[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: I say you once again forsake any discussion of history and resort to anti-religious bigotry. Prove anything I said is inaccurate or anti-religious bigotry. You just don't like hearing the truth. Layman: And, as you well know, I never said I believe everything I read. You certainly seem to believe a great deal. Layman: Is this the best you skeptics have to offer? You can't handle the truth, can you? (By the way, I am not "you skeptics." I speak for myself and no one else. You will not hear me use the pronoun "we.") Layman: Given your focus on reason and knowledge you spend much more time ignoring the historical evidence than you do evaluating the historical evidence. Here is a challenge: Give "historical evidence" to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead. rodahi [This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 27, 2001).]

Actually, I've been quite busy discussing historical evidence regarding Jesus' miracles.

As for inaccurate statements:

1. I have "no idea" what scholarly consensus is. Specically regarding Eusebius references to Papias.

I have read a wide variety of New Testament scholars and not one questioned that Eusebius was referencing a preexistant work by a Bishop named Papias. From liberal to conservative, Jew, Protestant, or Catholic, no one questioned it. Your ignorance, or refusal to concede, even this little point serves only to delay and obstruct discussion.

2. You said that I "know" everything that Eusebius wrote was true. I do not and I made no such claim.

3. Irenaeus was a Christian propagandist just like Eusebius.

The two are actually quite different. Iranaeus wrote in the second century, Papias in the fourth. Iranaeus knew Papias, Eusebius did not. Irenaeus wrote various apologetics and theological pieces, Eusebius wrote the first Christian History. They also had different theological viewpoints.

As for your bigoted statement:

"You are very gullible if you believe everything you read, especially the writings of ancient, ignorant, superstitious religious zealots."

I'm not gullible and I certainly don't believe everything I read.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that it is the Christians on this site who are eager to discuss the historical data, and the skeptics who refuse to.

Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), "Authenticating the Activities of Jesus"
(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998):

"...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the
conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being
freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering
charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the
eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of
the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O.
Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated,
[22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and
the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic
traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for
'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding',
the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their
traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered
transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit
distinct part of these apostolic traditions.

"Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who
'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his
patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or
co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the
Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things
and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner
circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not
insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not
called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for
those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their
mentor or principal.[25]
------------------
22. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM
Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of
the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The
Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als
Lehrer.
23. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess
2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 3:14; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9-10; Jude 3: Rev 2:13, 24. Cf.
Abot 1:1; Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better 65-68.
24. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7,
21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1976) 298-311.
25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish
usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4
(1967) 431-55.

Also, there wasn't necessarily a long period of solely oral transmission as
has been assumed:

"Under the influence of R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius the classical form
criticism raised many doubts about the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels,
but it was shaped by a number of literary and historical assumptions which
themselves are increasingly seen to have a doubtful historical basis. It
assumed, first of all, that the Gospel traditions were transmitted for
decades exclusively in oral form and began to be fixed in writing only when
the early Christian anticipation of a soon end of the world faded. This
theory foundered with the discovery in 1947 of the library of the Qumran
sect, a group contemporaneous with the ministry of Jesus and the early
church which combined intense expectation of the End with prolific writing.
Qumran shows that such expectations did not inhibit writing but actually
were a spur to it. Also, the widespread literacy in first-century
Palestinian Judaism [18], together with the different language backgrounds
of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have
facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some
of Jesus' teaching.[19]" (p. 53-54)
------------------
18. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.25 204: The Law "orders that (children)
should be taught to read."; cf. idem, Ant. 12.4.9 209; Philo, Embassy to
Gaius 115, 210, Further, see R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2.7;
Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981; 4th ed., 1998) 112-15.
19. Jesus had hearers and doubtless some converts from Syria (Matt 4:25),
the Decapolis (Matt 4:25; Mark 3:8; 5:20; 7:31), Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:8;
7:24, 31; Matt 15:21).


