Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

They are not Christians!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And why that particular part of the day?
    Possibly because the event occurred at that time of day.

    Really? On what evidence?
    The text shows that Ananias said it.

    The Greek verb ἀκούω refers to hearing something either directly or indirectly [by hearsay] or by fully understanding what has been heard. That does not include intuiting by some other means.
    enough said. The definition that you yourself have provided shows that in Acts 22, the word could have been used in the sense of "understand."

    So the author of Acts got his facts mixed up?
    That is one interpretation. The other is that the source of the author's so called error is in the reader's interpretation.

    They do when two accounts of the supposed same event are odds with one another.
    So far, you have failed to make a solid case that the accounts contradict each other.

    The textual fact remains that in chapter 9 Ananias is a disciple but in chapter 22 he is sent by the Jews and is described as "who was a devout man according to the law", that law being the Mosaic law.
    How about you take note of your own oft-stated command - read for comprehension. Nothing in the text states that Ananias had been sent by the Jews: the text can't even be interpreted to imply anything of the sort.

    Once again you offer speculative observations for which you have not an iota of evidence. All we have are the texts as they have come down to us.
    My comments concern the records of the texts as they have come down to us. If they weren't, "speculative observations" would be a valid accusation.

    A man who was "devout" "according to the law" would have no interest in baptism as a means to achieve "sins washed away"
    Idle speculation on your part. If a devout man was convinced of the truth of the gospel, he most certainly would view baptism as the means by which sins are washed away.

    Acts is not being written in the mid first century CE. It is a work written as the two religions start to split and is an attempt to harmonise past differences.
    An assertion, unsupported by anything more than hearsay, which demands belief that the author of Acts was lying. In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, I will believe Luke's claim to have been a companion traveller with Paul.

    There are distinct anomalies.
    I agree with the notion that there are anomalies.

    We are not told in those chapters of Acts when they arrived.
    So - assuming that what you say is correct - the claim that the records of Acts are not exhaustively complete is substantiated.

    Not in Damascus according to chapter 22.
    Where does any record show that Paul was in Damascus when he saw Christ?

    As noted once again you cannot conceive of any issues with your narratives as they have come down to you.
    What I can't believe is the amount of drivel that you try to pass off as fact.
    Last edited by tabibito; 01-28-2023, 08:39 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 eider View Post
      So you think that the gospels agree with each other........ok...that's what you think.


      That's not how I review the gospels......... I gave Sparko a short list of how I review the gospels..... let me described this action as 'Trawling for Truth'... that has a nice ring about it that you can quote as often as you like. That's much better than selecting from a salad-bar (MacDonalds for me! )

      I think that Jesus survived the cross, ok? So with that in mind let me explain that 'he is risen....' (G-Mark) meant that he was got up and away. No rising from the dead for me to believe in.
      But you do! I understand that.
      "That's not how I review the gospels..."

      I know. You've already admitted that your method for interpreting scripture is so hilariously slapdash that you can reach literally any conclusion you want. Is there a passage of scripture that directly refutes your beliefs? No problem, just toss it out and pretend it doesn't exist! It's a thoroughly irrational approach.
      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

        "That's not how I review the gospels..."

        I know. You've already admitted that your method for interpreting scripture is so hilariously slapdash that you can reach literally any conclusion you want. Is there a passage of scripture that directly refutes your beliefs? No problem, just toss it out and pretend it doesn't exist! It's a thoroughly irrational approach.
        Perhaps a copy of the Thomas Jefferson Bible would be helpful?
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Possibly because the event occurred at that time of day.
          Or possibly it is a narrative invention for dramatic effect.


          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          The text shows that Ananias said it.
          As a Jew who was a "devout man according to the law" why did this individual suggest that Saul/Paul "be baptized, and have your sins washed away"? Judaism does not require baptism to wash away sin.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          enough said. The definition that you yourself have provided shows that in Acts 22, the word could have been used in the sense of "understand."
          If they were "fully understanding what has been heard" why does Acts 22 tell us they did not hear anything? You cannot have it both ways. Either they heard this voice and fully understood it or they did not hear this voice.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          That is one interpretation. The other is that the source of the author's so called error is in the reader's interpretation.
          The text is there.


