Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 09-23-2012, 02:51 PM

You still haven't answered me. What problem do you have with the following?:

Quote:

Real simply:

1. The fragment author clearly thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century, clearly implying that he also would have thought Paul wrote during his missions described in Acts.

2. IF he ALSO thought Paul wrote after Revelation was written, then he must have thought Revelation was written before around 60AD.

3. Therefore, your point about Paul writing after Revelation is meaningless.

aa5874 · 09-23-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You still haven't answered me...

I have exposed and destroyed your logical fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..Yes aa. To imitate something means to do something in the same way. It doesn't require that it 'follow' chronologically.

Your statement is illogical.

Now, I will Expose your illogical "Arguments from Silence".

Your claimed the Muratorian Canon places Paul in the 1st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

... the fragment clearly places Paul in the first century...

The Fragment of the Muratorian Canon as found does NOT claim the Apostle Paul lived in the 1st century.

Your argue from Silence while immersed in Logical Fallacies.

See
http://web.archive.org/web/201107161...h/mcf.htmlWhat

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What problem do you have with the following?:

1. The fragment author clearly thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century, clearly implying that he also would have thought Paul wrote during his missions described in Acts.

A blatant Illogical argument from silence. The Fragment of the Muratorian Canon does NOT show that the author thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century.

Also in Acts of the Apostles, there is NO claim at all that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Let the records show that I answered you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....2. IF he ALSO thought Paul wrote after Revelation was written, then he must have thought Revelation was written before around 60AD.

Another Blatant Illogical argument from silence. There are NO dates of authorship for any book in the Fragment of the Muratorian Canon.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Let the records show that I have answered you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. Therefore, your point about Paul writing after Revelation is meaningless.

Again, another blatant illogical argument from silence. There are NO dates of authorship in the Fragment of the Muratorian Canon and the author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Let the records show that I have answered you.

This is the problem---You presented blatant illogical arguments from silence.

TedM · 09-23-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, I will Expose your illogical "Arguments from Silence".

Great, let's get started...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What problem do you have with the following?:

1. The fragment author clearly thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century, clearly implying that he also would have thought Paul wrote during his missions described in Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa

A blatant Illogical argument from silence. The Fragment of the Muratorian Canon does NOT show that the author thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century.

Also in Acts of the Apostles, there is NO claim at all that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Let the records show that I answered you.

Your answer is wrong.

Acts places Paul in the mid 1st century. Therefore the author's acceptance of the authority of Acts clearly implies that he thought Paul lived in the mid 1st century. Regarding the writing of the epistles, if one accepts Acts AND the Epistles as legitimate, which the author does, then one must deduce that writings to the Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc. took place before the end of Acts. Therefore the author also would place Paul's writings in the mid 1st century. It's called a logical deduction aa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....2. IF he ALSO thought Paul wrote after Revelation was written, then he must have thought Revelation was written before around 60AD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa

Another Blatant Illogical argument from silence. There are NO dates of authorship for any book in the Fragment of the Muratorian Canon.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Let the records show that I have answered you.

Your answer is wrong here also, because your answer to #1 was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. Therefore, your point about Paul writing after Revelation is meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa

Again, another blatant illogical argument from silence. There are NO dates of authorship in the Fragment of the Muratorian Canon and the author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

[b]Let the records show that I have answered you.

Your answer is wrong here also, because your answer to #1 and #2 were wrong.

See how easy that was?

aa5874 · 09-23-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Acts places Paul in the mid 1st century. ..

Again, your present an argument from Silence. I am dealing with the AUTHORSHIP of the LETTERS to the SEVEN CHURCHES.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Sau/Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches REGARDLESS of when he supposedly placed Saul/Paul.

You have ZERO evidence that SAUL/PAUL in ACTS wrote LETTERS to SEVEN Churches.

You have ZERO EVIDENCE that Saul/PAUL was a LETTER WRITER.

You have ZERO corroborative evidence in Acts for a LETTER writer called Paul.

