Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-01-2013, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to shoot at all.

Darn tootin', kid. I have more respect for what's around me than to shoot willy-nilly as you suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You really would prefer to not even read the 'we' passages because you might actually be faced with turning down your own gut instinct since you just can't justify paying attention to it. Correct?

I don't know what sort of fouled up mental world you are operating in, but you have absolutely no justification for saying any of the above comment. You may have a bee in your bonnet about the "we" passages, but you are not the only person who has read them and other people react differently to you. And this crap about "gut instinct" is utterly stupid as I have alluded to before. Gut instinct works in familiar contexts, not in analyses of literature for which you know next to nothing. It provides you with no meaningful controls as it leads you into some ditch, blind leading the blind.

Whoa. I didn't mean to upset you.

No upset. I'm just tugging on the rope around your feet so you don't simply fly off in your flight of fancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't understand your objection to my conclusion. You validated what I was saying above -- ie better to not even attempt it.

False premises only lead you into error, as in the case you are unwinding here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Are you saying that I shouldn't trust my gut about the 'we' passages because I'm not skilled in analyzing literature but that YOU should because you ARE skilled at analyzing literature? IF so, feel free to give me your opinion.

I wouldn't trust your gut on very much at all in the field we are talking about and I'd recommend that you don't succumb either. That's what I'm saying about trusting guts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Of course I know that 'gut instinct' doesn't just magically happen. Some people are naturally more gifted at recognizing 'embellishment' and authenticity than others though, and it doesn't necessarily require familiarity with 'literature'. I don't believe in a cut and dried formula.

If you think you can divine embellishment, how do you know where it ends? What distinguishes embellishment from what is not, especially considering that you may be dealing with layers of embellishment? If you have ever worked with Wikipedia would you know where one editor's work ends and the previous editor's efforts start? If you look through the "history" of a Wiki article, you might see hundreds of editors having worked on the article. You will have no way of discerning any of them merely from the final text.

Epistemology reduces your claims of procedure to shreds. You just cannot know and your gut is practically useless for the task of textual analysis of the kind you would hope to do.

Adam · 05-02-2013, 12:01 AM

so, spin,
Now we see why you scrupulously avoid posting in my thread

Significance of John
because it brings in multiple top source-critical scholars to detect precisely such embellishments that you refuse to deal with.

spin · 05-02-2013, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

so, spin,
Now we see why you scrupulously avoid posting in my thread

Significance of John
because it brings in multiple top source-critical scholars to detect precisely such embellishments that you refuse to deal with.

Please stop stalking me with your nonsense.

Oh, and hands up anyone who finds Adam's eyewitness stuff worth the effort of reading... anyone?

Adam · 05-02-2013, 12:20 AM

shesh, I mean spin, uh....what's the use....

Stringbean · 05-02-2013, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

so, spin,
Now we see why you scrupulously avoid posting in my thread

Significance of John
because it brings in multiple top source-critical scholars to detect precisely such embellishments that you refuse to deal with.

Please stop stalking me with your nonsense.

Oh, and hands up anyone who finds Adam's eyewitness stuff worth the effort of reading... anyone?

I read it. Worth it? No. But I have read worse so what the hell. All any of this is are opinions anyway.

TedM · 05-02-2013, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Of course I know that 'gut instinct' doesn't just magically happen. Some people are naturally more gifted at recognizing 'embellishment' and authenticity than others though, and it doesn't necessarily require familiarity with 'literature'. I don't believe in a cut and dried formula.

If you think you can divine embellishment, how do you know where it ends? What distinguishes embellishment from what is not, especially considering that you may be dealing with layers of embellishment? If you have ever worked with Wikipedia would you know where one editor's work ends and the previous editor's efforts start? If you look through the "history" of a Wiki article, you might see hundreds of editors having worked on the article. You will have no way of discerning any of them merely from the final text.

Epistemology reduces your claims of procedure to shreds. You just cannot know and your gut is practically useless for the task of textual analysis of the kind you would hope to do.

