Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!
Collapse
X
-
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Those modern incidents are not quite the same thing as what Paul was engaged upon.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Of course you can't say anything else without having to admit that you're talking out of your rear facing bodily orifice.
Anyone but a fool would recognise that."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
The situations in present day China or some Middle Eastern countries are entirely different from the situation in the eastern Roman empire in the mid first century CE
Anyone but a fool would recognise that.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Sorry, you don't get this one for free. You'll need to explain precisely how the persecution suffered by Christians today is meaningfully different from the persecution suffered by Christians in the first century.
However, to the matter in hand. Our exchange has been specifically about Paul and your contentions that he was "persecuted".
Paul lived some two thousand years ago and in a polytheistic society. His imprisonment and physical chastisements arose, not from his beliefs, but from his insistence on intentionally promoting those beliefs among the communities of a recognised religion [Judaism].
That behaviour on his part understandably led to members of those communities exhibiting antagonism and hostility towards him and this appears to have sometimes led to violent clashes between individuals from those Jewish communities and others who supported his beliefs. Such disturbances would have been dealt with by the Roman authorities. Paul would therefore have been viewed by the leaders of those Jewish communities and the civic authorities as an agitator who was deliberately provoking trouble and dissent among and between communities. As such he would have been considered as a nuisance with regard to the peace and public order of the particular city.
That has no bearing whatsoever on people being intentionally singled out and imprisoned, threatened, harassed or oppressed by regimes and governments solely for their beliefsLast edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 04-12-2023, 05:08 AM."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
What "fold"? Why did Israel and the Jews need to be reconciled to their deity? What you are suggesting is that the Jews accept the Pauline gospel.
He never actually calls himself ιουδαιος. He may have been Jewish but he never uses that particular Greek word in reference to himself, it is possible he came from a family of converts [as did Herod the Great].
However, he was evidently dissatisfied with the Jewish faith considering it inadequate with reference to sin and individual salvation, and he perceived the crucifixion of Jesus as an event that had completely altered the world and its destiny. In that regard he would have been considered as a heretic by many Jews.
Robert H. Eisenman 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, 133-134; note 37: 169-170 note35pp195-196
Paul is indistinguishable from Pharisaic teachers like Hillel and Shammai, R' Yohanan b. Zacchai, and Simeon b. Shetach of an earlier era -- all recommending a policy of accommodation with Romans and other foreigners; cf. Paul in Romans 13:1ff.
Similar attitudes are reflected on at least one occasion by an Old Testament prophet.
That scene is found only in Acts and is apologetical to reinforce the ideas of Paul that dietary rules as laid down in the Mosaic Law no longer apply.
Both Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea refer to the people recognising James’ righteousness or holiness. And Jerome refers to the tradition of his great holiness. This would appear to indicate that James was a scrupulously observant Jew including his observance of kashrut.
The men who had known the man you and I call Jesus of Nazareth were not promoting Christianity. These were members of a Jewish messianic sect and [like their leader] they kept the Law and were observant Jews.
At this period Jewish legal teaching was still fluid and in the Sabbath debates in the gospels most of them revolve around healing the sick. The Hebrew injunction “You shall keep my statutes...by which a man shall live” was interpreted to mean that observance of the Torah should not lead to death.
And what evidence do you use that is not from Christian sources?
Given we have no extraneous independent sources about the early decades of your religion, “to determine the facts” is a remarkable feat.
Really? How do you go about identifying an unrecognised preconception?
The purpose of these texts is Christian apologetics composed in the form of a dramatic narrative with some feasibly accurate descriptions of Roman provincial government, and the inclusion of some probable actual events. I would add that any historical novel can do likewise.
Acts chapter seventeen:
But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there, too, to stir up and incite the crowds. 14 Then the brothers and sisters immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind.
I Thessalonians chapter three:
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we decided to be left alone in Athens 2 and sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker
It is also odd that Paul omits to mention the incident in Beroea in his epistle.
Was the author of Acts a historian as we understand that term? Where are his inquiries?[/quote]
No-one of the time, seemingly, meets the definition of "historian" by current standards. Whether Luke was an historian in his own time, according to the standards understood his immediate audience, is a matter of whether taking the conventions and standards of his own time can be considered relevant.
Paul was self evidently very arrogant and would countenance no contradictions. His was the true gospel and everyone else was wrong.
However, again this is the attitude one finds in cult leaders.
A few sentences in a few letters can be considered so. They reflect very closely the attitudes displayed in half the content of your own posts.
[quote]The author never claims he is a companion. The employment of the term “we” occurs in parts of the text but it is equally possible that this is deliberately used used to heighten the dramatic effect.
The work contains some events that cannot be considered factual and the author does not investigate these incidents or make any inquiry
No it was not. [FONT=Helvetica]These narratives are very carefully structured for dramatic effect . We have there and back again travel accounts and sections that concentrate on persecutions [as in chapters 3-7]. The narrative ends in Rome suggesting by implication that Jerusalem is no longer of great significance and the new religion has moved on. Paul is imprisoned but there is no evidence of any dramatic tension in that final chapter and he continues to preach.
The narrative ends in Rome, with Paul having been under arrest for two years (and a bit). Jerusalem is about 2000 km away as the crow flies. If Luke had picked up with Peter, the narrative would still have ended in Rome. If he had picked up with John, the narrative would most likely have ended in Patmos. If you find significance in a mere accident of history, so be it.
