Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Resume]

So are you saying Paul (who used to persecute Christians and approve of their deaths) purposely lied in the letter and then went out continuing to risk his life and getting beat up preaching high morality and deep spirituality?

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

Will he go 'round in circles?

Yes, yes he will.

 

[Akhenaten]

"He says it in a letter to his Greek followers in Corinth. He doesn't say it in the streets of Jerusalem"...

So are you saying Paul (who used to persecute Christians and approve of their deaths) purposely lied in the letter and then went out continuing to risk his life and getting beat up preaching high morality and deep spirituality?

Sounds just like David Koresh, doesn't it?

Anyway, DOC, where's your extra biblical evidence for all this stuff happening?

 

[joobz]

[snip argument based upon story in bible]

[snip argument based upon bible story]

DOC, would you answer my question below. It will help explain:
1.) Your understanding of logic.
2.) Why you use the bible to justify the bible.

Ok, DOC. I shall assume you are telling the truth regarding your A in Philosophy 101. I shall also assume that you performed "A" quality work in the logic segment of the course.

Now, DOC, I ask you to apply the logic that was taught in this course to my following question. I do not ask for your opinion or slant, but rather a cold analytic detachment of what your lessons in logic would conclude, ok?


Do you believe a document that has some verifiable truthful statements is logically sound evidence that other statements in the same document are true?

Please justify your position using the material taught to you in your logic class.

 

[Akhenaten]

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

Why don't you try arguing that the idea of the witch's house in Hansel and Gretel being made out of candy is actually a translation error and it was really made out of bacon and this proves that the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood was actually a dingo?

At least that would be more entertaining than your endlessly repetitive yarping about the bible being evidence for itself.

 

[Akhenaten]

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

I prefer Fluffy's Lolcat Translation of the episode.

Acts 9:2-9

³As he wuz on teh way to Damascus, all of suddens lite appear! Lite frum Ceiling, zomg!

⁴Saul gotz skeerd so he fells to ground and Ceiling Cat speekz. "Saul, wtf, why u hurtz me?"

⁵"Who is u?", Saul asks.

⁶Ceiling Cat sez, "I iz Jebus, ftw! And u iz hurting me an my peeps. u must go to teh city, u will getz instrukshunz der."

⁷Teh othur guiz Saul waz travlins wit were like, "Um k, wtf?", cuz they hurd Ceiling Cat but din't see Him.

⁸Saul got up from teh gwound but he reelize that he culdn't see nuthing cuz crazie lite mades him blind. So teh othur guiz helped Saul gets rest of wai to Damascus.

⁹Saul blind for free days, and during dese days he not drink or eats foodz. Not even cheezburger!​

​

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

The lesson I get from the story is that rolling up a little number out of some strange weed or other that one encounters on a middle eastern back road and bogarting the whole thing is totally Not A Good Idea.

 

[pakeha]

^
Nominated for pith.

So are you saying Paul (who used to persecute Christians and approve of their deaths) purposely lied in the letter and then went out continuing to risk his life and getting beat up preaching high morality and deep spirituality?

Oh, DOC, I'm sorry to be so unclear. That comment wasn't mine, it's Craig B's!

...He says it in a letter to his Greek followers in Corinth. He doesn't say it in the streets of Jerusalem. When he does say things there, by the way, the people of Jerusalem try to lynch him, and he has to be rescued by the Romans.

Deep spirituality?
Paul?

So are you saying Paul ... purposely lied in the letter and then went out continuing to risk his life and getting beat up preaching high morality and deep spirituality?

No, I'm not saying Paul preached high morality and deep spirituality.

 

[Akhenaten]

Cheers, mate.

 

[ddt]

So are you saying Paul (who used to persecute Christians and approve of their deaths) purposely lied in the letter and then went out continuing to risk his life and getting beat up preaching high morality and deep spirituality?

High morality? We're talking about the same Paul who argued, in Romans 13, that you should betray the Jews hiding in your basement to the Gestapo? it's funny how all the Christians fall awfully silent and fail to answer whenever I put forward that example.

 

[pakeha]

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

Possibly, though later Act 22:9 has Paul himself say:
"...And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. "

And he says that in Jerusalem, no less.
I'm off to check references to this apparent confusion in Paul's memories of his conversion.

 

[pakeha]

Since DOC uses Young for the Acts 9:7 passage here it is for the 22:7-9 passage

7 I fell also to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute? 8 `And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? and he said unto me, I am Jesus the Nazarene whom thou dost persecute -- 9 and they who are with me the light did see, and became afraid, and the voice they heard not of him who is speaking to me --

Whose version are we to believe, DOC?

 

[Craig B]

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

Depends which statement by Paul you pick. It most certainly is far from being "perfectly clear"! In which of the following is Acts (written by a Great Historian, remember) speaking the truth? For it is contradicted by the other one. Moreover, I bet you know about this notorious discrepancy; you should not offer one passage as evidence when you know another one contradicts it. Reading the two passages, one must conclude they're both garbled, and Acts isn't a sufficiently trustworthy source to induce us to believe that a miraculous event occurred. I'll deal with the question of Paul's general truthfulness later.

‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ He asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The reply came, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what to do.’ The men who were travelling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.[Acts 9:3-8 (NRSV)]

I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” I answered, “Who are you, Lord?” Then he said to me, “I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.” Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.[Acts 22:6-11 (NRSV)]

 

[zooterkin]

High morality? We're talking about the same Paul who argued, in Romans 13, that you should betray the Jews hiding in your basement to the Gestapo? it's funny how all the Christians fall awfully silent and fail to answer whenever I put forward that example.

Good one. In DOC's (selectively) favoured Young's Literal Translation, this is:

Romans 13
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

1 Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God,
2 so that he who is setting himself against the authority, against God's ordinance hath resisted; and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment.
3 For those ruling are not a terror to the good works, but to the evil; and dost thou wish not to be afraid of the authority? that which is good be doing, and thou shalt have praise from it,
4 for of God it is a ministrant to thee for good; and if that which is evil thou mayest do, be fearing, for not in vain doth it bear the sword; for of God it is a ministrant, an avenger for wrath to him who is doing that which is evil.
5 Wherefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of the wrath, but also because of the conscience,
6 for because of this also pay ye tribute; for servants of God they are, on this very thing attending continually;
7 render, therefore, to all [their] dues; to whom tribute, the tribute; to whom custom, the custom; to whom fear, the fear; to whom honour, the honour.

Now, the question this raises for me is this; what is this Literal Translation being translated into? Clearly not contemporary English; who uses 'hath', 'ye', 'mayest' or (outside Yorkshire) 'thee' these days? What is the value of using a version which still has to be translated in order to be understood by most people?

 

[Craig B]

Ah, yes, Romans 13. If Paul was indeed executed during the alleged persecution of Christians by Nero, I wonder if he mulled over these words, and possibly repented of them, as he saw the executioner approach:

1 Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God.

 

[DOC]

DOC, would you answer my question below. It will help explain:
1.) Your understanding of logic.
2.) Why you use the bible to justify the bible.

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does. Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

----

The New Testament was authored by 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible. Their writings can be considered historical evidence. You then use that historical evidence along with other factors, other evidence, and other considerations to make conclusions. That's what historians and apologists do.

 

[ddt]

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does. Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly"

----

The New Testament contains writings of 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible. Their writings can be considered historical evidence. You then use that historical evidence along with other factors, other evidence, and other considerations to make conclusions. That's what historians do.

And those writings are evidence of what, beyond the fact that they were written? They aren't any more evidence of the existence of Jesus - to name one thing - than that the writings of J.K. Rowling are evidence of the existence of Harry Potter.

 

[Akhenaten]

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does.

You use the bible as evidence for itself. You know this to be ridiculously fallacious and yet you keep doing it in post after post for year after year.

Are you aware at any level what this says about your ability to present a cogent argument?

Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly"

We know. So what?

The New Testament contains writings of 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible.

Their writings can be considered historical evidence.

Not all on their own they can't. How many times do you estimate that you've been told this?

You then use that historical evidence along with other factors and considerations to make conclusions.

What other factors? The ones you've been failing to produce for all these years?

That's what historians do.

You have no idea what historians do.

 

[Akhenaten]

I use the bible as historical evidence.

Let's see you use it to explain the discrepancies in the story of Paul's psychotic episode as it appears in Acts 9 and Acts 22.

 

[Akhenaten]

Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly."

What does he say on the pages that follow that?

 

[TimCallahan]

I use the bible as historical evidence just as Bart Ehrman does. Bart Ehrman said this on page 73 of his book "Did Jesus Exist?"

"To dismiss the gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly"

----

It's also far from scholarly to accept them uncritically, particularly when they often disagree with each other.

The New Testament contains writings of 8 or 9 writers---including Luke who has been called a great historian---who had no idea their writings would end up in something called the bible. Their writings can be considered historical evidence. You then use that historical evidence along with other factors and considerations to make conclusions. That's what historians do.

These writings are certainly not historical on a number of points, where they even disagree with each other. Here are a few examples:

1) Matthew and Luke disagree on almost every particular in the Nativity.

2) John disagrees with the Synoptic gospels as to when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

3) Mark and Luke disagree as to whether both thieves on the cross reviled Jesus, or whether one reviled him while the other adored him.

4) There is complete disagreement between all four gospels and 1 Corinthians as to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.

 

[DOC]

Depends which statement by Paul you pick. It most certainly is far from being "perfectly clear"! In which of the following is Acts (written by a Great Historian, remember) speaking the truth? For it is contradicted by the other one. Moreover, I bet you know about this notorious discrepancy; you should not offer one passage as evidence when you know another one contradicts it. Reading the two passages, one must conclude they're both garbled, and Acts isn't a sufficiently trustworthy source to induce us to believe that a miraculous event occurred. I'll deal with the question of Paul's general truthfulness later.

I've been over this before. I'll repeat it as time permits.