Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 08-09-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I certainly can butterfly all the works of Tertullian to find out what Tertullian knew.

No, you couldn't. You might find out all the things that came to his acquaintance, but that doesn't reflect his knowledge.

Interestingly you assume that he dates Augustus when you want him to date him!

(And why do you talk of "Jesus of Nazareth", which shows your willingness to synthesize rather than analyze?)

Your assumption riddled approach requires you to "discuss Tertullian as a whole" then ignore information. When did Tertullian think Augustus was emperor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Do you not find a Washington / Lincoln analogy hokey somehow?

You're not making sense.

spin

I thought you were the wiki expert? And you cannot
Date Augusts, tiberius, and nero.

spin · 08-09-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No, you couldn't. You might find out all the things that came to his acquaintance, but that doesn't reflect his knowledge.

Interestingly you assume that he dates Augustus when you want him to date him!

(And why do you talk of "Jesus of Nazareth", which shows your willingness to synthesize rather than analyze?)

Your assumption riddled approach requires you to "discuss Tertullian as a whole" then ignore information. When did Tertullian think Augustus was emperor?

You're not making sense.

spin

I thought you were the wiki expert? And you cannot
Date Augusts, tiberius, and nero.

Doh! Tertullian didn't have Wiki.

spin

sschlichter · 08-09-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It was just an interesting inclusion after
condemning mine. I am actually a fan
of analogy - hokey or otherwise

Understandable. You don't get the idea that you can't make an argument based on analogy, but merely elucidate one.

spin

Argument : it is logical to interpret tertullians 300 years as an alibi
For 300 years of misfortune.

Analogy : you would explain that you were not at the scene
Of a crime at the time of the crime.

spin · 08-09-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Understandable. You don't get the idea that you can't make an argument based on analogy, but merely elucidate one.

Argument : it is logical to interpret tertullians 300 years as an alibi
For 300 years of misfortune.

Analogy : you would explain that you were not at the scene
Of a crime at the time of the crime.

Umm, what?

spin

angelo · 08-10-2009, 04:19 AM

[U] Why Do Atheists Ask For Evidence "Outside The Gospels?[u]
Simple. The gospels cannot be trusted. We don't know the authors, not one of these unknown authors was an eyewitness. The earliest writings are claimed to be of Paul's epistles, yet he was not an eyewitness either. Neither was Mark, the earliest of the gospels to appear. So atheist seek something trustworthy outside of the babble.

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

[U] Why Do Atheists Ask For Evidence "Outside The Gospels?[u]
Simple. The gospels cannot be trusted. We don't know the authors, not one of these unknown authors was an eyewitness. The earliest writings are claimed to be of Paul's epistles, yet he was not an eyewitness either. Neither was Mark, the earliest of the gospels to appear. So atheist seek something trustworthy outside of the babble.

Angel,

As far as you know, Mark is not an eye-witness and Paul confirmed his message with eye-witnesses.

show_no_mercy · 08-10-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Paul confirmed his message with eye-witnesses.

Paul claims to confirm his message with "eyewitnesses".

The assumption that they were "eyewitnesses" is based on reading the (later) gospels. Does Paul ever use the term "eyewitnesses"? No. He says "apostles before him". He never mentions any "disciples", or how the apostles before him had any special position in regards to this Jesus Movement except in the order of resurrection appearances.

He never laments that the other apostles had known Jesus while he was alive, he never laments that the other apostles had been taught by the "living" Jesus... only that they saw the resurrected Jesus before he did. Paul even explicitly states that he didn't get his gospel from any human and didn't corroborate his gospel with any other human being for three years after his conversion.

sschlichter · 08-10-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Paul confirmed his message with eye-witnesses.

Paul claims to confirm his message with "eyewitnesses".

The assumption that they were "eyewitnesses" is based on reading the (later) gospels. Does Paul ever use the term "eyewitnesses"? No. He says "apostles before him". He never mentions any "disciples", or how the apostles before him had any special position in regards to this Jesus Movement except in the order of resurrection appearances.

He never laments that the other apostles had known Jesus while he was alive, he never laments that the other apostles had been taught by the "living" Jesus... only that they saw the resurrected Jesus before he did. Paul even explicitly states that he didn't get his gospel from any human and didn't corroborate his gospel with any other human being for three years after his conversion.

there is no assumption. that is why I used the word 'claims'. Paul said he did corraborate his gospel with that of the apostles lest he run in vain.

Doug Shaver · 08-10-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul claims to confirm his message with "eyewitnesses".

I don't recall anyplace in his writings where he says anything about confirming anything with any eyewitnesses.

He does claim to have talked to some people who, according to much later Christian documents, were eyewitnesses, but Paul does not identify them as such, and he does not say that they confirmed anything that he was teaching about Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 08-10-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Paul said he did corraborate his gospel with that of the apostles

Quotation, please?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2009, 04:19 AM	#175
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	[U] Why Do Atheists Ask For Evidence "Outside The Gospels?[u] Simple. The gospels cannot be trusted. We don't know the authors, not one of these unknown authors was an eyewitness. The earliest writings are claimed to be of Paul's epistles, yet he was not an eyewitness either. Neither was Mark, the earliest of the gospels to appear. So atheist seek something trustworthy outside of the babble.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.