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

How to respond to this?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Why would you question the idea that Paul knew Hebrew scripture when he was a pharisee ?
    Why should being a Pharisee imply that Paul knew Hebrew? It is readily apparent that Paul was extensively educated in Greek, and if he was from Tarsus (as Acts states) then it is entirely conceivable that he could have been a very Hellenized Jew, like those in Alexandria, since Tarsus was a very large, very Hellenic city. Nothing that we know about the Pharisees would indicate that they all knew how to read Hebrew and were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul's writings, themselves, give little or no indication that he was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, having drawn his quotations of Scripture from the Septuagint.

    The only post-resurrection miracle illustration that can stand equivalent to the visual spectacle I'm referring to is the ascension. But Matthew and John don't include this miracle. Moreover, even Luke's ascension itself is mundane in comparison to other saints in ancient literature, such as Elijah being swooped up to heaven in a flaming chariot, or when John ascends into heaven in the book of Revelation, or the spectacle of Christ's ascension described in the Ascension of Isaiah and the gospel of Bartholomew, or even Stephen's vision of Jesus standing next to the throne of God in Acts. Luke's ascension is either strangely a visual regression in comparison, or Luke's ascension is an actual historical event without the embellishment we've come to expect from this other literature.
    I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this assessment. I think it is entirely disingenuous to pretend that human flight, bodily fenestrae, and giant magic fish are "visually mundane," even in comparison to other ancient literature. The fact that they are slightly less spectacular than some other accounts in no way makes them "visually mundane."
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
      Why should being a Pharisee imply that Paul knew Hebrew? It is readily apparent that Paul was extensively educated in Greek, and if he was from Tarsus (as Acts states) then it is entirely conceivable that he could have been a very Hellenized Jew, like those in Alexandria, since Tarsus was a very large, very Hellenic city. Nothing that we know about the Pharisees would indicate that they all knew how to read Hebrew and were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul's writings, themselves, give little or no indication that he was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, having drawn his quotations of Scripture from the Septuagint.

      I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this assessment. I think it is entirely disingenuous to pretend that human flight, bodily fenestrae, and giant magic fish are "visually mundane," even in comparison to other ancient literature. The fact that they are slightly less spectacular than some other accounts in no way makes them "visually mundane."
      Like I said, the ascension is the only spectacle equivalent to the gospels pre-resurrection, but Matthew and John leave this event out. But I don't think you understand the point (or you're just intentionally playing dumb). It's disingenuous to erroneously correlate how we see the event in our modern culture. It's not how we perceive a human being flying, it's about the way these events were perceived and described in ancient literature in Luke's time, is my point. The post-resurrection ascension is not consistent to this.

      Do you actually have any citations to the first part of your post? Nevertheless, it's inconsequential to Bauckham's argument anyway, as he states: "... but in fact even a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who knew the Jewish Scriptures only in Greek could not have been unaware of the function of kuvrio" as representing the tetragrammaton."

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        Like I said, the ascension is the only spectacle equivalent to the gospels pre-resurrection
        And, as I said, scenes of people sticking their fingers into Jesus' bodily fenestrae and scenes of magically conjured fish are certainly spectacles equivalent to the gospels pre-resurrection.

        But I don't think you understand the point (or you're just intentionally playing dumb). It's disingenuous to erroneously correlate how we see the event in our modern culture. It's not how we perceive a human being flying, it's about the way these events were perceived and described in ancient literature in Luke's time, is my point. The post-resurrection ascension is not consistent to this.
        I simply don't see how you could possibly make this claim. Do you really think ancient peoples would have viewed depictions of human flight, bodily fenestrae, or magically conjured fish as being "mundane?"

        Do you actually have any citations to the first part of your post?
        Which claim would you like citations for? I'll see if I can put some together, though I'm still not clear on why you think Paul's being a Pharisee would have meant he'd be familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.

        Nevertheless, it's inconsequential to Bauckham's argument anyway, as he states: "... but in fact even a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who knew the Jewish Scriptures only in Greek could not have been unaware of the function of kuvrio" as representing the tetragrammaton."
        Yep. As I said, I think I can agree with Bauckham on that point.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #79
          Since you keep butchering my posts into scattered pieces, I'm only going to respond to them separately.

          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          I simply don't see how you could possibly make this claim. Do you really think ancient peoples would have viewed depictions of human flight, bodily fenestrae, or magically conjured fish as being "mundane?"
          Yes I do, hence the reason ascension events are so spectacularly described in ancient Christian literature other than Luke's description. "Bodily fenestrae"? Or hyperbole for examine by wounds lol?

          Does the miracle of fish post-resurrection (much like we also see pre-resurrection) equal sweating blood, toppling crowds with one's words, raising the dead, walking on water, calming a storm, or how about the vision of the risen Christ John sees in Revelation? I don't think you believe it does.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            Since you keep butchering my posts into scattered pieces, I'm only going to respond to them separately.
            I'm not sure what you have against my responding to each of your points, individually, but I have no qualms with your responding to each of mine individually, in return.

