It's not a claim per se; it's my perspective on it... which quite frankly, seems (as evidenced below) that you have very little (if any) real or honest interest in.
You've already made up your mind, and seem to have it all figured out already.
But here's the rub. You totally missed what I was even talking about. (But go ahead, feel free to blame me for failing to communicate it properly, and take no blame yourself for failing to see it. I'm sure it's not the first or last time I'll be accused like that.)
As I am not opposed to rational thinking based on material facts (and never said something as stupid or as silly as that.)
Evidently you missed this:
The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information. The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.
So what? There's far more agnostics than atheists, not to mention the many that think or claim to be Christian, that are still bound in their thinking to the limits of their physical senses.
If you really (i.e., more honestly) want scriptural support for examples of reasoning beyond the boundaries of the physical sense, some of the easier to grasp examples of it are probably found in the Pauline epistles. (Although, perhaps you - like others of note here at GSC - don't really recognize and consider those writing as being "scripture.")
For instance, what "material facts" do you think Paul used as a reasonable basis to conclude (Eph. 2:19) that these Gentiles at Ephesis (to who he was writing) were fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God? Or, for that matter, that Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25)?
Who are you to judge the honesty of my motives? That seems much more like a psychological defense mechanism on your part.
As if I need to blame you for failing to make your point clear? You seem to have read comments explaining the concept of communication previously. Your projection does the blaming all on its own, TUVM.
And at the top of your comment, if it's not a claim, you certainly expressed it in words as if you were making said claim. Are you really now telling us that you can't be bothered supporting that claim?
If you wanted legit discussion, it seems you'd have to at least demonstrate willingness to consider counterpoints rather than dismiss them out of hand. OTOH, that's why I asked you if you could back up your claim about basing judgments and decisions on something other than rational data.
I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption.
Kudos for trying to figure it out. Take the path of most persistence.
Like the resurrection, or Elisha and the giant magic invisible army, or Daniel and... everything about Daniel.
Recognizing a story as fictional resolves all contradictions without magically coming up with five crosses on the hill or Peter's six denials or Judas witnessing the ascension but then skipping out so the angels can call them Men of Galilee without being liars.
No one is obliged to investigate the topic of this thread, but if you are going to investigate it, you have two choices.
One is to follow the evidence where it leads, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
The other is to decide your conclusion before you begin and cherry pick the evidence you're going to believe because it conforms to the conclusion you decided to reach before you really investigated anything.
You can pray for guidance either way. God's not going to give you a scorpion if you ask for an egg, after all. Is he?
Who are you to think no one should question or challenge you?
Seriously? LOL. I didn't say anything about whether anyone should question or challenge me.
But I see what you did there. Nice deflection. Hoping you could get me to take your bait so all could be distracted from the question at hand, which is you questioning the honesty of my motives? Again, that seems more like a psychological defense mechanism than a cogent response to a legitimate challenge to your position on the question posed at the start of this thread.
One might get the idea that you can't form an argument on the points in question.
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Mine is not, nor can it be.
Can someone please offer advice on how ANYONE is supposed to have a reasonable discussion with someone who abandons FACTS as a mutually agreed upon premise?
Here's a much better debate. I'm not just saying that since I've done show with both individuals. In my opinion, they are the best debaters in the world for their side.
When I say the atheist was underprepared, what i mean is that he did not adequately challenge the Christian's premises.
Luke was not written by Luke, nor was it written by a companion of Paul, nor was it written by someone who interviewed eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Matt never challenges these assertions. That is when and why he loses.
Luke 1:1-4 never claims he interviewed eyewitnesses. And it is crucial that we realize how much he plagiarized Mark because he considered Mark a reliable source.
Mark was exceedingly unreliable
Mark would actually have you believe that Jesus traveled from Texas to Florida but, along the way, stopped in Chicago.
If Mark were relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses he would never quote Mark, with or without proper credit.
In the debate above, the Christian's point of view is demolished with the credibility of Luke.
Matt also fails to mention the degree to which Acts conflicts with Paul's letters in a way that is disqualifying: one of them is lying.
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Mine is not, nor can it be.
Can someone please offer advice on how ANYONE is supposed to have a reasonable discussion with someone who abandons FACTS as a mutually agreed upon premise?