N. T. Wright, critiquing the Jesus Seminar's view of oral tradition as
uncontrolled and informal based on some irrelevant research done in modern
Western non-oral societies writes:

"Against this whole line of thought we must set the serious study of
genuinely oral traditions that has gone on in various quarters recently.
[65] (p. 112-113)
---------------
65. For example, see H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel
Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), referring to a large
amount of earlier work; Bailey, "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition," 34-54.
The following discussion depends on these and similar studies, and builds on
Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 418-43; and idem, Jesus and
the Victory of God, 133-37.

"Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling
communities. They sit around in long evenings telling and listening to
stories--the same stories, over and over again. Such stories, especially
when they are involved with memorable happenings that have determined in
some way the existence and life of the particular group in question, acquire
a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology (in narrative as well as in
recorded speech), extremely early in their life--often within a day or so of
the original incident taking place. They retain that form, and phraseology,
as long as they are told. Each village and community has its recognized
storytellers, the accredited bearers of its traditions; but the whole
community knows the stories by heart, and if the teller varies them even
slightly they will let him know in no uncertain terms. This matters quite a
lot in cultures where, to this day, the desire to avoid 'shame' is a
powerful motivation.

"Such cultures do also repeat, and hence transmit, proverbs, and pithy
sayings. Indeed, they tend to know far more proverbs than the orally starved
modern Western world. But the circulation of such individual sayings is only
the tip of the iceberg; the rest is narrative, narrative with embedded
dialogue, heard, repeated again and again within minutes, hours and days of
the original incident, and fixed in memories the like of which few in the
modern Western world can imagine. The storyteller in such a culture has no
license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more
the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will
keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is
told.

"And the stories about Jesus were nothing if not important. Even the Jesus
Seminar admits that Jesus was an itinerant wonder-worker. Very well.
Supposing a woman in a village is suddenly healed after a lengthy illness.
Even today, even in a non-oral culture, the story of such an event would
quickly spread among friends, neighbors and relatives, acquiring a fixed
form within the first two or three retellings and retaining it, other things
being equal, thereafter. In a culture where storytelling was and is an
art-form, a memorable event such as this, especially if it were also seen as
a sign that Israel's God was now at last at work to do what he had always
promised, would be told at once in specific ways, told so as to be not just
a celebration of a healing but also a celebration of the Kingdom of God.
Events and stories of this order are community-forming, and the stories
which form communities do not get freely or loosely adapted. One does not
disturb the foundations of the house in which one is living."[B.D. Chilton
and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 113-115.]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~&gt;
We give away $70,000 a month! Come to iWin.com for
your chance to win!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/olMXHC/BJV...hDAA/kRadlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_-&gt;

To Post a message, send it to: christiancadre@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: christiancadre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Meta: The Gospels were produced by communities, people living togther or near each other and working together and sharing their faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi: True enough. That does not mean that the stories they shared were necessarily historical nor were they necessarily meant to be taken as such. They could have been totally theological.:[/B][/QUOTE]


[Meta =&gt;[/b]There are a couple of probelms wiht that theory. First, they did have a concept of history. Judaism at that stage was not a mythologically based religion. They had a sense of history, they were concerned with God's acts in hisotry. Secodnly, they had an expectation of the Messiah which was toally grounded in history. They expected him to be a real guy and to come in the flesh as a concete person.So even though the theological emphasis would color the order of presentation, some of the details, and things of that nature, it is ludicrous to expect it to totally submerge any concern for the truth of what actually happned. Moreover we see that emphasis upon hisotry, the facts, and what happened all over the NT and beyond the NT. We can see it in Papias and his concern for hearing the words from the mouths of those who were there. He says he would rather hear it from thos who saw it happen than to read it on paper. We can see it in his testimony about the daughters of Philip who served as late first century historians and had a desire to keep the history stairght.

Meta: They were written for their sermonic value for the community. That in no way means that they neither had historical validity, nor were not told with that in mind. Just because the purpose of writing wasn't to make an historical chronical does not mean that the authors were not mindful of the facts. In fact we know they prized eye witness accounts and they were mindful of the history. We know this form the things they say, Papias and Clement, and the others.


