How can we know that God is?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[/INDENT]
Some folks just ain't all that sharp.

If this was a physical manifestation, what happened to the body? If this was a resurrection i.e. a human was brought back to life then it had to die again later.

[tabibito]

Context:

To which you replied:

There is no mention of bystanders in that section of your reply.

There was no need to do so. The piece I was responding to (underscored) was in Tassman's post: "And yet Paul clearly believed it was Jesus’ voice that he (and he alone) heard." The bystanders are implicit in Tassman's post.

The author of Acts makes it quite clear as to whose voice Saul was apparently hearing

Just so. It is so evident that no mention of the fact would ordinarily have been necessary. That is a common feature of English communication, and English is a considered a low context language. Compared with Koine Greek, English is verbose to the point of repeatedly being tautological.

[rogue06]

And in Paul’s presentation of the ‘little creed’ (which we agree dates back much nearer to the crucifixion) he compares it with his own experience of Jesus’ on the Damascus Rd, whereby Jesus did NOT appear before him as a physical body.

Really?

Scripture Verse: Romans 14:9

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

© Copyright Original Source

Or if you prefer the NIV:

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

A few verses on Paul, speaking of God, says, "He who gives life to the dead" (v.17), another indication.

Sounds like Paul was clearly talking about a physical resurrection and not some "ghost" which nobody would have confused with a resurrected person.

And in Philippians, Paul makes it clear what he is talking about

Scripture Verse: Philippians 3:21

who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

© Copyright Original Source

A "glorious body" not a spirit. Something physical.

Further, Paul was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), and the Pharisee, unlike the Sadducees, fully believed in a bodily resurrection. It was what Paul expected and if that isn't what happened he would have certainly remarked upon it.

Yes. The ‘little creed’ is the primary source. But it is only in the secondary sources, i.e., the gospels, written 40 plus years after the death of Jesus

In which world is I Corinthians a Gospel?

It was one of Paul's letters (epistles) not a Gospel.

And it was written 25 years later not 40. In fact, in it Paul states that this was what he taught the Corinthians when he first visited them a few (about five) years earlier. That would be a strange thing for him to lie about especially to those he claimed to have taught it to.

- that we get mention of Jesus’ fleshly body having resurrected. This is NOT what we get in the ‘little creed’ OR Paul’s Damascene experience of the resurrected Jesus.

If Paul was teaching a spiritual non-physical Jesus being resurrected, then he would have most certainly been preaching a "different Gospel" from the other Apostles and that would be the focus of disagreements rather than disputes over needing to follow the Law and be circumcised.

[rogue06]

Incorrect - the accounts show that a voice was heard, but not understood. Do you have information about this encounter that is not available from scripture?

This has led some to speculate that those traveling with Paul were Hellenized Jews not proficient in Hebrew or Aramaic which what was likely spoken.

[tabibito]

This has led some to speculate that those traveling with Paul were Hellenized Jews not proficient in Hebrew or Aramaic which what was likely spoken.

It is a reasonable inference: the voice in Acts 26:14 is said to have spoken in Hebrew. Note that the "Hebrew dialect" encompassed both, but Paul's background would lend itself readily to Hebrew: no information available would support Aramaic.







BTW check my tag.


ETA:

Act 26:14 NIV - 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,*'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

ったく

[rogue06]

If this was a physical manifestation, what happened to the body? If this was a resurrection i.e. a human was brought back to life then it had to die again later.

I thought you said you read the Bible. Such as Luke 24:50; Acts 1:1, 9-11; John 20:17; Ephesians 1:20 among others.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I thought you said you read the Bible. Such as Luke 24:50; Acts 1:1, 9-11; John 20:17; Ephesians 1:20 among others.

You believe that this apotheosis was an actual event? Really?

As for Ephesians that is nothing but Paul's theology and imagination.

As for the opening of Acts 1 and the comment that the author previously "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach" . That is somewhat at odds with the last verse of John 21 "But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." [My emphasis]

Did the author of Luke perhaps miss something?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There was no need to do so. The piece I was responding to (underscored) was in Tassman's post: "And yet Paul clearly believed it was Jesus’ voice that he (and he alone) heard." The bystanders are implicit in Tassman's post.[

Perhaps you should write more clearly. And of course we have those contradictions in Acts.

In 9.3-8 the men he was with did not see the light but heard the voice yet in Acts 22.6-11 they saw the light but did not hear the voice.

[tabibito]

Perhaps you should write more clearly.

When I am responding to your posts, I try to make the necessary adjustments.　

And of course we have those contradictions in Acts.

In 9.3-8 the men he was with did not see the light but heard the voice yet in Acts 22.6-11 they saw the light but did not hear the voice.