You ARGUE from SILENCE and do so illogically.

TedM · 09-23-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Acts places Paul in the mid 1st century. ..

Again, your present an argument from Silence.

No, it isn't from silence--pay attention: it's a simple argument but a good one:

Do you deny that Acts places Paul in the mid 1st century?

Do you deny that if Acts is true and the epistles are true then Paul wrote his letters during the time of his missions?

If the author believed in Acts and the Epistles, which we can reasonably assume he did, then he believed Paul's Epistles were written by Paul during Paul's lifetime, which Acts places in the mid 1st century. Agree or not? Don't give me a long tirade--just answer Yes or No.

And, if the author believed in Acts and the Epistles, which we can reasonably assume he did, then he also believed Paul's Epistles were written during the missionary journeys prior to the end of Acts, since the Epistles reference those missionary journeys. Agree or not?

If you can't disagree you must let it go free.

It's common sense aa. There is no other reasonable conclusion to make. In this case this is a very valid argument, but it isn't from silence, as you claim. I'm not saying because the author is silent about the timing of Paul's writings that he must have written them in the 1st century! I'm saying the evidence we have allows us to INFER when the author believed Paul wrote them and the conclusion is clear: The author of the Muratorian believed Paul wrote his Epistles during the mid 1st century. Therefore his comments regarding Revelation are irrelevant to the dating of Paul's Epistles.

aa5874 · 09-23-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, your present an argument from Silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...No, it isn't from silence--pay attention: it's a simple argument but a good one..

The argument is about the chronology of the Pauline writings

Your Own logical fallacies have come back to haunt you.

Have you forgotten post #63 when you Bolded what you claimed were arguments of silence???

Examine an excerpt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

3. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

You claimed the statement was an argument from silence.

Well, based on your own view, You are NOW fully employing arguments from silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Do you deny that Acts places Paul in the mid 1st century?

I have ALREADY told you that the author of Acts did NOT claim Saul/Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches up to the time of FESTUS the procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE.

Do you NOT understand that we know what is written in Acts???

These are the FACTS.

1.The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge any Pauline letters.

2. The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed that Paul wrote his Epistles AFTER Revelation. See the Muratorian Canon.

I have NO TIME TO WASTE with your illogical arguments from silence

Remarkably you have already "bolded" your illogical argument from silence
]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..... the conclusion is clear: The author of the Muratorian believed Paul wrote his Epistles during the mid 1st century. ...

The fragment of the Muratorian Canon does NOT state that Saul/Paul in Acts wrote letters to Seven Churches during the mid 1st century and does NOT state when Revelation by John was composed.

The author of Acts did NOT state the Pauline letters were composed at any time.

It is just so hopelessly absurd for you to claim that the author of the Muratorian Canon Believed what the author of Acts did NOT write.

PhilosopherJay · 09-23-2012, 08:37 PM

Hi Tanya,

Quote:

"One reason for claiming a first century epoch for Jesus, could well have been as a mechanism to avoid censorship by the Roman army. I think we tend to underestimate the diligence of the Romans in controlling access to papyrus, and ink, in the second century.

I suspect that Roman governors would have been exceptionally quick to execute any would be agitators, or trouble makers. By insisting on a process occurring well before 70 CE, the authors may have avoided detention, and subsequent crucifixion."

This is an excellent point. One can always avoid direct censorship, or at least avoid a lot of trouble by placing moral stories in the past. For example, the Western "High Noon" (Zimmerman, 1952) was written by Carl Foreman. He was blacklisted in 1951 during the Red Scare. He could not possibly get a contemporary film made about his experience of being abandoned by the good townspeople of Hollywood when the anti-communist zealots came to town. By setting his film in Western times, he was able to portray his feelings quite accurately. Ring Lardner Jr., another victim of the House Unamerican Activities Committee investigations, was able to express his opposition by writing many of the episodes of the television series "Robin Hood" (1955-1959) set in medieval times, with a very socialist and class conscious Robin Hood outsmarting a capitalist enterprising Sheriff of Nottingham week after week. Arthur Miller wrote the play "the Crucible" (1952) ostensibly about the Salem witch trials of 1692, but clearly also commenting on the McCarthy anti-communist witchhunt of the 1950's.

