jgibson000

Then you don't understand that Earl's claim is that with regard to the meaning of PARALAMBANW Paul's usage was influenced by,took its cue from, and was determined by the meaning with which that the verb was allegedly used in Tarsus and by Greek speakers outside of Palestine.


In other words, you cannot point me to what I asked for. Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

No. It's pointing out that mythicists employ a double standard in their labeling as an apologist anyone who uses Acts as evidence for Paul's life and teaching, but then go on themselves to use material in Acts to buttress their own "Paul was influenced by the mystery religions" claims.

JG

Chris Weimer

Hear, hear! Acts should not be evidence for Paul's life and teaching. Neither position should use the text.

Amaleq13

No, you apparently don't understand that Doherty's claim is specific to Paul but, presumably, would also apply to anyone like Paul and to avoid a straw man characterization, any generalization to a comparative population needs to be more specific than "every Hellene". I say "apparently" because it is difficult for me to believe that this lack of comprehension on your part could be genuine.

If you think that answering your utterly misguided request was at all relevant to my point, your feeling of clarity is an illusion. My mistake, apparently, was to accept your original apparent confusion as indicating a genuine desire to reduce misunderstanding between yourself and your interlocutor. But, rather than recognize my offered and clearly tentative (recall the question mark?) suggestion as representing the sort of added specificity needed, you pretended it was an assertion requiring support. That you continue to pursue this clearly marked blind alley despite my correction is simply perverse. :banghead:

aguy2

Am I the only person here that sees 'Saul/Paul' as the possible 'anti-Christ' that Jesus prophesies will shortly follow him?
aguy2

Chris Weimer

No. I think I've seen that before too.

Amaleq13

Since I am not a mythicist and have not labelled anyone an apologist and have not made any such claims, my offered suggestion is incapable of pointing out any of the above.

:rolling:

Chris Weimer

Surely, Amaleq, you're not implying that we should use Acts as a frame for Paul's letters, do you?

jgibson000

I understood you perfectly. What you seem to be missing is that what I was doing in message 3776927 was only

(1) to note what would have to be the case if we were to change the terms from "every Hellene" to "every educated citizen" of Tarsus and still hold on to the truth of the claim that Earl was making about Paul's usage of PARALAMBANW as something that was (to quote Earl) "... influenced by Hellenistic usages and conceptions" and was specifically grounded in the particular way the verb was used (to quote Earl) "... in the wider Graeco-Roman world"; and then

(2) to ask if you knew of any evidence that actually showed that what would have to be the case for this claim to be true, actually was the case.


I did no such thing. As mentioned above, I was simply (1) laying out what would have to be true if we were to accept your suggestion and (2) asking if you knew of any evidence in support of truth of the points I listed.

Problem is that it is not a blind alley and that my request is not perverse.

What I ask for is only and exactly what has to be produced if the case that in his usage of PARALAMBANW Paul was influenced by what "every educated citizen of Tarsus" accepted vis a vis the meaning of PARALAMBANW (i.e., that it meant "the delivery of a revelation") is to be shown as valid.

JG

jgibson000

You did claim in your suggestion that we should restrict the influences on Pau's sense of the meaning of PARALAMBANW from what "every Hellene" knew vis a vis the meaning of PARALAMBANW to what "every educated citizen of Tarsus" knew on this point, that Paul was a citizen of, and grew up in, Tarsus, did you not?

If so, how is this not accepting the historicity of Acts, at least as it concerns its claims about Paul's birth place and boyhood home and original educational environment?'

And have you never said that Acts is not historically trustworthy when it comes to what it says on Paul's life and teachings?

JG