RedEye wrote:
tam wrote:
(and I will let you know if I am conceding a point; there is no need to resort to assumptions)
If I am still arguing a point and you stop, then you implicitly concede that point. That is how debating works.
I do not think that is a real rule, but even if it is, this is not formal debate. People here stop responding to specific points for other reasons (such as when it gets to the point that one will simply be repeating themselves again or when the same point is made in more than one place in a lengthy post).
But according to your rules, I assume that you conceded this point:
I did address them by providing the definition of the word contradiction. What you explained were not contradictions.
The problem is your black and white approach. According to you either the Acts testimony is worthless or every single word is true. There is no middle ground for you. Some of us don't operate that way.
And you have not demonstrated that the two witnesses were invented by Luke here at the start of Acts and again later when Luke records Paul's testimony to the crowd.
You misunderstand. He may have had companions almost certainly (traveling alone was dangerous). What I am questioning is what they were
witnesses to. You can't claim eyewitnesses to something on the basis of hearsay.
Yes, he may have had companions that did not see or hear anything. You must assume then that Luke or a scribe lied. That is the only way your theory has even a chance of working. (of course if the author or a scribe lied, you would think they would list all the same details in each account of the same book)
I find it inconsistent that you mistrust Luke regarding the two companions witnessing the event (as well as all the writings from him about the apostles of Christ who preached Christ before Paul), but you do trust Luke on the details of Paul's vision (the falling, the light, the blindness). Paul does not reference those details in his own writings. Does Paul even mention the road to Damascus vision in his letters at all?
In this Paul admits that he persecuted those who believed in Christ, including Stephen.
I keep telling you that I don't necessarily accept Acts as being reliable (as opposed to Paul's authentic writings). We have been through this at length. Yet here you are quoting me things from Acts.
Where does Paul reference this vision of Christ on the road to Damascus in his own letters? Where does Paul reference the details of that vision (the falling, the blindness, the light)? What corroboration do you have from one of Paul's authentic letters about that vision and its details?
I see no middle ground approach, Redeye. Not when you dismiss almost all of what is recorded in Acts except for those few details that you accept as support for the epilepsy theory: the vision, the light, the blindness, and the falling.
What are you having trouble with?
The inconsistent approaches; the rejection of everything else in the very book that you present as evidence for your theory. I'm pretty sure that would not hold up in court (as you said to me earlier).
That one small part of a story can have a core basis in reality (being supported by Paul's own writings where he admits to having had such an experience but without much detail) whilst the rest of the story is fabrication? Why is that a difficult concept for you?
That is not a difficult concept to understand, but you have provided only assertions (and no evidence) to support your hypothesis. And your approach in determining what to accept and what to reject is inconsistent. You use one set of reasoning when it works in your favor but reject that same reasoning when it works against you.
For example: according to you, different details of the same account mean contradiction. That is what you said about the accounts with the two traveling companions, and you gave that as a reason to dismiss them as reliable accounts. So if Paul did not add those details in his own letters, then his account contradicts with Luke's, and at least one of them must be false. Yet you accept the account from Luke, rather than from Paul.
(I do not agree with that, btw. But this is the kind of reasoning you are using)
Were you conceding this point, btw?
Even the words 'Saul Saul why do you persecute me' do not make sense without there existing a Christ and a people who belonged to Christ, for Paul to persecute.
There is much evidence that shows that Christ (and belief in Him) existed before Paul had his vision. Your only response to that (that I have seen) is to say that this makes the Corinthians verse about how/where Paul learned, a contradiction. There is no contradiction, but even if there were a contradiction for the sake of argument, so what? There is still a vast amount of evidence that shows Christ existed before Paul had his vision.
That is the in the present tense (when Paul is writing). It has no relevance to the past at the time when this persecution allegedly occurred. The "in Christ" refers to the present tense when Paul is writing. The word used is "are" not "were".
Let's look at the passage then:
The relevant verse is Galatians 1:22 so I'm not sure why you have quoted something else entirely.
I am still quoting from Galatians 1. I was just showing you something more.
Then by going off on some unrelated tangent you must have once again conceded the point I was making above. Thank you.
It was not an unrelated tangent. I was trying to provide the whole picture for context. I will admit that by the translation you used, it is possible to interpret this verse (take on its own) as you stated.
That being said of course, that verse is translated as both '
are in Christ' and '
were in Christ', depending upon which translation one chooses to use.
https://biblehub.com/galatians/1-22.htm
However, the faith that Paul is now preaching (which he formerly persecuted) is faith in Christ. How you can deny that is beyond me.
But here is a little bit more from Paul:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
Romans 16:7
Okay, so right there, Paul refers to those who were apostles BEFORE he was an apostle. He then names some of those apostles who would have been BEFORE him:
Yes, but apostles of what exactly? Why do you assume things that are not stated in the text?
Why do YOU?
What have I assumed about these apostles?
Did I say you had assumed something about these apostles?
I asked why you assumed things that are not in the text. You did not quote those things that I asked you about.
I answered your question. You did not answer mine.
On the other hand, we have countless texts stating that there were apostles and disciples of Christ before Paul. Some of those texts are from Paul, most from others who also wrote about that time.
No, we don't have any such texts. (The gospels were written many decades later). Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The gospels are indeed texts that state this; Acts is a text that states this.
Paul's letters also speak of apostles and disciples of Christ before him. Such as the one quoted to you above, and the other from Corinthians.
What is the faith that Paul "is now preaching"? How could Paul be preaching the faith that he once tried to destroy, if that faith did not exist before Paul invented it?
I have already addressed this previously. It was probably some gnostic sect. Why are you raising the same question which I have already answered comprehensively (and you abandoned)?
Because you keep missing the point and you did not answer the question:
What is the faith that Paul "is
NOW preaching"?
I have answered that question previously (a form of gnosticism).
So why are you assuming something that is not in the text? Especially when Paul clearly states on numerous occasions that the faith he preaches is Christ?
You are not hearing the answer. I do not intend to go around in circles forever. See post #32.
Oh, I hear your answer. It is a denial of what Paul clearly states because to admit otherwise, would disprove your claim.
So do you expect me to simply accept the biblical commentaries, even though you do not hold yourself to that same standard?
As I said, I don't care if you accept them or not. I have made my arguments and you have made yours.
You have made your arguments and feel no need to repeat them? See, this (and not concession) is often a reason that someone ceases to respond to a specific point.
You won't accept authority (from your own side even!).
The side that I am on is the side of the Truth (Christ), and He is my authority.
It is absurd for you to suggest that I must accept everything that comes in the form of a biblical commentary or from a biblical scholar. They do not even agree with one another, but I must accept all that they say and cannot even argue it? You must know that this is absurd.
Let the gentle readers decide who is being reasonable and who cannot face the consequences of what their scripture is saying.
What consequence?
There is no consequence to me or my faith; I already accept that Paul had visions and revelations, so it would be no big deal to add in the one he is speaking about from another man (being caught up to the third heaven). Even if it
were from him (for the sake of argument) it is not the vision of Christ that he had on the road to Damascus.
So what exactly do you think the consequences would be to me and my faith if Paul was referring to himself?
(But there might be consequences to
your theory if others had visions of Christ as well as Paul.)
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