          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          So far, you have failed to make a solid case that the accounts contradict each other.
          They offer entirely different accounts.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          How about you take note of your own oft-stated command - read for comprehension. Nothing in the text states that Ananias had been sent by the Jews
          So what was he doing there in chapter 22? Was he a disciple [as we are told in chapter 9] or did he arrive unrequested and unannounced?

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          My comments concern the records of the texts as they have come down to us. If they weren't, "speculative observations" would be a valid accusation.
          And as they have come down to us they contain differing accounts.


          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Idle speculation on your part. If a devout man was convinced of the truth of the gospel, he most certainly would view baptism as the means by which sins are washed away.
          A devout Jew would not believe such a thing. Judaism does not require ritual lustration to wash away sin.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          An assertion, unsupported by anything more than hearsay, which demands belief that the author of Acts was lying.
          That the author was "lying" is a puerile assertion. The text[s] have to be viewed in their socio-historical and religious context. You are also free to believe what you wish. However, that does not automatically make what you believe a fact..


          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          So - assuming that what you say is correct - the claim that the records of Acts are not exhaustively complete is substantiated.
          The two chapters show marked differences and there is a narrative reason for that, which again points to the purpose behind this text being written and the manner in which it is composed.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Where does any record show that Paul was in Damascus when he saw Christ?
          Where did I mention he was in Damascus when he had his vision?

          However, if we accept chapter 9 "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God" we are left asking from where did he get the idea? The disciples? Clearly not according to Galatians chapter one.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          What I can't believe is the amount of drivel that you try to pass off as fact.
          The text is there. If it is read critically and dispassionately [both of which you are unable to do] and if it is considered within its religious [and socio-historical] context, one can perceive the purpose of this text.
          "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
            ...As a Jew who was a "devout man according to the law" why did this individual suggest that Saul/Paul "be baptized, and have your sins washed away"? Judaism does not require baptism to wash away sin.....
            Seriously? Saul was passing from his role as a persecutor of the Christian faith to becoming one of them. Saul was a Jew who became a Christian - hence, the Christian baptism. Ananias called Saul "brother", indicating they were now of the same faith.

            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Ananias called Saul "brother", indicating they were now of the same faith.
              Nice Catch.

              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              So what was he doing there in chapter 22? Was he a disciple [as we are told in chapter 9] or did he arrive unrequested and unannounced?
              Nothing indicates that "he arrived unannounced."

              A devout Jew would not believe such a thing. Judaism does not require ritual lustration to wash away sin.
              Quite clearly you have not tried to interpret the text from a first century perspective. In the first century, the Jewish disciples of Christ considered themselves devout Jews; opinions among the traditionalist Jews were divided. Among some Jews, a Jewish Christian could be considered a Jew in good standing.

              If they were "fully understanding what has been heard" why does Acts 22 tell us they did not hear anything? You cannot have it both ways. Either they heard this voice and fully understood it or they did not hear this voice.
              The text of Acts 22:9 reads that ουκ ηκουσαν (they did not understand), not ηκουσαν (they did understand). Again: two different "speakers," two different circumstances, two different perspectives. The possibility that Acts 22:9 uses ακουω in the sense of "understand" , and Acts 9:7 uses the same word in the sense of "hear" can't be asserted with 100% confidence, but any alternative would have Luke contradicting himself.

              That the author was "lying" is a puerile assertion.
              Either Luke's claim to be a companion traveller with Paul was true, or it was a lie. There is nothing puerile about acknowledging the fact.

              The text[s] have to be viewed in their socio-historical and religious context.
              Is that what you claim to be doing?

              You are also free to believe what you wish. However, that does not automatically make what you believe a fact.
              What I believe is based on evidence.

              The two chapters show marked differences and there is a narrative reason for that, which again points to the purpose behind this text being written and the manner in which it is composed.
              Differences in the reporters' perspectives, differences in what is reported and what is omitted. And it is fairly clear that some things are omitted by both. Other than the arguable mention of "hearing," no part of either version precludes any part of the other from being possible - and an honest commentator would not assert that the conflicting "hearing" is any more than a possibility.