Meta =&gt;Sorry, you are repeating yourself. I've already answered that several times. We can see it in the text, in the accounts of the witnesses, In Clments statement about those who are here who knew Peter and saw him among us, and we can aslo see it in the fact that there are no alternative stories. No other versions!

Meta: hahahaahahahahaahahhaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahhahahahaahahahahah!!!!

I am beginning to think this is the best you can do, Meta.


Meta =&gt;O come on man! anyone can see he's speaking rhetorically! To try to turn that into any kind of actual proof that he lied about anything is silly.

Meta: The old atheist inability to read a text! So funny how you guys just stead fastly refuse to read anything with any kind of literary acumen.

I read as well as you do and so can any other person of average intelligence. I read what the text SAYS. Obviously, you do not. BTW, I am one person. Where did you get the idea that I am "you guys?"


Meta =&gt;Hmmmm, I'm sure you can read the dennotations, it's the connotations I'm worried about. For example, does "much adue about nothing" really mean acutal 'nothingness?' Would you read that play and say "It's a wedding, it's not nothihng?" Your reading too much into statements that are clearly rhetorical.Have you ever heard anyone in conversation say "it's not that way, no wait, I tell a lie, maybe it is a bit..." ? Would you assume, O he's confessing to being a pathological liar? Well maybe this isn't quite that innocent, but I think it's pretty much in that category.

"You guys," didn't mean to offend, I just hear that sort of analysis all the time, and it's pretty apparent you don't want to give the tex tany kind of benifit of a doubt. No willing suspenscion of disbleief here! That's not really a very fair way to read a text. If all you ever do is look for ways to make it seem stupid that's all you will ever see in it.

Meta: obviously he's responding to charges agaisnt him!

Sure he is! How do you KNOW the charges are not legitimate?

Meta =&gt; Why should I assume they are? That's my point, find every little opportunity to cast suspicion on the text, that's an ideological reading, it's not a fair way to approach it.

Meta: Is he really going to brag to his flock that he's good at lying?

According to the text he did. Now, if you wish to argue he meant something other than what he said, then you have a problem. ALL WE HAVE IS WHAT HE WROTE!

Meta =&gt;Obviously he really is confessing to be a con man isn't he?That's really what it means! why is it that major Bible Scholar has ever read that way? Because cleary that's not what is going on!

Meta: that makes no sense at all.

Whoever said Paul made sense in what he said?

Meta =&gt;HA! circular reasoning! It's your reading that makes no sense, that's what I was alluding to.


Meta: But clearly he's speaking sarcastically. The things he says assume the charges for the purposes of mocking them!

Whether he is "mocking them" or not, SOMEONE considered him a liar and he admits it!


[b]Meta =&gt;/b]O well than he must be! cause in the atheist universe,if there is the slighest opening for suspecting any problem wiht the tex that's just as good as an aboslute fact and a confession of of a con job by Peter and the boys in the smoke filled room. Come on try look at the text fairly! I don't think that is even indicative of any charge against him. I think it's just like saying "I know you are going to think I'm lying but i caught a fish that was four feet long the other day."

Meta: This is the natural common sense reading anyone would give it long before deciding that he's bragging to people if your theory was right, he should be trying to fool rather than impress with his abilities as a con man!!

Give evidence demonstrating he WAS NOT a con man!


Meta =&gt;ahahahahahahah! What infomral fallacy is this? you want to assume that if you can muster a suspician of something that's as good as proof and the other guy has the burden of proof to disprove it. Presumption of Guilt by being charged! Guilt by reason of the charge. Well if he wasn't a con man I wouldn't be able to claim that he was! That is not logical! YOu prove he was.
rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
I say you once again forsake any discussion of history and resort to anti-religious bigotry.

Prove anything I said is inaccurate or anti-religious bigotry. You just don't like hearing the truth.

