Solitary Man

So...since scientists make predictions all the time, and many do not come true, does that mean that science is baloney? Of course not. That would be removing the context surrounding science.

aa5874

But, your opinion is flawed and erroneous, as you write, since already letters attributed to "Paul" are deemed to be of some other author or authors using the name "Paul".

The Pastorals were believed to be written by the "Paul" of Acts by the early church fathers, including Eusebius in "Church History", but now has been deduced to have been written by others. The Acts of the Apostles was regarded as history by the church fathers, and gives an account of "Paul" from pre-conversion to trial in Rome,, yet Acts have now been deemed by many to be fiction.

We, therefore have the fundamental elements for the plausibity that "Paul" was either fabricated or "Paul's" name was assigned to letters that were written by others. Already, the latter, has been accepted by some and now with Acts regarded as fiction, the former is inevitable.

It is reasonable to think that "Paul" was fabricated, and this opinion is supported by the information we have today.

jeffevnz

Not, but it does mean that those specific predictions are baloney... But fair is fair. I admit that not every prediction in Revelation has had the opportunity to fail yet.

Still, I stand by what I say, that the predictions are useless unless they're specific and meant literally. And I'll bet you money that, for example, this will never happen:

aa5874

How can you compare the idle rattle of a dreamer in revelations to predictions made by scientists? And scientists do not prophesy or develop their theories from visions of Jesus.

arnoldo

This character also claimed to be a Roman citizen.

http://www.novumtestamentum.com/acts...ip-in-acts.php

Solitary Man

Are there some that aren't meant to come to pass?

Why is that so?

Happen in what sense?

jeffevnz

Then why were the predictions made??
I already explained why they're useless if not meant literally: because we'll only understand them after the fact... And the same problem applies when you're not specific. Suppose I tell you that you should bet all your money on a particular hand of poker, because you'll be dealt a royal flush, but I neglect to tell you when and where this will happen. How useful would that be?

And both of these objections presume (again, charitably) that the predictor has actual knowledge of the future. But that's not necessarily the case. Any jackass can say things like "You will make a major decision this year," or "A volcano will erupt in Hawaii at some point," and then brag to everyone when it comes true. This is what fortune tellers, stock analysts, and string theorists do. It doesn't make you a prophet. By just being vague, it's easy for anyone to correctly tell the future. But unless you get specific, your prophecy doesn't do a lick of good for anyone, and you're not special for making it.
In the literal sense. I hoped that would be clear.

Doug Shaver

Are you under the impression that this contradicts something I said?

If you mean edited, redacted, and otherwise modified, I agree. So what?

As evidence for what got written when, I don't put much stock in the opinions of the early church fathers.

There was no Jesus for Paul to have any personal direct knowledge of. That is why the epistles are devoid of such knowledge. Paul's Jesus was not the same Jesus that the gospel authors wrote about.

So? Maybe he disagreed with what Paul wrote.

Because Paul was not so renowned in Justin's time. It took a long time for Christians to decide that Paul and the gospel authors were singing from the same hymnal.

I've seen many examples of notions that seem logical to you.

Sheshbazzar

I believe that most of us are aware of the verses that present "Paul" as possessing Roman citizenship, and in Acts 21:39, 22:3 also has "him" stating that “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia," thus according to the narrative, he was a Jew, who possessed Roman citizenship, he traveled, and he preached in the synagogues, So being faithful to the narrative details, he would be rightly described as a "Jewish traveling preacher" or a "traveling Jewish preacher".
Of course, simply that a story-book character relates being of a certain ethnic group, religious persuasion, or citizenship, that does nothing to establish the character as having any actual existence apart from that of the writers imagination.
Granted, it is most likely that there was an original "Saul of Tarsus", who was a traveling Jewish preacher, and who served as a prototype, upon whose well known name and well regarded reputation, "creative" Christian writers went to work, expanding , "improving", and adding on to "his" <sic> epistles, creating an entire corpus of fabricated theological letters under the pseudonym of "Paul".
If they fabricated some (several books of "his" ) as textual criticism indicates, then there is nothing that precludes them having also been the source of most or perhaps even all of the "Pauline Epistles".

So the "character" claimed to be a Roman citizen, Do you have a point that you are trying to make here?

schilling.klaus

i think of them as fools or deceivers

Klaus Schilling