Try and spin my words however you want, it doesn't change what is actually written there. My approach is not (as you purport it to be) an abandonment of facts. However, what it does do, is to allow for the addition of certain pertinent (and consistent), but invisible, information into the equation (i.e. the reasoning process.) Your systemic exclusion of which, leads to what (in computer terms) might be deemed an "unknown variable error."
Comparing Galatians to Acts, we learn that Paul and "Luke" did not agree with each other at all on what happened after Paul's conversion.
Paul insists that he was not taught the gospel by men.
Quote
Galatians 1: 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womband called meby his grace, was pleased16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,my immediate response was not to consult any human being.17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
This doesn't square with Acts at all. In Acts 9, Paul goes to Jerusalem days after his conversion. Not months. Not years. Days. (You might squeeze weeks into it, but not more than that). And Paul stays with the disciples.
Not so, according to Paul.
Quote
18 Then after three years,I went up to Jerusalemto get acquainted with Cephas[b]and stayed with him fifteen days.19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James,the Lord’s brother.20 I assure you before Godthat what I am writing you is no lie.
Well, someone's lying!
Is it Paul, who would have you believe he learned the gospel straight from Jesus? Or Luke, who at the least implies Paul was a student of the disciples before striking out on his own?
Because whoever you believe, the other one is a liar.
Unless you want to try to squeeze the three years of Galatians 1:18 into the "many days" of Acts 9:23. But if you can say "many days" = "three years," then you can say any general amount of time means any specific amount of time. Many days might mean weeks, if you're being charitable, but three years? That's just not honest.
Are we seriously to believe that Paul did not learn about the life of Jesus from the apostles?
What becomes clear when you realize Paul wrote before "Luke" is that Paul sets himself up as equal to the apostles, while the gospels combine with Acts to demonstrate he is a later addition to the Christian message, not an initiator. He is subject to James' council. He doesn't dictate to the 12 that he gets his revelation from God and therefore they should heed him. THEY, through James, tell PAUL what to do, where and when to do it, and how.
The writer of Acts puts Paul in his place, very much unlike Paul himself, who, while declaring himself least of the apostles, also makes it quite clear that he has a line of communication to God unmatched by the other apostles.
So what does this mean in context of our discussion?
Paul would have you believe he did not learn about the death and resurrection of Jesus, or its meaning, from men. He learned it all "from God" and "from scripture." Perhaps this is why Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb. Perhaps this is why he does not know Judas is dead by the time of the resurrection, so Jesus can be seen of The 12. Perhaps this is why Paul doesn't mention the women who saw Jesus first after the resurrection.
The "apostles" had not yet invented any of those stories when Paul was writing.
The first gospel, Mark, is compiled by a man whose knowledge of Palestinian geography is so laughably bad that even later gospel writers who plagiarized him still found it necessary to fix his blunders.
The next gospel, Matthew, copies so much of Mark that it is abundantly clear to any fair-minded person that it could not have been written by an eyewitness. What eyewitness plagiarizes someone who wasn't there?
We know Luke lied through his teeth about the Nativity, because the census he references didn't happen until Jesus would have been at least 8 or 9 years old. And Matthew and Luke provide us with Nativity narratives that conflict with each other in irreconcilable fashion -- meaning neither of these men got the account firsthand from witnesses. Secondhand, maybe. Thirdhand, more credibly. Made it up, probably.
John, whoever he is, comes along and invents stories that are so compelling that Jesus MUST be the Christ, raising but never answering the obvious question: why on EARTH would the other gospel writers have omitted these stories from their accounts? You mean to tell me that no other gospel writer found it noteworthy that Jesus raised a man from the dead after he had been buried four days? NONE of them? You're straining credibility here!
See, that's the thing about making up stories and placing them in verifiable history: the more fantastic the story, the less likely the event or character is to have gone unnoticed by history.
Take Daniel, for instance. Here we have a book that blends fiction with actual history. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, actually existed. History records a lot about him. Which means the writer of Daniel, who came along a few hundred years later, needs to be careful about what he makes up. You can't have him lose his mind and eat, sleep and live in the field with cattle, because history has a tendency to record s#!t like that when kings go mad. Ask George III. And you can't make Daniel SO charismatic that he becomes one of only three head administrators of the Persian empire. Because history has a tendency to record those names. And they are recorded. And it wasn't Daniel (or his Biblical alias).