On the other hand, the 1956 Western "The Searchers" can be seen as a right wing reaction to the Supreme Court's demand for school integration ( Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas) and the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 started by Rosa Parks. Obviously Hollywood could not make a contemporary film attacking integration, but by setting their film in Western times and showing the unprovoked savagery of the Native Americans, the staunch racist message against contemporary race integration was clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I'm claiming that the author of the Muratorian fragment thought Paul lived and wrote in the mid 1st century. This is because he accepted Acts as authentic, and written by a living eyewitness...

I don't claim to know beans about what the author of any fragments, or whole texts, for that matter, thought, or, whether or not what they thought had been accurately transmitted in the written text in our possession today.

No. My claim is that Acts of the Apostles exists in three different versions: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. Whether Western type, or Alexandrian type came first, is anyone's guess. My guess: Alexandrian (shorter) came first, and text was added later (third century) to create Western version. Byzantine version came after the fourth century, and offers still another version of the text.

My point, then, Ted, is that Acts of the Apostles is LATE, first referenced by Irenaeus, late second century.

For what little I know, Irenaeus may have been the composer of the earliest version of Acts. Certainly I have encountered zero evidence, to date, to support a first century date of composition for Acts, and therefore, the notion, oft expressed, that Acts was Luke's composition, and that Luke was a companion of Paul, and that both of them traveled about, during the first century, before the fall of the temple in 70 CE, strikes me, at least, as a fairy tale.

I have a very hard time imagining the Roman army allowing anyone to travel on the Roads from Jerusalem, during the interval from 70-135 CE. I see the entire Christian myth evolving, starting from dispersal of all Jews from Jerusalem, following the third Jewish uprising, against the Romans, ending in 135CE.

I picture the gospels, Paul's works, Justin Martyr, all created in the twenty years following the evacuation from Jerusalem. Created in that cacophonic turmoil, it is reasonable to appreciate that some of the Syrians had one set of documents, while another group, had some different set of documents, hence, the silence regarding each others' texts.

One reason for claiming a first century epoch for Jesus, could well have been as a mechanism to avoid censorship by the Roman army. I think we tend to underestimate the diligence of the Romans in controlling access to papyrus, and ink, in the second century.

I suspect that Roman governors would have been exceptionally quick to execute any would be agitators, or trouble makers. By insisting on a process occurring well before 70 CE, the authors may have avoided detention, and subsequent crucifixion. This could also explain the overt repudiation of orthodox Judaism, by insisting on the Christian notion of sharing meals with unclean persons, and ignoring the insistence on the essential nature of circumcision to preservation of orthodoxy. Massive starvation in that era, could also explain the idea of ignoring strictures against eating pork.

TedM · 09-23-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..... the conclusion is clear: The author of the Muratorian believed Paul wrote his Epistles during the mid 1st century. ...

The fragment of the Muratorian Canon does NOT state that Saul/Paul in Acts wrote letters to Seven Churches during the mid 1st century and does NOT state when Revelation by John was composed.

The author of Acts did NOT state the Pauline letters were composed at any time.

It is just so hopelessly absurd that the author of the Muratorian Canon Believed what the author of Acts did NOT write.

I give up. If you can't see that the author of the Muratorian supported orthodox timing of Paul--by virtue of supporting the chronology of Acts, there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. IF you can't see that the author would not have supported some wild idea that Paul wrote the epistles 50 years or more after he had visited those churches he wrote to, then there is no more need to discuss it.

