Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Now if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the fact that we'll get to page 24 before you actually provide an argument referenced to a "consensus of mainstream, biblical scholars" to buttress that theory.

Do you actually think that objective scholars would take any other position? Do you know anything at all about empirical methodology?

Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus while he was alive and only communicated with him through "revelation." Revelation is another word for "hallucinations." It is physically impossible for Paul to have talked to Jesus after his death. If you want to assert that Paul actually spoke to a resurrected Jesus, you have a rather large burden to meet. In legitimate historical scholarship, impossible claims are presumed to be impossible until proven otherwise. It would be irresponsible and anti-scholarly to do anything else.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We already have provided references. Most of the textbooks are not exactly linkable online but you can try looking at any number of books by respected scholars like Metzger, Ehrman, Brown, Maier or Crossan, just to name a few examples. You can also try looking at Peter Kirby's site -- something I have a feeling you haven't bothered to do yet. Here it is again. www.earlychristianwritings.com.

Do you mind being a little more specific? You made a very specific claim. I was familiar with the website you linked before our discussion started. You name the names of (5) scholars. Do they all agree with your conclusion that Paul was simply hallucinating and therefore we can safely dismiss the rest of his epistles as frauds?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul's self-proclaimed revelatory experiences of Jesus do not count as eyewitness accounts.

:banghead:

It may very well be that Paul was hallucinating. But to argue that his self-proclaimed experience is not an eyewitness account is ridiculous. It's a category error.

Patriot7 · 04-20-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not English, it's Greek.

The translation I referenced is obviously written in English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Epeideper polloi epecheiresan anataxasthai diegesin peri ton peplerophoremenon en hemin pragmaton kathos paradosan hemin hoi ap archais autoptai kai huperetai genomeno tou logou, edoxen kamoi parekolouthekoti anothen pasin akribos kathexes soi grapsai, kratiste Theophile.

"seeing that many have taken it in hand to assemble an account of those events which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were witnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good that I also, having a thorough understanding of everything from the beginning, should write everything in order for you, most excellent Theophilus."
(Translation mine)

Verse 2 refers back to verse 1. It's the "many others" who Luke is claiming tried to write everything down "just as it was delivered to us" by the original witnesses. Luke is claiming that he has studied these previous accounts and is now ready to write his own.

To simplify Luke is saying:

"Since lots of others have tried to write these things down just as they were given to us by the original witnesses, I decided that it would be good for me to put it ll in order for you, Theophilus, since I have made myself thoroughly familiar with all of it."

Using your translation you are right.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

The translation I referenced is obviously written in English.

So? You accused people of "not understanding plain English" when the text is actually written in Greek. There IS no "plain English" to dicker over, only translations.

Quote:

Using your translation you are right.

Using the KJV, I'm right as well, but my translation is more readable. If you think I translated anything inaccurately, let me know what it is.

Chris Weimer · 04-20-2006, 08:09 PM

Hey Patriot7,

I saw God the other day. He told me that you need to read more. It is true! It is an eyewitness account! Why would you disbelieve me? Oh, and my dead mother was walking with him also. They were hanging out at some bar downtown.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Do you mind being a little more specific? You made a very specific claim. I was familiar with the website you linked before our discussion started.

Then you should have already known how scholarly consensus regards New Testament authorship traditions and we shouldn't be having this debate.

Quote:

You name the names of (5) scholars. Do they all agree with your conclusion that Paul was simply hallucinating

Yes.

Quote:

and therefore we can safely dismiss the rest of his epistles as frauds?

What do you mean by "frauds?" Some of the Pauline Epistles are pseudoepigraphical (meaning Paul didn't write them) but of the letters which are considered to be genuine, no one thinks that Paul didn't believe his own claims. They basically just think he was deluded (although they couch it more tactfully than I do). Nobody "dismisses them as frauds." That phrase really has no application to NT studies unless you're talking about forgeries.

Quote:

It may very well be that Paul was hallucinating.

Either that or he was lying. Those are the only two choices.

Quote:

But to argue that his self-proclaimed experience is not an eyewitness account is ridiculous. It's a category error.

Now it's my turn to bang my head. :banghead:

Dude, there is no category error. A hallucination is categorically NOT an eyewitness experience of reality-- by definition, if you're perceiving something that's actually there, it's not a hallucination. Paul's experiences occurred only within his head. Jesus wasn't really in there. Paul didn't really talk to him. He was CATEGORICALLY never an eyewitness to Jesus.

Llyricist · 04-20-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Dude, there is no category error. A hallucination is categorically NOT an eyewitness experience of reality-- by definition, if you're perceiving something that's actually there, it's not a hallucination. Paul's experiences occurred only within his head. Jesus wasn't really in there. Paul didn't really talk to him. He was CATEGORICALLY never an eyewitness to Jesus.

Wow, you are being far too kind here. He ripped an imprecisely worded sentence out of context and (once again) started beating the straw out of it. It is quite clear that the context you were typing in was that Paul was not an eyewitness to an actual living Jesus, he just ignored that in order to claim that Paul's testimony is an eyewitness account....of what? who cares!

fromdownunder · 04-20-2006, 10:22 PM

Patriot7 has been moving the goal posts the entrie time on this thread. He has totally ignored every post by anyone who has called him on this, because he simply cannot justifiy or substantiate his original argument.

So, he simply ignores what he cannot respond to, because he knows it is incorrect, and modifies the subject he is arguing about.

Norm

Sven · 04-21-2006, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett

There is the coherence theory of truth.

I think the coherence theory describes how we actually determine truth in practice. Science, in effect, uses the coherence theory, not the correspondence theory.

Thanks. Looks like this is much to philosophical for me - after all "if what you claim corresponds to reality" is determined (in practise) by coherence (theory).

RED DAVE · 04-21-2006, 03:44 AM

From Patriot7:

Quote:

what would you consider extraordinary evidence of the resurrection?

Eyewitness accounts.

Quote:

A world religion spawned from the death of a poor, Jewish carpenter, murdered by His own people?

1) Then I guess you accept the truth of Buddhism: based on the spiritual experience of an obscure Indian prince, and Islam, based on the spiritual experiences of an Arabian businessman.

2) This is an antisemitic remark, which doesn't surprise me. Jesus was executed by the Romans.

Quote:

The martyr deaths of thousands of people in the first few centuries for their faith in this Man?

The actual count is about 4000 over 400 years. I guess, then, you accept the truth of naziism, which inspired millions of its followers to die for it.

Quote:

The Roman government adopting the Christian religion as the official religion of the land 300 hundred years after they executed this Man?

The German government adopted naziism a lot quicker than that.

Quote:

Billions of believers worldwide since His death and Resurrection?

So I guess that Buddhism and Islam, which have billions of followers, are also cool.

RED DAVE

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

04-20-2006, 08:09 PM	#135
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hey Patriot7, I saw God the other day. He told me that you need to read more. It is true! It is an eyewitness account! Why would you disbelieve me? Oh, and my dead mother was walking with him also. They were hanging out at some bar downtown.

04-20-2006, 10:22 PM	#138
fromdownunder Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Lara, Victoria, Australia Posts: 2,780	Patriot7 has been moving the goal posts the entrie time on this thread. He has totally ignored every post by anyone who has called him on this, because he simply cannot justifiy or substantiate his original argument. So, he simply ignores what he cannot respond to, because he knows it is incorrect, and modifies the subject he is arguing about. Norm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.