When your fiction becomes too grand, it becomes impossible to pass off as history. Like the Exodus. Egyptians did a real good job of recording their history. Losing a couple of million slaves and their families soon after the firstborn of every family, livestock included, die of mysterious causes on the same night... that never happened to Egypt.
Jesus is an interesting character, for sure, but it's hard to say his fame spread throughout the land AND, at the same time, argue that one would not have expected him to be noticed by the historians of the day, who recognized and mentioned oodles of claims to the title of Messiah. In Palestine. Missed the real deal, even after a few thousand people converted to his new faith in a single day.
This is not credible. When you make huge claims, you need huge evidence to support them. Or at least SOME evidence. Conflicting accounts from people who were not in a position to know and who get verifiable facts wrong don't amount to a hill of beans as evidence, especially for an extraordinary claim like the resurrection.
Is it Paul, who would have you believe he learned the gospel straight from Jesus? Or Luke, who at the least implies Paul was a student of the disciples before striking out on his own?
Because whoever you believe, the other one is a liar.
I disagree, not merely because there is no clear time table set forth for it, but for all of the following:
Where was Paul first direct to, to receive his instructions? Damascus. Acts 22:10, and then 14-16.
Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion and visit to Damascus? Yes. Acts 9:26.
When was it? Well, it just doesn't say. Might have been days, or it could possibly have been three years.
In either case, it was well after verse 22.... as if Paul needed to learn anything about who Christ was !!!
Was it to "see the apostles" and/or learn from them? No. It doesn't actually say that. He went there to ""join himself to the disciples" (Acts 9:26) and to testify to fellow Jews (Acts 22:17-20.)
Who brought him to the apostles while he was there? Barnabas. Acts 9:27. (There no indication here that Paul had any specific need or interest in seeing them.)
Did he ask questions of the apostles, to learn of or from them? No, there's no mention or indication of that.
Then, what was discussed with the apostles concerning Paul while he was there? Evidently Barnabas did all (or most of) the talking. Acts 9:27.
Then, what was Paul doing while he was there in Jerusalem (shortly after his conversion)? Disputing the Grecians. Acts 9:29.
Considering that Galatians does speak of Paul going there 3 years after his conversion and his time in Arabia to see Peter (but not the other apostles), it does seem possible that the above all happened prior to his time spent in Arabia. Galatians is focused on how or where he learned this "gospel of Christ," and as none of it was learned in Jerusalem from the other apostles, and it only surfaced AFTER his time in Arabia (it was NOT preached in Damascus in the early few days immediately after his conversion), it is not surprising that the message to the Galatians skips straight to how and where this gospel of grace was first introduced to Paul (i.e., whilst he was in Arabia. Quite likely, on or near the same mountain Moses received the law... but that - of course - is speculative.)
Consequently, I see nothing in Galatians that directly contradicts any of what is written in Acts.
You do not accept facts as a common ground from which we can compare notes. You are dismissed. Thank you for playing.
If "many days" is a euphemism for "three years," then any generality is a synonym for any specificity. That's not honest.
But you COULD see a contradiction and still deny it because you deny facts as a common ground from which we can draw conclusions. It is POINTLESS to debate with someone who puts "facts" in quotes when they are inconvenient for his predetermined conclusion.
Because if you think Paul met with the apostles shortly after his conversion and did not discuss the life, teachings and doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, and that explains the obvious discrepancy between Galatians and Acts, you're gullible as a toddler who really thinks I got his nose.
But anyway, you can say what you want about my insidious spin, but you are the one in this discussion who actually came out against facts. So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to cast aspersions.
I submit that what you need to do is ask yourself, what is the most reasonable explanation for the set of facts presented?
Is it
a. When Luke said "many days," he meant more than 1,000.
b. Paul was knocked off his horse by Jesus Christ himself, received a life changing revelation, went to Jerusalem, met with the actual apostles who actually walked with Jesus... and showed no interest in talking to them about his life, his teachings, or the details surrounding the resurrection. [Later add: This would also entail the apostles being completely uninterested in discussing anything with Paul, who just "many days" earlier was persecuting the church and, at least, standing idly by while their brothers in Christ were being stoned to death. No one wanted to question him. They took Barnabas' word for it. They had him right in front of them, but saw no point in quizzing him about the gospel he learned from God to see if it squared with what they learned from Jesus Christ himself].
c. Paul lied or was in error when he said he did not go to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles.
d. Luke lied or was in error when he said Paul met the apostles at the onset of his ministry.
