The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[psstein]

AFAICT it's more attributable to misunderstanding than mistranslation. Did Augustine even know Greek?

I believe so, though he read very poorly.

[Starlight]

AFAICT it's more attributable to misunderstanding than mistranslation. Did Augustine even know Greek?

Augustine was using a Latin translation. His own Greek was poor. The fault lies both with the fact that the Latin translation itself was misleading, and with Augustine for putting too much emphasis on a couple of words in his theological exegesis - words that were, as it happened, quirks of the translation.

But it's a good general lesson for biblical interpretation today - or reading comprehension in general: Never focus too much on a single word or single passage, as it could easily be a miscommunication/misunderstanding, and make sure you base your interpretation solidly on clear, repeated, and emphasized points.

[rogue06]

AFAICT it's more attributable to misunderstanding than mistranslation. Did Augustine even know Greek?

He disliked his Greek teacher so much that he refused to learn it. I had a similar attitude about my French teacher in 6th grade.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Cite the reference where the Apostle Paul says he had a vision.

Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1, Acts 26:19. Have you discovered some other source where the appearance to Paul was not some sort of spiritual encounter?

[37818]

Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1, Acts 26:19. Have you discovered some other source where the appearance to Paul was not some sort of spiritual encounter?

Galatians 1:12 says it was a revelation does no say a vision. Others were with him and experienced it with him.

Galatians 1:12-16,
. . . For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. . . .

Was referring to other experiences. Note the distinction made between visions and revelations.

2 Corinthians 12:1,
. . . It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. . . .

Yes, It is understandable that following seems to justify your thinking. But you are still in error.
In Acts 26:19, Paul calls Jesus' physical appearance a vision to him. Which again BTW had witnesses to that physical event.

Acts 26:19,
. . . Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: . . .

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Galatians 1:12 says it was a revelation does no say a vision. Others were with him and experienced it with him.

Galatians 1:12-16,
. . . For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. . . .

Was referring to other experiences. Note the distinction made between visions and revelations.

2 Corinthians 12:1,
. . . It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. . . .

Yes, It is understandable that following seems to justify your thinking. But you are still in error.
In Acts 26:19, Paul calls Jesus' physical appearance a vision to him. Which again BTW had witnesses to that physical event.

Acts 26:19,
. . . Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: . . .

No it's a "vision from heaven" which satisfies the criteria for it being some sort of a spiritual encounter. Paul uses the terms interchangeably in 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to him was a spiritual visionary encounter which he does not distinguish from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8 so you don't get to claim they were more physical than Paul's vision/revelation.

[One Bad Pig]

Galatians 1:12 says it was a revelation does no say a vision. Others were with him and experienced it with him.

Galatians 1:12-16,
. . . For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. . . .

Was referring to other experiences. Note the distinction made between visions and revelations.

2 Corinthians 12:1,
. . . It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. . . .

Yes, It is understandable that following seems to justify your thinking. But you are still in error.
In Acts 26:19, Paul calls Jesus' physical appearance a vision to him. Which again BTW had witnesses to that physical event.

Acts 26:19,
. . . Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: . . .

Congrats, you just made RC's day.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Let me know when you guys find that ever so elusive passage where Paul, the earliest and only firsthand source, gives any evidence at all that the appearances of the Risen Christ were anything other than spiritual visionary encounters.

[Tassman]

Let me know when you guys find that ever so elusive passage where Paul, the earliest and only firsthand source, gives any evidence at all that the appearances of the Risen Christ were anything other than spiritual visionary encounters.

Yes. There is no reason to think that the encounter of Paul, and those cited in the 1 Cor 15 Creed, was any more physical than the spiritual experiences claimed by modern Christians, who proclaim their own personal experiences of Jesus in their lives.

[37818]

Congrats, you just made RC's day.

RC thinks he is right. The facts are he is wrong. Paul actually seeing and hearing from the physical man Jesus in heaven is literally a "heavenly vision" as described by Paul.

[One Bad Pig]

RC thinks he is right. The facts are he is wrong. Paul actually seeing and hearing from the physical man Jesus in heaven is literally a "heavenly vision" as described by Paul.

RC is here to argue. It's not even a position he believes in himself - he's merely peddling doubt. That it's a fringe position which pretty much no Christian holds will by no means prevent him from pushing it vigorously and interminably. If you want to tackle that tar baby, be my guest. Been there, done that. Threw away the T-shirt.

[37818]

RC is here to argue. It's not even a position he believes in himself - he's merely peddling doubt. That it's a fringe position which pretty much no Christian holds will by no means prevent him from pushing it vigorously and interminably. If you want to tackle that tar baby, be my guest. Been there, done that. Threw away the T-shirt.

RC has a fundamental problem. It is called truth.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Paul places his "spiritual vision/revelation" in parallel with the "appearances" to the others while making no distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Understood this way, Paul's was just last in sequence of the same or similar type of spiritual visionary appearances. That's what the earliest and only firsthand source says. The later physical appearances in the Gospels demonstrate a legend growing in chronological order. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 so it's pretty obvious that the story evolved.

[tabibito]

Paul places his "spiritual vision/revelation" in parallel with the "appearances" to the others while making no distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Understood this way, Paul's was just last in sequence of the same or similar type of spiritual visionary appearances. That's what the earliest and only firsthand source says. The later physical appearances in the Gospels demonstrate a legend growing in chronological order. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 so it's pretty obvious that the story evolved.

Paul does not distinguish a difference IN SIGNIFICANCE between seeing in the flesh and seeing in a vision - either way, seeing Christ is seeing Christ, nor does he claim that what he saw was the disembodied spirit of Christ. He claims to have seen Christ, he does not claim to have seen the spirit/ghost/whatever of Christ. Given that Paul claimed Christ was restored from the dead, that Christ lives, and that Christ was revived from the dead, there is no evidence of a story that evolved.

[37818]

Paul places his "spiritual vision/revelation" in parallel with the "appearances" to the others while making no distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Understood this way, Paul's was just last in sequence of the same or similar type of spiritual visionary appearances. That's what the earliest and only firsthand source says. The later physical appearances in the Gospels demonstrate a legend growing in chronological order. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 so it's pretty obvious that the story evolved.

Again, you are repeating your error. Repeating the same falsehood over and over does not change the truth. Paul only refers to physical (bodily) appearances and resurrection. Nowhere in the Christian NT have you found any support for your nonsense. Again, claiming that you have does not make it so. You have a problem with truth.