            Yes I do, hence the reason ascension events are so spectacularly described in ancient Christian literature other than Luke's description.
            Wow. Really? That just seems an entirely untenable position to hold. Why do you think that ancient people would have considered a flying man to be mundane?

            "Bodily fenestrae"? Or hyperbole for examine by wounds lol?
            Not hyperbole. It's just shorter to type "bodily fenestrae" than "open holes in a person's body which are not causing that person pain or physical harm."

            Does the miracle of fish post-resurrection (much like we also see pre-resurrection) equal sweating blood, toppling crowds with one's words, raising the dead, walking on water, calming a storm, or how about the vision of the risen Christ John sees in Revelation? I don't think you believe it does.
            Yes, I actually do believe that it does, which is why I have repeatedly said that it does. The only exception from your list would be the account from Revelation, as I do not believe John of Patmos intended his audience to believe that his vision represented an accurate depiction of a historical event in the physical world.
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
              Wow. Really? That just seems an entirely untenable position to hold. Why do you think that ancient people would have considered a flying man to be mundane?
              I just explained why in the post you scattered. Particularly a man they believed was God.

              I was thinking "bodily fenestrae" literally interpreted "thrust into my side" as though Jesus had open holes in his body as opposed to hyperbole for examine my wounds. Just thought it was a weird word to use.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                I just explained why in the post you scattered. Particularly a man they believed was God.
                You really didn't, unless you're trying to say that because it was slightly less spectacular than some other accounts, you think ancient people believed it was perfectly normal for a man to go flying through the sky. If this is the case, your logic is particularly circular: the account in Luke is slightly less spectacular than other accounts because people thought that flying was a normal thing for a person to do, and we know that people thought flying was a normal thing for a person to do because the account in Luke is slightly less spectacular than other accounts.

                I was thinking "bodily fenestrae" literally interpreted "thrust into my side" as though Jesus had open holes in his body as opposed to hyperbole for examine my wounds. Just thought it was a weird word to use.
                The word "fenestra" just means "hole" or "opening." It was simply the first word which came to mind when I was attempting to think of a shorter phrase for "open holes in a person's body."
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post
                  I've abandoned it because you're just not that well-informed on the subject, no offense. I'm pretty much just wasting my time.
                  That is curious, because I not not recall you actually supporting your claims at all, whilst I provided verses to support much of what I said. Yet you assert (without support!) that I am "just not that well-informed on the subject".

                  Hmm, I guess that is advice for johngalt1. Just declare that your opponent is "just not that well-informed on the subject" and walk away.
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    You really didn't, unless you're trying to say that because it was slightly less spectacular than some other accounts, you think ancient people believed it was perfectly normal for a man to go flying through the sky. If this is the case, your logic is particularly circular: the account in Luke is slightly less spectacular than other accounts because people thought that flying was a normal thing for a person to do, and we know that people thought flying was a normal thing for a person to do because the account in Luke is slightly less spectacular than other accounts.

                    The word "fenestra" just means "hole" or "opening." It was simply the first word which came to mind when I was attempting to think of a shorter phrase for "open holes in a person's body."
                    He wasn't just a man. They believed he was God, hence the reason we see the religious spectacle surrounding the event in all the other Christian literature. The event is only in Luke's account. Matthew, Mark and John left it out. So I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree that a fish miracle (the same miracle as in the beginning of his ministry) is equivalent to the events and miracles illustrated pre-resurrection. To me, it's clearly a regression of spectacle

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post
                      He wasn't just a man. They believed he was God, hence the reason we see the religious spectacle surrounding the event in all the other Christian literature.
                      So, then, you think that ancient people thought it was a perfectly normal sight to see God flying into the sky? You don't think that ancient people would have found such a scene to be incredible or spectacular? Was God flying around just an everyday event, for such people?

                      The event is only in Luke's account. Matthew, Mark and John left it out.
                      It also appears in the Longer Ending of Mark.

                      So I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree that a fish miracle (the same miracle as in the beginning of his ministry) is equivalent to the events and miracles illustrated pre-resurrection. To me, it's clearly a regression of spectacle
                      So, a miracle which is "the same miracle as in the beginning of his ministry" is not equivalent to a miracle illustrated pre-resurrection? Was the beginning of his ministry not pre-resurrection?
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        So, then, you think that ancient people thought it was a perfectly normal sight to see God flying into the sky? You don't think that ancient people would have found such a scene to be incredible or spectacular? Was God flying around just an everyday event, for such people?
                        I would pose the same question to those who wrote literature about the subject. Was it not enough to have a saint resurrect and ascend into the sky, did they have to have spectacle surrounding it? Apparently this was important whether it was just more entertaining, typical protocol of ancient fictional religious literature or whether it just visually underscored his heavenly standing

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                        14 responses
                        51 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                        21 responses
                        129 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                        Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                        78 responses
                        414 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