Which is the most likely?
No doubt someone can think of an e. f. and g.
Personally, I don't find it necessary, but feel free.
a. and b. defy reason. They are the kinds of answers you'd come up with if you were determined to find no error or contradiction, facts be damned. You can insist they are plausible and call me names for pointing out their absurdity, but it's hard to take you seriously if you believe them.
c. and d. are equally plausible. Mistakes are easy, but lies need a motive. Two plausible motives come to mind. Paul wanted everyone to know he got his revelation straight from God. He could be expected to downplay any interaction he had with the apostles.
Luke would have the opposite motive: to show that Paul didn't lock himself in a room and manufacture the gospel. To demonstrate that Paul learned about Jesus from the apostles, you need a story that puts them in the same room. Luke gives us that story.
The problem is, why doesn't Paul want us to know this? Paul would have us believe he was so tight with God that he got the gospel without having to talk to the apostles.
Either way one of these guys is, to put it charitably, wrong. But each has such a good reason to be wrong that it's hard to imagine it's an accident. Someone's lying.
Try and spin my words however you want, it doesn't change what is actually written there. My approach is not (as you purport it to be) an abandonment of facts. However, what it does do, is to allow for the addition of certain pertinent (and consistent), but invisible, information into the equation (i.e. the reasoning process.) Your systemic exclusion of which, leads to what (in computer terms) might be deemed an "unknown variable error."
And just how is that "certain pertinent, invisible information" which you add to the equation supposed to be evaluated for consistency -- especially when what one person who abandons the premise related to factual information -- is NOT consistent with various other persons?
Against what is said information supposed to be evaluated?
5 hours ago, TLC said:
My posts are (obviously) of no use or benefit to you, but I trust others that might read here can see through your insidious spin on them.
What spin might that be? Please be as specific as possible.
I am in love with the idea of invisible information.
This is $#!t you get to make up and attribute to God even though God could easily have said it but didn't. It's a mystery. You have to take it on faith.
None dare call it Horse$hit.
More seriously, though: It is false that I do not accept "pertinent" additional information. Speculation is fair. Extrapolation is fair. The reasoning process is fair.
What's not fair is making $#!t up to pretend the conflicting accounts are in harmony when they are not. Peter denying Christ six times when each gospel says three. That's not reasonable. That's grasping at straws. Five crosses on the hill when each gospel says three is not reasonable. It's grasping at straws.
Reasonable is when you say Christ died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday, and the Thursday sabbath was a high holy day, not the weekly sabbath. It's consistent with the facts and it does seem to fit together.
There's nothing wrong with learning from history or other sources and incorporating that knowledge into your analysis of the scripture. What's wrong is making up excuses because without them your thesis of inerrancy falls apart. What's wrong is bolstering the reliability of one book because you need it to be accurate, even when the actual subject of that book has left behind his own testimony that its account is incorrect.
That's just dishonest. It's not "pertinent invisible information." It's a cheap excuse that might as well be signed by Epstein's mother for all its reliability.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Rocky
Who are you to judge the honesty of my motives? That seems much more like a psychological defense mechanism on your part.
As if I need to blame you for failing to make your point clear? You seem to have read comments explaining the concept of communication previously. Your projection does the blaming all on its own, TUVM.
And at the top of your comment, if it's not a claim, you certainly expressed it in words as if you were making said claim. Are you really now telling us that you can't be bothered supporting that claim?
If you wanted legit discussion, it seems you'd have to at least demonstrate willingness to consider counterpoints rather than dismiss them out of hand. OTOH, that's why I asked you if you could back up your claim about basing judgments and decisions on something other than rational data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's a freakin' STORY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Kudos for trying to figure it out. Take the path of most persistence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Kind of my point.
Like the resurrection, or Elisha and the giant magic invisible army, or Daniel and... everything about Daniel.
Recognizing a story as fictional resolves all contradictions without magically coming up with five crosses on the hill or Peter's six denials or Judas witnessing the ascension but then skipping out so the angels can call them Men of Galilee without being liars.
No one is obliged to investigate the topic of this thread, but if you are going to investigate it, you have two choices.
