell a lie, and Paul of Tarsus was martyred. All useful fictions, even if there is a grain of truth.

Hmm. You turned that one around on me pretty good.

I'm just saying that these are stories many believe. Whether or not they are true? I'll leave that up to argument. I feel it was unnecessary to turn it around the way you did on Valkyrie-Favor.

[Dylan]

I think you might be reading to much into the word.

Its a term used in cases of truth. Abraham Lincoln has a "story", George Washington has a "story", YOU have a "story".

It has multiple meanings, but I think the intended meaning is there.

George washington cut down a cherry tree, Abraham lincoln could never tell a lie, and Paul of Tarsus was martyred. All useful fictions, even if there is a grain of truth.

Hmm. You turned that one around on me pretty good.

I'm just saying that these are stories many believe. Whether or not they are true? I'll leave that up to argument. I feel it was unnecessary to turn it around the way you did on Valkyrie-Favor.

He was just using "story" colloquially. It would be like if someone had an experience at work and wanted to tell you the "story" later. There's nothing to it.

[o.pwuaioc]

I know what he was literally saying. I'm saying that he should bear in mind that it is only a story.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

There's no reliable source of information on Paul's death, so there's no way to determine whether he was martyred or not. It was a poor choice of example on my part. He was incredibly courageous while he was alive - those stories would have been better

As for Paul's existence, it's corroborated by non-Biblical sources. Three early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatious of Antioch and Polycarp, all mention him. Clement in particular implies he knows Paul. J. B. Lightfoot examines Clement's epistle and concludes, "Few writings of antiquity are guaranteed by so many and various testimonies." Also keep in mind the written accounts were also written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses to those events.

[o.pwuaioc]

As for Paul's existence, it's corroborated by non-Biblical sources. Three early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatious of Antioch and Polycarp, all mention him. Clement in particular implies he knows Paul. J. B. Lightfoot examines Clement's epistle and concludes, "Few writings of antiquity are guaranteed by so many and various testimonies." Also keep in mind the written accounts were also written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses to those events.

It would be highly unusual if Clement of Alexandria knew Paul, considering that he was born 100 years after Paul's purported death. Also, yes, these authors are extra-biblical, but they're still highly reliant on the Bible.

But I didn't say he didn't exist, now did I? I mean, someone had to write the four authentic epistles.