              Where did I mention he was in Damascus when he had his vision?

              Me: Did you fail to notice that Paul saw Christ in a vision
              You: Not in Damascus according to chapter 22.


              However, if we accept chapter 9 "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God" we are left asking from where did he get the idea? The disciples? Clearly not according to Galatians chapter one.
              I'm not asking that question - the answers are implicit in the text.
              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 Cow Poke View Post

                Seriously? Saul was passing from his role as a persecutor of the Christian faith
                There was no "Christian faith" in the 50s CE. There was a Jewish Messianic sect. Its members being pious and practising Jews did not believe their leader had been a deity, a divine being, or part of a Truine deity.

                And baptism has no place in Judaism. Jewish babies do not need baptism to be accepted into the Jewish community. However, a Christian has to go through that process to become part of the Christian spiritual [and physical] community and find newness of life.

                And all that comes from Paul.

                It is Paul who imbues the baptismal ritual with mystical significance as we find in Romans chapter six verses three to five, "Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." Thus for Paul the Christian neophyte was, via baptism, ritually assimilated to Christ in his death in order to be one with him in his resurrection


                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                to becoming one of them. Saul was a Jew who became a Christian - hence, the Christian baptism. Ananias called Saul "brother", indicating they were now of the same faith.
                I repeat there was no "faith" in the 50s CE. Nor would Ananias who is described in chapter 22 as "a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there" have believed that anyone's sins could be "washed away" by a ritual lustration.
                "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
                  There was no "Christian faith" in the 50s CE. There was a Jewish Messianic sect. Its members being pious and practising Jews did not believe their leader had been a deity, a divine being, or part of a Truine deity.
                  It is a strange thing then, that Paul mentions Christians. Also Messianic Jews did not exist in the first century - it was the "Sect of the Nazarenes" or "Followers of the Way."

                  And baptism has no place in Judaism. Jewish babies do not need baptism to be accepted into the Jewish community.
                  No indeed - male babies have to be circumcised.

                  However, a Christian has to go through that process to become part of the Christian spiritual [and physical] community and find newness of life.
                  Baptism was instituted before Christ was crucified.

                  And all that comes from Paul.
                  Hardly.

                  It is Paul who imbues the baptismal ritual with mystical significance as we find in Romans chapter six verses three to five, "Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." Thus for Paul the Christian neophyte was, via baptism, ritually assimilated to Christ in his death in order to be one with him in his resurrection
                  Ah yes - the nefarious Paul is responsible for the accurate proclamation about the Kingdom of Heaven. Just a slight problem with the other apostles carrying the same message, but we can sure you will find some rationalisation to avert the need to adjust your opinions.

                  I repeat there was no "faith" in the 50s CE. Nor would Ananias who is described in chapter 22 as "a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there" have believed that anyone's sins could be "washed away" by a ritual lustration.
                  Who to believe? You, or the Biblical record? Such a hard decision.

                  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 tabibito View Post



                    Quite clearly you have not tried to interpret the text from a first century perspective. In the first century, the Jewish disciples of Christ considered themselves devout Jews; opinions among the traditionalist Jews were divided. Among some Jews, a Jewish Christian could be considered a Jew in good standing.
                    Odd given how often she likes to "remind" others that Jesus' disciples were Jews and considered themselves to be Jews.

                    Her switching sides in an argument to use whatever she thinks is convenient indicates that, as some suggest, she does not really believe what she says.

                    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

                      It is a strange thing then, that Paul mentions Christians. Also Messianic Jews did not exist in the first century - it was the "Sect of the Nazarenes" or "Followers of the Way."
                      The followers of a Galilean Jewish charismatic may well have considered him the Messiah. On the other hand perhaps they did not and it was left to his successor to continue the movement.


                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      No indeed - male babies have to be circumcised.
                      Hence the Jewish joke:

                      What do you call an eight day old uncircumcised Jew?

                      A girl!

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Baptism was instituted before Christ was crucified.
                      Says who?

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Hardly.
                      We have no other sources for it.


                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Ah yes - the nefarious Paul is responsible for the accurate proclamation about the Kingdom of Heaven. Just a slight problem with the other apostles carrying the same message, but we can sure you will find some rationalisation to avert the need to adjust your opinions.
                      Where are their attested authentic writings?