One is to follow the evidence where it leads, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
The other is to decide your conclusion before you begin and cherry pick the evidence you're going to believe because it conforms to the conclusion you decided to reach before you really investigated anything.
You can pray for guidance either way. God's not going to give you a scorpion if you ask for an egg, after all. Is he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Who are you to think no one should question or challenge you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Seriously? LOL. I didn't say anything about whether anyone should question or challenge me.
Edited by RockyBut I see what you did there. Nice deflection. Hoping you could get me to take your bait so all could be distracted from the question at hand, which is you questioning the honesty of my motives? Again, that seems more like a psychological defense mechanism than a cogent response to a legitimate challenge to your position on the question posed at the start of this thread.
One might get the idea that you can't form an argument on the points in question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ya think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can someone please offer advice on how ANYONE is supposed to have a reasonable discussion with someone who abandons FACTS as a mutually agreed upon premise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How Moody of you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
Here's a much better debate. I'm not just saying that since I've done show with both individuals. In my opinion, they are the best debaters in the world for their side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nice video. I give the win to the Christian. I think the atheist was underprepared.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When I say the atheist was underprepared, what i mean is that he did not adequately challenge the Christian's premises.
Luke was not written by Luke, nor was it written by a companion of Paul, nor was it written by someone who interviewed eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Matt never challenges these assertions. That is when and why he loses.
Luke 1:1-4 never claims he interviewed eyewitnesses. And it is crucial that we realize how much he plagiarized Mark because he considered Mark a reliable source.
Mark was exceedingly unreliable
Mark would actually have you believe that Jesus traveled from Texas to Florida but, along the way, stopped in Chicago.
If Mark were relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses he would never quote Mark, with or without proper credit.
In the debate above, the Christian's point of view is demolished with the credibility of Luke.
Matt also fails to mention the degree to which Acts conflicts with Paul's letters in a way that is disqualifying: one of them is lying.
More later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Try and spin my words however you want, it doesn't change what is actually written there. My approach is not (as you purport it to be) an abandonment of facts. However, what it does do, is to allow for the addition of certain pertinent (and consistent), but invisible, information into the equation (i.e. the reasoning process.) Your systemic exclusion of which, leads to what (in computer terms) might be deemed an "unknown variable error."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You don't accept facts as an agreed upon common ground. You are dismissed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Comparing Galatians to Acts, we learn that Paul and "Luke" did not agree with each other at all on what happened after Paul's conversion.
Paul insists that he was not taught the gospel by men.
This doesn't square with Acts at all. In Acts 9, Paul goes to Jerusalem days after his conversion. Not months. Not years. Days. (You might squeeze weeks into it, but not more than that). And Paul stays with the disciples.
Not so, according to Paul.
Well, someone's lying!
Is it Paul, who would have you believe he learned the gospel straight from Jesus? Or Luke, who at the least implies Paul was a student of the disciples before striking out on his own?
Because whoever you believe, the other one is a liar.
Unless you want to try to squeeze the three years of Galatians 1:18 into the "many days" of Acts 9:23. But if you can say "many days" = "three years," then you can say any general amount of time means any specific amount of time. Many days might mean weeks, if you're being charitable, but three years? That's just not honest.
Are we seriously to believe that Paul did not learn about the life of Jesus from the apostles?
What becomes clear when you realize Paul wrote before "Luke" is that Paul sets himself up as equal to the apostles, while the gospels combine with Acts to demonstrate he is a later addition to the Christian message, not an initiator. He is subject to James' council. He doesn't dictate to the 12 that he gets his revelation from God and therefore they should heed him. THEY, through James, tell PAUL what to do, where and when to do it, and how.
The writer of Acts puts Paul in his place, very much unlike Paul himself, who, while declaring himself least of the apostles, also makes it quite clear that he has a line of communication to God unmatched by the other apostles.
So what does this mean in context of our discussion?
Paul would have you believe he did not learn about the death and resurrection of Jesus, or its meaning, from men. He learned it all "from God" and "from scripture." Perhaps this is why Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb. Perhaps this is why he does not know Judas is dead by the time of the resurrection, so Jesus can be seen of The 12. Perhaps this is why Paul doesn't mention the women who saw Jesus first after the resurrection.
The "apostles" had not yet invented any of those stories when Paul was writing.
The first gospel, Mark, is compiled by a man whose knowledge of Palestinian geography is so laughably bad that even later gospel writers who plagiarized him still found it necessary to fix his blunders.