I find it significant that Acts ends with Paul being only part way into his term under house arrest - which is enough to suggest a date of composition. There are, of course, plenty of commentators who point to the "mystery" of why Luke chose to end his account at that point. Other commentators consider that Rome being the terminus of Paul's journey and the establishment [(?)] of Christianity in the centre of the civilised world, the story was complete. All well and good, and an acceptable excuse, but it doesn't explain why Luke, if he were writing any later, chose to say 2 years instead of the actual number.
I do not recall you producing an iota of attested evidence that provides any indication that these texts were composed in the 50s/early 60s CE. The contention that because certain events are not mentioned in these texts it follows that the texts were composed prior to those events taking place cannot be considered overly persuasive; given that the purpose for writing these texts was for a particular apologetical purpose. This was to give their audience a dramatic narrative for Paul’s exploits [and he quickly becomes the central figure in these texts] and how his gospel/beliefs became dominant. The author includes the harmonisation and glossing of previous rifts and tensions between Paul and James et al, to suggest that everything was resolved between them all. Throughout it is “the Jews” [i.e. those Jews who do not accept Paul’s ideas] that are the malevolent forces, despite the Jewish origins of this new cult/religion.
but don't find it significant that the authors of the gospels, particularly Matthew, failed to mention the fall of the temple? So much for dispassionate assessment on your part. Paul makes mention of retribution falling on the Jews in comment about an unspecified event that cannot have been anywhere near as momentous as the fall of the temple.
You regularly dismiss academic sources that do not agree with your preconceived ideas.
And I have to ask again, if these texts were considered of such sacred importance to those early communities, why were the originals not preserved? A text from the hand of one who had known the Lord or known those who had known the Lord would surely have been considered worth preserving?
For Greek speaking audiences for whom the term Christos could easily have been construed as some new deity. Gentiles in Galatia or Thessalonica were hardly likely to be overly conversant with Jewish messianic beliefs.Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2023, 06:22 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
My emphasis. I am tempted to inquire who made you the Gauleiter of this board?
However, to the matter in hand. Our exchange has been specifically about Paul and your contentions that he was "persecuted".
Paul lived some two thousand years ago and in a polytheistic society. His imprisonment and physical chastisements arose, not from his beliefs, but from his insistence on intentionally promoting those beliefs among the communities of a recognised religion [Judaism].
That behaviour on his part understandably led to members of those communities exhibiting antagonism and hostility towards him and this appears to have sometimes led to violent clashes between individuals from those Jewish communities and others who supported his beliefs. Such disturbances would have been dealt with by the Roman authorities. Paul would therefore have been viewed by the leaders of those Jewish communities and the civic authorities as an agitator who was deliberately provoking trouble and dissent among and between communities. As such he would have been considered as a nuisance with regard to the peace and public order of the particular city.
That has no bearing whatsoever on people being intentionally singled out and imprisoned, threatened, harassed or oppressed by regimes and governments solely for their beliefsSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYou acknowledged you were incorrect.
As to his claim that συ λεγεις means the opposite, a denial that Jesus is the king of the Jews: no, that claim has not been substantiated.
Such claims about miracles are delusional. And all these alleged miracles have perfectly rational explanations when they are properly assessed.
Such claims about miracles are delusional.
If you mean "discredit " to refer to later beliefs that these texts are sacred or holy writ, that is a different matter. Insofar as the texts themselves are concerned they have to be critically assessed within the known historical context of their composition and the religious reasons for their composition
Is that how you consider textual criticism is undertaken?
The one thing unlikely to be encountered is a dispassionate assessment.Last edited by tabibito; 04-12-2023, 07:03 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
In other words, there is no meaningful difference between the persecution suffered by early Christians, and what is being suffered by Christians today."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
I postulated such a scenario premised on the comments Paul makes about the Jews in his letter to his Thessalonian proselytes. Hence my observation that had he made similar remarks [as it were in person] to those Jewish communities it would hardly have endeared him to them. [note the qualification]
However, you made an emphatic [and unqualified] assertion.
Then it's a good thing he didn't.
And you are no more privy to every single utterance made by Paul than is anyone else.
Got it.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Insofar as later events in Roman history are concerned Christians had the option and with regard to the Decian period it seems many did recant [or bribe officials to get their libellum] or lie low.
I guess this means that, by your criteria, the Jews weren't being persecuted.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIOW, you made up something dreamed up by your fevered imagination and sought to slough it off as something he actually did.
Got it.
not.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
He was not persecuted. If he was saying similar things to some of the comments he wrote he would have been considered [a] a heretic; and [b] an dissident trouble-maker by many within those Jewish communities of the eastern Mediterranean.
And being considered by the authorities and/or the leaders of communities to be causing dissent and unrest within and between communities could result in imprisonment or receiving some form of corporal punishment. Both of which he experienced.
They claimed they were doing a service to mankind by ridding the world of dissident trouble-makers. IOW, they were considered by the authorities and/or the leaders to be a source of dissent and unrest.
So, again using your own criteria, this means that the Nazis weren't persecuting those "dissident trouble-maker" Jews
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by eider View Post
Oh....I'm not going to get a straight answer from you which proposes an age when children should have lessons in sex and sexuality...... that is for sure.
I'm not waiting for an answer........... I don't think I ever expected one from you.
To say you are acting like a sleazeball would be an insult to sleazeballs.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
No-one of the time, seemingly, meets the definition of "historian" by current standards. Whether Luke was an historian in his own time, according to the standards understood his immediate audience, is a matter of whether taking the conventions and standards of his own time can be considered relevant.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
180 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
417 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
87 responses
398 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 09:10 AM
|
Comment