FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-15-2007, 12:03 AM   #201
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

See, I was right. We can't communicate.
J-D is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 12:12 AM   #202
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
See, I was right. We can't communicate.
When you are prepared to jettison what almost anyone would consider a prerequisite of christianity, I don't think it's a matter of "we".


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 10:02 AM   #203
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
It contributes to my case that the movement did not originate with Paul.
Evidence that Paul represented something different than the Jerusalem group which, given the conflicted text, may not have been accepted so much as tolerated for the sake of donations but which continued to result in fundamental disagreements between the two suggests to you a single movement of which Paul became a part?

Quote:
I've just searched and I can't find where I used 'succeeded' other than in a question (whoever it was addressed to). Can you link to the post?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...58#post4859258

You don't quote spin but it certainly appears to be addressed at his immediately preceding post.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 04:59 PM   #204
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
See, I was right. We can't communicate.
When you are prepared to jettison what almost anyone would consider a prerequisite of christianity, I don't think it's a matter of "we".


spin
I will go so far as to concede an asymmetry in that I can understand you but you can't understand me.
J-D is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 05:03 PM   #205
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
It contributes to my case that the movement did not originate with Paul.
Evidence that Paul represented something different than the Jerusalem group which, given the conflicted text, may not have been accepted so much as tolerated for the sake of donations but which continued to result in fundamental disagreements between the two suggests to you a single movement of which Paul became a part?
It's not a simple either-or question. If, purely hypothetically, the 'pillars' in Jerusalem did not regard Paul as part of their movement, but adherents in Galatia (or elsewhere) of that movement did accept Paul as part of it, was he part of it or not? And if adherents of the 'pillars' in Galatia (or elsewhere) accepted Paul as part of the movement, did that put them outside it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
I've just searched and I can't find where I used 'succeeded' other than in a question (whoever it was addressed to). Can you link to the post?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...58#post4859258

You don't quote spin but it certainly appears to be addressed at his immediately preceding post.
Like I said, that's a question.
J-D is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:26 PM   #206
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
When you are prepared to jettison what almost anyone would consider a prerequisite of christianity, I don't think it's a matter of "we".
I will go so far as to concede an asymmetry in that I can understand you but you can't understand me.
I think it's more likely that you can't understand yourself.

I have watched you through an arc of change from your first comments in our discussion off into no-man's-land. Here again are your first position:
the simplest explanation of Christianity is that it goes back to somebody, and any suppositious version of that somebody who is not Jesus is even less attested by evidence than Jesus and even less plausible.
And here is your last:
OK, yes, for the sake of argument I am canvassing the possibility that Jesus-the-figure is not a necessary condition for Christianity, on the basis that we can't be sure about what the first Christians believed.
I do like the coherence. But, of course, you're misunderstood.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:13 PM   #207
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

I have attempted to adapt the way I expressed myself to take account of the way I found you discussing the subject. Evidently you don't grasp this process. If I started again from scratch I would approach things differently again. But I don't see any point, since you would doubtless respond by pointing out what seem to you to be inconsistencies with what I said earlier.

The difference is that I am interested in trying to understand your position, while you appear only to be interested in finding reasons to reject mine.
J-D is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 09:47 PM   #208
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
I have attempted to adapt the way I expressed myself to take account of the way I found you discussing the subject. Evidently you don't grasp this process. If I started again from scratch I would approach things differently again. But I don't see any point, since you would doubtless respond by pointing out what seem to you to be inconsistencies with what I said earlier.

The difference is that I am interested in trying to understand your position, while you appear only to be interested in finding reasons to reject mine.
Thank you.
spin is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 10:28 PM   #209
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

You're welcome, I guess ...
J-D is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 10:51 PM   #210
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
If, purely hypothetically, the 'pillars' in Jerusalem did not regard Paul as part of their movement, but adherents in Galatia (or elsewhere) of that movement did accept Paul as part of it, was he part of it or not?
No, he would only be thought part of it.

Quote:
And if adherents of the 'pillars' in Galatia (or elsewhere) accepted Paul as part of the movement, did that put them outside it?
If Paul was outside, acceptance of Paul is outside.

Quote:
Like I said, that's a question.
Yes, one that requested an alternative to an interpretation we've since seen ignores part of the passage.
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:02 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.