The next gospel, Matthew, copies so much of Mark that it is abundantly clear to any fair-minded person that it could not have been written by an eyewitness. What eyewitness plagiarizes someone who wasn't there?
We know Luke lied through his teeth about the Nativity, because the census he references didn't happen until Jesus would have been at least 8 or 9 years old. And Matthew and Luke provide us with Nativity narratives that conflict with each other in irreconcilable fashion -- meaning neither of these men got the account firsthand from witnesses. Secondhand, maybe. Thirdhand, more credibly. Made it up, probably.
John, whoever he is, comes along and invents stories that are so compelling that Jesus MUST be the Christ, raising but never answering the obvious question: why on EARTH would the other gospel writers have omitted these stories from their accounts? You mean to tell me that no other gospel writer found it noteworthy that Jesus raised a man from the dead after he had been buried four days? NONE of them? You're straining credibility here!
See, that's the thing about making up stories and placing them in verifiable history: the more fantastic the story, the less likely the event or character is to have gone unnoticed by history.
Take Daniel, for instance. Here we have a book that blends fiction with actual history. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, actually existed. History records a lot about him. Which means the writer of Daniel, who came along a few hundred years later, needs to be careful about what he makes up. You can't have him lose his mind and eat, sleep and live in the field with cattle, because history has a tendency to record s#!t like that when kings go mad. Ask George III. And you can't make Daniel SO charismatic that he becomes one of only three head administrators of the Persian empire. Because history has a tendency to record those names. And they are recorded. And it wasn't Daniel (or his Biblical alias).
When your fiction becomes too grand, it becomes impossible to pass off as history. Like the Exodus. Egyptians did a real good job of recording their history. Losing a couple of million slaves and their families soon after the firstborn of every family, livestock included, die of mysterious causes on the same night... that never happened to Egypt.
Jesus is an interesting character, for sure, but it's hard to say his fame spread throughout the land AND, at the same time, argue that one would not have expected him to be noticed by the historians of the day, who recognized and mentioned oodles of claims to the title of Messiah. In Palestine. Missed the real deal, even after a few thousand people converted to his new faith in a single day.
This is not credible. When you make huge claims, you need huge evidence to support them. Or at least SOME evidence. Conflicting accounts from people who were not in a position to know and who get verifiable facts wrong don't amount to a hill of beans as evidence, especially for an extraordinary claim like the resurrection.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I disagree, not merely because there is no clear time table set forth for it, but for all of the following:
Where was Paul first direct to, to receive his instructions? Damascus. Acts 22:10, and then 14-16.
Did Paul go to Jerusalem after his conversion and visit to Damascus? Yes. Acts 9:26.
When was it? Well, it just doesn't say. Might have been days, or it could possibly have been three years.
In either case, it was well after verse 22.... as if Paul needed to learn anything about who Christ was !!!
Was it to "see the apostles" and/or learn from them? No. It doesn't actually say that. He went there to ""join himself to the disciples" (Acts 9:26) and to testify to fellow Jews (Acts 22:17-20.)
Who brought him to the apostles while he was there? Barnabas. Acts 9:27. (There no indication here that Paul had any specific need or interest in seeing them.)
Did he ask questions of the apostles, to learn of or from them? No, there's no mention or indication of that.
Then, what was discussed with the apostles concerning Paul while he was there? Evidently Barnabas did all (or most of) the talking. Acts 9:27.
Then, what was Paul doing while he was there in Jerusalem (shortly after his conversion)? Disputing the Grecians. Acts 9:29.
Considering that Galatians does speak of Paul going there 3 years after his conversion and his time in Arabia to see Peter (but not the other apostles), it does seem possible that the above all happened prior to his time spent in Arabia. Galatians is focused on how or where he learned this "gospel of Christ," and as none of it was learned in Jerusalem from the other apostles, and it only surfaced AFTER his time in Arabia (it was NOT preached in Damascus in the early few days immediately after his conversion), it is not surprising that the message to the Galatians skips straight to how and where this gospel of grace was first introduced to Paul (i.e., whilst he was in Arabia. Quite likely, on or near the same mountain Moses received the law... but that - of course - is speculative.)
Consequently, I see nothing in Galatians that directly contradicts any of what is written in Acts.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You do not accept facts as a common ground from which we can compare notes. You are dismissed. Thank you for playing.