Perhaps the authors should have abandoned customary Greek writing practices to accommodate foreign language patterns that would not exist until some 1500 to 2000 years later.

The fact that the light is not mentioned in the one and that the voice goes unmentioned in the other is of no significance . Zero contradiction. In Acts 22, Paul is focussed on the proceedings as they affected him personally. Of course, there is the "all fell to the ground" in contradiction to "the men standing speechless," but that could readily be attributed to the idea that they might just possibly have stood up again after a time, or even that "stood speechless" might be a colloquial usage, as when a person says "I stand amazed" while seated in an armchair. But I'll accede to the claim of a technical inconsequential contradiction.

Note also that Acts 9 presents a third person report.Acts 22 and 26 are reports of first person accounts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

When I am responding to your posts, I try to make the necessary adjustments.　



Perhaps the authors should have abandoned customary Greek writing practices to accommodate foreign language patterns that would not exist until some 1500 to 2000 years later.

The fact that the light is not mentioned in the one and that the voice goes unmentioned in the other is of no significance . Zero contradiction. In Acts 22, Paul is focussed on the proceedings as they affected him personally. Of course, there is the "all fell to the ground" in contradiction to "the men standing speechless," but that could readily be attributed to the idea that they might just possibly have stood up again after a time, or even that "stood speechless" might be a colloquial usage, as when a person says "I stand amazed" while seated in an armchair. But I'll accede to the claim of a technical inconsequential contradiction.

Note also that Acts 9 presents a third person report.Acts 22 and 26 are reports of first person accounts.

All I can note is that the author's "continuity" left something to be desired.

[tabibito]

All I can note is that the author's "continuity" left something to be desired.

That is a good way to describe the way Koine Greek is written - I'll file it for future reference.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is a good way to describe the way Koine Greek is written - I'll file it for future reference.

The Greek is quite clear in both chapters and respective verses. There is a contradiction.

[tabibito]

The Greek is quite clear in both chapters and respective verses. There is a contradiction.

Something was not mentioned. That is not a contradiction.

"Light shone all around them" vs "they were all shrouded in darkness" would be a contradiction.

Paul gives a first person account in Acts 26:16 whilst testifying. "I saw, I heard." What possible place would other people's experience have in that account?

In a courtroom a witness says "I saw a light and heard a voice. Others saw the light and heard the voice but did not understand what was said"

OBJECTION! Hearsay.
Objection sustained.

[rogue06]

You believe that this apotheosis was an actual event? Really?

You find a Christian who believes that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended into heaven surprising?

Not only haven't you bothered to read the Bible in spite of claims to the contrary, it is pretty obvious that you don't even know what we believe.

As for Ephesians that is nothing but Paul's theology and imagination.

In spite of appearing to think that once you issue a proclamation from your comfy chair that it becomes fact set in stone...

H_A-dude.gif
And not a particular well informed one at that.

As for the opening of Acts 1 and the comment that the author previously "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach" . That is somewhat at odds with the last verse of John 21 "But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." [My emphasis]

Once again you find yourself hung up on a particular definition of a single word -- and from an English translation of it. And often "all" does not literally mean everything whether in Koine Greek or English. I've actually posted on this several times in discussions regarding the Flood, citing numerous examples. For instance:

Often when we read "all" or the like, it is not meant literally.

For instance, during the account of the Flood we read that all flesh had become corrupted; yet the text also says that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time." Thus, "all flesh" doesn’t literally mean all flesh since there was at least one exception. All does not mean all.

Likewise, Genesis 3:20 pronounces Eve as "the mother of all living." Literally, that means that all life originated from a human woman, Eve, which nobody contends this is the case.

Are there other instances when "all" does not literally mean "all"? Definitely.

"Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations" (I Chronicles 14:17). Apparently American Indians were quaking in fear at David’s reputation. But then they were apparently consoled when Solomon’s reign began because now "the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

"And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

"All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom." (II Chronicles 9:23) – does this include rulers in America as well?

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

"For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened" (Exodus 10:15 – KJV), though verses 12, 14 make it clear that it meant only the land of Egypt and why some other versions choose to use "whole land" instead of "whole earth."

Mark 1:5 tells us that "all the land of Judea" were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea.

Mark 4:34 says Jesus taught His disciples about "all things," but does anyone serious believe this included details of such things like space travel, advanced calculus and the sex life of sea slugs?

And Paul explicitly stated that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6; cf. I Timothy 3:16). Later Christian theologians used these passages as "proof" that no one could possibly be living on the other side of the world. The Bible said it, they believed it, and that settled it. Nevertheless, millions of Native Americans lived in the Americas despite the theologian’s ideological objections.

These are only a few examples illustrating the fact that all does not always literally mean all.

[Sparko]

I am amused when atheists try to tell Christians what we really believe.