Meta =&gt; Well your hermeneutic of total suspicion sure strikes me as anti-religious bigotry. And you've been totally wrong in all the assertions you've made about oral tradition in ancient cultures, (see evidence above) the indiependence of our sources on Papias for Eusebius, and the dating of the book of ACts, the evidence for Lukan authorship,the meaning of the connybear quote and host of other things.

Layman: And, as you well know, I never said I believe everything I read.

You certainly seem to believe a great deal.


Meta =&gt; Apparenlty, you have fallen into the error of thinking that anything less than a hermeneutic of total suspecion is naively accepting everything. What's with this "all or nothing" thinking?


Layman: Is this the best you skeptics have to offer?

You can't handle the truth, can you? (By the way, I am not "you skeptics." I speak for myself and no one else. You will not hear me use the pronoun "we.")


Meta =&gt;You can't handle the evidence, that would stack up to truth.


Layman: Given your focus on reason and knowledge you spend much more time ignoring the historical evidence than you do evaluating the historical evidence.

Here is a challenge: Give "historical evidence" to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Meta =&gt; That's the pay off. The community saw him after his death. We know the community is reliable, since archaeology corroborates Luke, there are no other versions of the story, so everyone knew the facts, oral tradition cotroled for veriation, the Passion narrative was written just 18 years after the events, plent of eye witnesses still around at that time.

Now one might be inclined to disregard all that,and it's not real absolute proof. But given that all history is probability, three independent trajectories witnessing to the sightings, (Paul, Gospels, passion narrative) than there is ample reason to accept it as it is a likely senerio.

Hey! YOu do't want this therad to turn into the res debate do you?

Layman:
Actually, I've been quite busy discussing historical evidence regarding Jesus' miracles.

You have been quite busy promulgating Christian views.

As for inaccurate statements:

Layman: 1. I have "no idea" what scholarly consensus is. Specically regarding Eusebius references to Papias.

I have read a wide variety of New Testament scholars and not one questioned that Eusebius was referencing a preexistant work by a Bishop named Papias.

I also have read a wide variety of scholars and some question the veracity of the so-called church fathers. I have never said that Eusebius didn't reference Papias. Obviusly, he did. That doesn't guarantee that either man accurately depicted history.

Layman: From liberal to conservative, Jew, Protestant, or Catholic, no one questioned it. Your ignorance, or refusal to concede, even this little point serves only to delay and obstruct discussion.

Are you looking for concessions or historical truth?

Layman: 2. You said that I "know" everything that Eusebius wrote was true. I do not and I made no such claim.

I said no such thing. I suggested that you cannot KNOW whether his claims are true or not.

Layman: 3. Irenaeus was a Christian propagandist just like Eusebius.


The two are actually quite different.

No, they are both Christian propagandists.

Layman: Iranaeus wrote in the second century, Papias in the fourth.

This is incorrect.

Layman: Iranaeus knew Papias, Eusebius did not.

CITE YOUR SOURCE and quote these men.

Layman: Irenaeus wrote various apologetics and theological pieces, Eusebius wrote the first Christian History. They also had different theological viewpoints.

They are both Christian propagandists.

Layman: As for your bigoted statement:

"You are very gullible if you believe everything you read, especially the writings of ancient, ignorant, superstitious religious zealots."

You haven't shown that I said anything "bigoted," except in your biased mind. ALL the writers wrote in ancient times. ALL were ignorant compared to people of today. ALL were superstitious. ALL were religious zealots.

Layman: I'm not gullible and I certainly don't believe everything I read.

You are gullible if you take the word of a few Christian zealots.

Layman: What is becoming increasingly obvious is that it is the Christians on this site who are eager to discuss the historical data, and the skeptics who refuse to.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is the Christians who wish to ignore reality. People are not impregnated by "holy spirits." Dead people DO NOT come back to life.

If you wish to discuss what ancient historians SAID or what Christian progagandists SAID, then you will have no problem with any non-Christian. Problems arise when you start saying the above accurately depicted what happened in ancient times.

rodahi

Originally posted by rodahi:
Metacrock: paraphrase: Oral tradition identical to rumors, not organized or trustworthy

You have misrepresented what I said in your "paraphrase." I will respond to your post when you can quote what I actually SAID.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 28, 2001).]