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Who to believe? You, or the Biblical record? Such a hard decision.
                      Another puerile response. It is not about believing me. It is about assessing the texts critically and dispassionately and setting aside all one's preconceived ideas.

                      I am tempted to write "Grow up"!

                      "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 rogue06 View Post
                        Odd given how often she likes to "remind" others that Jesus' disciples were Jews and considered themselves to be Jews.

                        Her switching sides in an argument to use whatever she thinks is convenient indicates that, as some suggest, she does not really believe what she says.
                        If a Damascene Jew was a follower of a Galilean Jewish charismatic [extremely unlikely] that Damascene Jew would, like that Galilean Jewish charismatic have practised Judaism and would have no need of having his sins washed away by a ritual lustration. Ritual purity is another matter.
                        "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 followers of a Galilean Jewish charismatic may well have considered him the Messiah. On the other hand perhaps they did not and it was left to his successor to continue the movement.
                          So you raise a conspiracy theory as a possible counter argument. It isn't persuasive.

                          Says who?
                          The gospels attest to the origins of baptism. Nothing to do with Paul.

                          We have no other sources for it.
                          Peter made quite an interesting comment about baptism. 1Peter 3:21 - baptism saves you, though not because it removes dirt from the flesh, and is effective in saving because of the resurrection - he even adds the unnecessary information "of Christ Jesus" after "resurrection." Naturally, that claim arouses the ire of many churches.

                          Where are their attested authentic writings?
                          A few comments by Peter and James are included in the Bible.

                          Another puerile response. It is not about believing me. It is about assessing the texts critically and dispassionately and setting aside all one's preconceived ideas.

                          I am tempted to write "Grow up"!
                          It is about believing you, or about believing your testimony, and the lack of dispassionate evaluation involved in your posts makes that a mug's game.
                          None of your accusations about my supposed presuppositions and lack of impartiality withstands scrutiny. The accusations are nothing more than a mild irritant.
                          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 tabibito View Post

                            So you raise a conspiracy theory as a possible counter argument. It isn't persuasive.
                            It is not a conspiracy theory. The short answer is that we do not know what that sect intended. The events of 66-70 CE put paid to that.



                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            The gospels attest to the origins of baptism. Nothing to do with Paul.
                            Paul's writings are the earliest we have.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Peter made quite an interesting comment about baptism. 1Peter 3:21
                            Except that it was not Peter writing 1 Peter.


                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            A few comments by Peter and James are included in the Bible.
                            Once again these are not the attested writings of those individuals. Although pious belief would have it that they are.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            It is about believing you, or about believing your testimony, and the lack of dispassionate evaluation involved in your posts makes that a mug's game.
                            I have merely discussed the translated text as it has come down to us.

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            None of your accusations about my supposed presuppositions and lack of impartiality withstands scrutiny. The accusations are nothing more than a mild irritant.
                            Look back through your posts!

                            "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
                              It is not a conspiracy theory. The short answer is that we do not know what that sect intended. The events of 66-70 CE put paid to that.
                              It is a conspiracy theory, based on the idea that the New Testament authors were charlatans.

                              Paul's writings are the earliest we have.
                              Probably not. And if they are the earliest, it is not by an appreciable margin. Argument for late dates of the gospels rests almost entirely on the questionable premise that Jesus could not have predicted the fall of the temple.

                              Except that it was not Peter writing 1 Peter.
                              Of course he didn't - the claim that baptism saves is cited as providing evidence that he didn't.

                              Once again these are not the attested writings of those individuals. Although pious belief would have it that they are.
                              Add to that, investigation of the basis for the claims.

                              I have merely discussed the translated text as it has come down to us.
                              as seen through a distorting lens.

                              Look back through your posts!
                              How about you look back through them. Where have you ever substantiated any of your claims in opposition to mine with anything but "we don't knows" or suppositions?

                              oh, and "great scholar says different"
                              Last edited by tabibito; 01-28-2023, 01:01 PM.
                              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
                                There was no "Christian faith" in the 50s CE.
                                It was known as "the way".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X