I am operating under the assumption that Acts was written by one person and is not like Wikipedia, although I'll allow for a few additions/changes along the way. I think this potentially ups the odds for making accurate BASIC conclusions -- ie it wasn't all made up, it was written in the 1st century, it was written by a companion of Paul type of stuff.. If in fact there were dozens of hands changing it over time that's a different matter of course.

I'm now going on self-ban again. Simply have too much to do. Will attempt to review the Vidar blog before discussing Acts again. Thanks for the various inputs.

spin · 05-02-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Of course I know that 'gut instinct' doesn't just magically happen. Some people are naturally more gifted at recognizing 'embellishment' and authenticity than others though, and it doesn't necessarily require familiarity with 'literature'. I don't believe in a cut and dried formula.

If you think you can divine embellishment, how do you know where it ends? What distinguishes embellishment from what is not, especially considering that you may be dealing with layers of embellishment? If you have ever worked with Wikipedia would you know where one editor's work ends and the previous editor's efforts start? If you look through the "history" of a Wiki article, you might see hundreds of editors having worked on the article. You will have no way of discerning any of them merely from the final text.

Epistemology reduces your claims of procedure to shreds. You just cannot know and your gut is practically useless for the task of textual analysis of the kind you would hope to do.

I am operating under the assumption that Acts was written by one person and is not like Wikipedia, although I'll allow for a few additions/changes along the way. I think this potentially ups the odds for making accurate BASIC conclusions -- ie it wasn't all made up, it was written in the 1st century, it was written by a companion of Paul type of stuff.. If in fact there were dozens of hands changing it over time that's a different matter of course.

I'm now going on self-ban again. Simply have too much to do. Will attempt to review the Vidar blog before discussing Acts again. Thanks for the various inputs.

Gone again... OK, I'll know in the future not to waste my time talking with TedM. Wild assumptions. Gut. Purely subjective probabilities.

andrewcriddle · 05-02-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

I don't see a problem other than what a super-skeptic would come up with.

At the end of the gospel of Luke, Jesus ascends. At the beginning of Acts, he sticks around for another 40 days to instruct his disciples on what they hadn't picked up when he was with them in the flesh.

Does it take a super skeptic to see the problem?

There is a textual issue here. Some important early manuscripts omit the ascension in Luke 24:51.

Andrew Criddle

Adam · 05-03-2013, 10:53 AM

Even more serious is that the
reconstructed text of Marcion ends after Luke 24:47.
Support for this ending comes from considering the concluding six verses as a redactor providing a summary here of Acts 1:2-14. In this he failed to mention the forty days, and he added the final "continually in the Temple praising God".

Thus only inerrantists need be worried about any conflict between Luke and Acts. There is no basis here for claiming that the author Luke was a bad historian and that any mistakes here argue against the historicity of the Resurrection.

Toto · 05-03-2013, 12:08 PM

The Resurrection was not a historical event.

There are other reasons for seeing that Luke did not intend to write history as we understand it.

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

05-02-2013, 12:01 AM	#52
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	so, spin, Now we see why you scrupulously avoid posting in my thread Significance of John because it brings in multiple top source-critical scholars to detect precisely such embellishments that you refuse to deal with.

05-02-2013, 12:20 AM	#54
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	shesh, I mean spin, uh....what's the use....

05-03-2013, 10:53 AM	#59
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Even more serious is that the reconstructed text of Marcion ends after Luke 24:47. Support for this ending comes from considering the concluding six verses as a redactor providing a summary here of Acts 1:2-14. In this he failed to mention the forty days, and he added the final "continually in the Temple praising God". Thus only inerrantists need be worried about any conflict between Luke and Acts. There is no basis here for claiming that the author Luke was a bad historian and that any mistakes here argue against the historicity of the Resurrection.

05-03-2013, 12:08 PM	#60
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Resurrection was not a historical event. There are other reasons for seeing that Luke did not intend to write history as we understand it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.