I can promise you there is nothing you can say to change my mind on this because I KNOW you are wrong to gleen any kind of hope for your theory from his comments regarding Revelation. Hell, even if John lived to be 100 years it isn't long enough for your theory to be right. The author doesn't help you prove a 140+AD timeframe for the epistles. IF he supported that timing, Paul would have to have been 130 years old at the time of writing, since he clearly believed Acts, which places Paul as an adult around 30-40AD! Do you think the author thought Paul was 130 years old when he wrote the epistles AA? Do you? If not, then why in the world do you keep using him to support your theory. HE DOESN"T SUPPORT IT AND YOU SHOULD STOP USING HIM AS IF HE DOES!

I'm sorry Jay. I'm done ruining your thread.

aa5874 · 09-23-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I give up....

You had NO choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..If you can't see that the author of the Muratorian supported orthodox timing of Paul--by virtue of supporting the chronology of Acts, there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. IF you can't see that the author would not have supported some wild idea that Paul wrote the epistles 50 years or more after he had visited those churches he wrote to, then there is no more need to discuss it...

I see that you are employing illogical arguments from silence.

These are the Facts according to Acts.

1. The author of Acts did NOT claim Saul/Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches in the mid 1st century.

2. In Acts, it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters and Paul and his group delivered them.

Why does Saul/Paul need to write letters in ACTS when the Jerusalem Church wrote letters for Saul/PAUL to deliver??

Acts 15

Quote:

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner...

Why does the author of the Muratorian had to believe Saul/Paul wrote letters on his missions when the author of Acts stated it was the Jerusalem Church??

You are making illogical arguments from Silence.

These are the Facts according to Acts.

The Jerusalem Church wrote letters to Churches and Saul/Paul with his group Delivered them in the mid 1st century.

Acts 15

Quote:

...they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together , they delivered the epistle.....

tanya · 09-24-2012, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

One can always avoid direct censorship, or at least avoid a lot of trouble by placing moral stories in the past. For example, the Western "High Noon" (Zimmerman, 1952) was written by Carl Foreman. He was blacklisted in 1951 during the Red Scare. He could not possibly get a contemporary film made about his experience of being abandoned by the good townspeople of Hollywood when the anti-communist zealots came to town. By setting his film in Western times, he was able to portray his feelings quite accurately. Ring Lardner Jr., another victim of the House Unamerican Activities Committee investigations, was able to express his opposition by writing many of the episodes of the television series "Robin Hood" (1955-1959) set in medieval times, with a very socialist and class conscious Robin Hood outsmarting a capitalist enterprising Sheriff of Nottingham week after week. Arthur Miller wrote the play "the Crucible" (1952) ostensibly about the Salem witch trials of 1692, but clearly also commenting on the McCarthy anti-communist witchhunt of the 1950's.

On the other hand, the 1956 Western "The Searchers" can be seen as a right wing reaction to the Supreme Court's demand for school integration ( Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas) and the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955 started by Rosa Parks. Obviously Hollywood could not make a contemporary film attacking integration, but by setting their film in Western times and showing the unprovoked savagery of the Native Americans, the staunch racist message against contemporary race integration was clear.

Thank you Jay, both for your encouragement, and especially, for this very well articulated description of the witchhunt of the 50's in USA.

I imagine that we overlook the possibility that little has changed, by way of human nature. We think of events in our lifetime as quite unique, when, actually, in my opinion at least, things today are little changed from the way of looking at the world a couple thousand years ago.

Surgery, for example, trepanation, used, and described by Ἱπποκράτης, to treat head injuries, is still employed today.

Commerce, including currency speculation, remains as active today, as it had been portrayed in the gospels.

Ethnic cleansing, an old testament account, is still very much in the picture today.

Agriculture, including animal husbandry, and viticulture, remain as active today as in ancient times.

Housing construction, city layout, temples for mass gatherings, are all continued from long ago eras.

Communication, public transit, and public health are three areas which have seen qualitative evolution from the past. Of course, your own area of expertise, Jay, entertainment industry, remains little altered from the time of Euripides, as evidenced by last night's awards at the Emmys.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.