Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-28-2005, 10:35 PM | #41 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-29-2005, 04:43 AM | #42 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
11-29-2005, 05:33 AM | #43 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
|
Galatians 1.16 in which Paul states that god "was pleased to reveal his son IN me" is interesting.
Note "IN". Not "TO'', as appears in many versions of this verse but, apparently, should not be considered as valid a translation of the Gk. as "in". "In" suggests to me, and not being religious I find this difficult to express, some sort of mental conversion, intellectual/emotional decision....whatever. I suspect that such could occur over a period of time, a growing inner conviction and certainty that ...[insert Paul's beliefs]...is correct, true, THE truth. But "to'' can be interpreted as a outer vision....the shining light sort of thing as in Acts or perhaps an hallucination. So what I find interesting, particularly given the lack of consensus as to whether the author of Acts actually had access to the writings of Paul, is why did the author of Acts choose to describe Paul's conversion in terms of an experience, vision, that was also witnessed, with some variations in what they witnessed, by Paul's alleged companions? An external event compared to what Paul describes an an internal event. Elsewhere Paul describes his learning about JC as a "revelation" [Gal 1.12] I have no idea what Gk. this translates but note that a revelation need not necessarily imply an external, able to be seen by others, type event but can, again, be an internal /coming to a decision / ah now I understand type of thing. Also interesting are some comments that I have read along the way about the decision, by Bible editors, to translate ''en" in this context as "to'' rather than the more usual, valid "in". Presuming "in" is at least equally, or perhaps more, valid than "to'' why would these editors choose to go with "to"? So without looking elsewhere, eg 1Cor 15.8, at this stage I would suggest that the above does not constitute a claim by Paul that he saw JC at all. |
11-29-2005, 05:52 AM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
|
Quote:
|
|
11-29-2005, 07:41 AM | #45 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le
Posts: 8,446
|
Forgive me Zeichman, I assumed that you were a "standard christian"--a thing that seems to be a very rare bird in these parts. I have in the past restricted my arguments to the bible, because many christians won't accept non-biblical sources. Now it is my fate to be arguing someone who doesn't accept the bible. (sigh)
I confess that I am not sufficiently learned in early christian writings to argue with you on them, perhaps Sauron would be able to. My point of view is that the dominant form of christianity is the one to be argued against, and my cult based argument is designed for it. It is the dominant form of christianity, because it has the most powerful cult characteristics, so was able to crush the more reasonable christian sects, like the gnostics, and arianists and so forth. Anyhow, when I saw the title I assumed that the historical Jesus we were assuming to exist was the one described by the Gospels, and his disciples too, who are, of course, quite important to standard christianity. If anyone wishes to argue with me about that, I welcome it. Otherwise, I will bow out. I stand by my belief, however, that Jesus, if a real person, was nothing more than a cult leader. Proving that the gospels are later additions to earlier church traditions does nothing to contradict that assertion. Indeed, it strengthens it: If the historical Jesus existed, and his religion was completely crushed and obscured by a later, fabricated religion, why should we believe that it is the True religion? A true religion should be able to defeat any challenge, after all. |
11-29-2005, 08:45 AM | #46 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
It seems to me that Paul tacitly acknowledges that, even if he did not hold the reputation of the Pillars as significant, he is aware that at least some of his congregation did. Would you agree? |
|
11-29-2005, 10:03 AM | #47 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bootjack, CA
Posts: 2,065
|
Quote:
|
|
11-30-2005, 11:29 AM | #48 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, you're redirecting my original argument against something which I never sought to address. My argument, for the third time, is that not all of the significant events of the New Testament are far removed from Biblical authors, which you claimed in your initial post. Not the straw man which you have set up here. The deity of Jesus was never brought up, nor a Historical Jesus (which I certainly accept, but I know that many here, more educated than I contest, so I won't argue for it). Since it's becoming obvious that you aren't interested in having an actual debate, I'll stop replying to you until you come up with new arguments which address my concern. And I apologize for getting the thread way off topic. |
|||||||
11-30-2005, 01:11 PM | #49 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Quote:
This probably deserves its own thread but thanks for replying. |
||
11-30-2005, 05:36 PM | #50 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
Does the notion that, about 40 years after starting the movement, these men came to be depicted fools who did not actually understand Jesus cast doubt on Christianity? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|