Layman: I say you once again forsake any discussion of history and resort to anti-religious bigotry.

rodahi: Prove anything I said is inaccurate or anti-religious bigotry. You just don't like hearing the truth.

Meta: Well your hermeneutic of total suspicion sure strikes me as anti-religious bigotry.

Is anyone supposed to be greatly surprised by the fact that the truth would strike you as "anti-religious bigotry?"

Meta: And you've been totally wrong in all the assertions you've made about oral tradition in ancient cultures

No, this is just a Chrsistian opinion.


Meta: (see evidence above)

You mean "see the quotes of a few biased Christian scholars."

Meta: the indiependence of our sources on Papias for Eusebius, and the dating of the book of ACts, the evidence for Lukan authorship,the meaning of the connybear quote and host of other things.

What does "host of other things" mean?

Layman: And, as you well know, I never said I believe everything I read.

rodahi: You certainly seem to believe a great deal.


Meta: Apparenlty, you have fallen into the error of thinking that anything less than a hermeneutic of total suspecion is naively accepting everything. What's with this "all or nothing" thinking?

Do you believe the words of a few ancient Christian propagandists? If you do, then YOU are naive.


Layman: Is this the best you skeptics have to offer?

rodahi: You can't handle the truth, can you? (By the way, I am not "you skeptics." I speak for myself and no one else. You will not hear me use the pronoun "we.")


Meta: You can't handle the evidence, that would stack up to truth.

I can handle the truth and the evidence. The problem is this: ALL you have are ancient MSS depicting the opinions/beliefs of ancient, superstitious people.


Layman: Given your focus on reason and knowledge you spend much more time ignoring the historical evidence than you do evaluating the historical evidence.

rodahi: Here is a challenge: Give "historical evidence" to support your belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Meta: That's the pay off. The community saw him after his death. We know the community is reliable, since archaeology corroborates Luke, there are no other versions of the story, so everyone knew the facts, oral tradition cotroled for veriation, the Passion narrative was written just 18 years after the events, plent of eye witnesses still around at that time.

THAT is what you think, Meta. Present EVIDENCE.

Meta: Now one might be inclined to disregard all that,and it's not real absolute proof.

I don't consider what you "think" to be proof of anything beyond what you think.

Meta: But given that all history is probability, three independent trajectories witnessing to the sightings, (Paul, Gospels, passion narrative) than there is ample reason to accept it as it is a likely senerio.

Baloney! There is no good reason to think people can be born in any way but the natural way. There is no good reason to think that dead people can come back to life.

If you want to argue that Jesus lived as a man in Galilee, then fine. I have no problem with that. When you get beyond that, there are problems.

rodahi




[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 28, 2001).]

rodahi: How do you KNOW the writers were concerned more with FACTS than THEOLOGY? How do you KNOW they "prized eyewitness" testimony? The so-called church fathers were Christian apologists/propagandists, not historians. Also, you keep mentioning Papias. Would you please quote him from an extant MS of his work. If you cannnot, then you are repeating hearsay testimony.


Meta: Sorry, you are repeating yourself.

I don't mind repeating true statements.

Meta: I've already answered that several times. We can see it in the text

You haven't given a sufficient answer to any of my questions. What text?

Meta: in the accounts of the witnesses, In Clments statement about those who are here who knew Peter and saw him among us, and we can aslo see it in the fact that there are no alternative stories. No other versions!

You are naive.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
[b] Meta: hahahaahahahahaahahhaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahhahahahaahahahahah!!!!

rodahi: I am beginning to think this is the best you can do, Meta.


Meta: O come on man! anyone can see he's speaking rhetorically!

Can you not read what he said? What makes you think he means anything other than what he says?

Meta: The old atheist inability to read a text! So funny how you guys just stead fastly refuse to read anything with any kind of literary acumen.

I read as well as you do and so can any other person of average intelligence. I read what the text SAYS. Obviously, you do not. BTW, I am one person. Where did you get the idea that I am "you guys?"