If "many days" is a euphemism for "three years," then any generality is a synonym for any specificity. That's not honest.
But you COULD see a contradiction and still deny it because you deny facts as a common ground from which we can draw conclusions. It is POINTLESS to debate with someone who puts "facts" in quotes when they are inconvenient for his predetermined conclusion.
Send someone whose debate tactics are honest.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
My posts are (obviously) of no use or benefit to you, but I trust others that might read here can see through your insidious spin on them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Only if they're REALLY gullible.
Because if you think Paul met with the apostles shortly after his conversion and did not discuss the life, teachings and doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, and that explains the obvious discrepancy between Galatians and Acts, you're gullible as a toddler who really thinks I got his nose.
But anyway, you can say what you want about my insidious spin, but you are the one in this discussion who actually came out against facts. So if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to cast aspersions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I submit that what you need to do is ask yourself, what is the most reasonable explanation for the set of facts presented?
Is it
a. When Luke said "many days," he meant more than 1,000.
b. Paul was knocked off his horse by Jesus Christ himself, received a life changing revelation, went to Jerusalem, met with the actual apostles who actually walked with Jesus... and showed no interest in talking to them about his life, his teachings, or the details surrounding the resurrection. [Later add: This would also entail the apostles being completely uninterested in discussing anything with Paul, who just "many days" earlier was persecuting the church and, at least, standing idly by while their brothers in Christ were being stoned to death. No one wanted to question him. They took Barnabas' word for it. They had him right in front of them, but saw no point in quizzing him about the gospel he learned from God to see if it squared with what they learned from Jesus Christ himself].
c. Paul lied or was in error when he said he did not go to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles.
d. Luke lied or was in error when he said Paul met the apostles at the onset of his ministry.
Which is the most likely?
No doubt someone can think of an e. f. and g.
Personally, I don't find it necessary, but feel free.
a. and b. defy reason. They are the kinds of answers you'd come up with if you were determined to find no error or contradiction, facts be damned. You can insist they are plausible and call me names for pointing out their absurdity, but it's hard to take you seriously if you believe them.
c. and d. are equally plausible. Mistakes are easy, but lies need a motive. Two plausible motives come to mind. Paul wanted everyone to know he got his revelation straight from God. He could be expected to downplay any interaction he had with the apostles.
Luke would have the opposite motive: to show that Paul didn't lock himself in a room and manufacture the gospel. To demonstrate that Paul learned about Jesus from the apostles, you need a story that puts them in the same room. Luke gives us that story.
The problem is, why doesn't Paul want us to know this? Paul would have us believe he was so tight with God that he got the gospel without having to talk to the apostles.
Either way one of these guys is, to put it charitably, wrong. But each has such a good reason to be wrong that it's hard to imagine it's an accident. Someone's lying.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And just how is that "certain pertinent, invisible information" which you add to the equation supposed to be evaluated for consistency -- especially when what one person who abandons the premise related to factual information -- is NOT consistent with various other persons?
Against what is said information supposed to be evaluated?
What spin might that be? Please be as specific as possible.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am in love with the idea of invisible information.
This is $#!t you get to make up and attribute to God even though God could easily have said it but didn't. It's a mystery. You have to take it on faith.
None dare call it Horse$hit.
More seriously, though: It is false that I do not accept "pertinent" additional information. Speculation is fair. Extrapolation is fair. The reasoning process is fair.
What's not fair is making $#!t up to pretend the conflicting accounts are in harmony when they are not. Peter denying Christ six times when each gospel says three. That's not reasonable. That's grasping at straws. Five crosses on the hill when each gospel says three is not reasonable. It's grasping at straws.
Reasonable is when you say Christ died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday, and the Thursday sabbath was a high holy day, not the weekly sabbath. It's consistent with the facts and it does seem to fit together.
There's nothing wrong with learning from history or other sources and incorporating that knowledge into your analysis of the scripture. What's wrong is making up excuses because without them your thesis of inerrancy falls apart. What's wrong is bolstering the reliability of one book because you need it to be accurate, even when the actual subject of that book has left behind his own testimony that its account is incorrect.
That's just dishonest. It's not "pertinent invisible information." It's a cheap excuse that might as well be signed by Epstein's mother for all its reliability.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.