Meta: Hmmmm, I'm sure you can read the dennotations, it's the connotations I'm worried about.

ALL we have available to us is what the writers WROTE. Shades of meaning can be debated forever.


Meta: For example, does "much adue about nothing" really mean acutal 'nothingness?' Would you read that play and say "It's a wedding, it's not nothihng?"

Poor analogy, Meta.

Meta: Your reading too much into statements that are clearly rhetorical.

Again, present evidence demonstrating the writer is speaking "rhetorically."


Meta: Have you ever heard anyone in conversation say "it's not that way, no wait, I tell a lie, maybe it is a bit..." ? Would you assume, O he's confessing to being a pathological liar? Well maybe this isn't quite that innocent, but I think it's pretty much in that category.

Another poor analogy, Meta.

Meta: "You guys," didn't mean to offend, I just hear that sort of analysis all the time, and it's pretty apparent you don't want to give the tex tany kind of benifit of a doubt. No willing suspenscion of disbleief here!

I give the writer every benefit of a doubt that I give any other ancient writer. I only suspend my disbelief when reading fiction. Are you suggesting that the NT is fiction?

Meta: That's not really a very fair way to read a text. If all you ever do is look for ways to make it seem stupid that's all you will ever see in it.

Again, I READ what the writer SAID. If the writer wished to write something stupid, then so be it.

Meta: obviously he's responding to charges agaisnt him!

Sure he is! How do you KNOW the charges are not legitimate?

Meta: Why should I assume they are? That's my point, find every little opportunity to cast suspicion on the text, that's an ideological reading, it's not a fair way to approach it.

I have given reasons for suspecting that Paul sometimes lied to further his cause.

Meta: Is he really going to brag to his flock that he's good at lying?

According to the text he did. Now, if you wish to argue he meant something other than what he said, then you have a problem. ALL WE HAVE IS WHAT HE WROTE!

Meta: Obviously he really is confessing to be a con man isn't he?That's really what it means! why is it that major Bible Scholar has ever read that way? Because cleary that's not what is going on!

You have no idea what "major Bible Scholar" think. You read only works that have a Christian bias.

Meta: that makes no sense at all.

rodahi: Whoever said Paul made sense in what he said?

Meta: HA! circular reasoning!

I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

Meta: It's your reading that makes no sense, that's what I was alluding to.

I READ what the writer WROTE.


Meta: But clearly he's speaking sarcastically. The things he says assume the charges for the purposes of mocking them!

rodahi: Whether he is "mocking them" or not, SOMEONE considered him a liar and he admits it!


Meta: ]O well than he must be! cause in the atheist universe

Your bias creeps into many of your statements, Meta.

Meta: if there is the slighest opening for suspecting any problem wiht the tex that's just as good as an aboslute fact and a confession of of a con job by Peter and the boys in the smoke filled room.

I presented textual evidence to support one of my views. Thus far, you have not presented one iota of text to support your view. Paul HAD PROBLEMS with the "super apostles."

Meta: Come on try look at the text fairly! I don't think that is even indicative of any charge against him. I think it's just like saying "I know you are going to think I'm lying but i caught a fish that was four feet long the other day."

It seems that to you the word "fairly" means any reading that agrees with your Christian bias.

Meta: This is the natural common sense reading anyone would give it long before deciding that he's bragging to people if your theory was right, he should be trying to fool rather than impress with his abilities as a con man!!

Give evidence demonstrating he WAS NOT a con man!


Meta: ahahahahahahah! What infomral fallacy is this? you want to assume that if you can muster a suspician of something that's as good as proof and the other guy has the burden of proof to disprove it.

You were the first to use the words "con man." All I asked for was evidence, not proof.

Meta: Presumption of Guilt by being charged! Guilt by reason of the charge. Well if he wasn't a con man I wouldn't be able to claim that he was! That is not logical! YOu prove he was.

I don't know if he was a con man or not. You brought it up. All I said is that Paul admitted lying and presented evidence to support my claim.

rodahi