Why didn't Paul write about what Jesus said and did? Or can you show us that he

[oldbadger]

Paul DID constantly explain the communion and the resurrection of Jesus....yes he did.

But he didn't seem to write anything about the life and times of Jesus......... Can you tell us why?

Maybe he didn't think that the words and actions of Jesus were that important?

[The Tanager]

Where did I say that Paul contradicts Jesus? That is a strawman argument, and crafty, if I thought you had figured it out.

You didn’t. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the context of the conversation between Clownboat and me that you decided to comment on.

No. To take Paul as read, his vision of Jesus is visionary.

No, that is an interpretation just like saying it wasn’t visionary is. Neither are lying or pretending; they are interpreting. Calling the other a liar is useless rhetoric. Saying they make stuff up and "interpret", and that you don't, is useless rhetoric that bogs the discussion down from being a rational one. This is true when non-Christians do it and when Christians do it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Where did I say that Paul contradicts Jesus? That is a strawman argument, and crafty, if I thought you had figured it out.

You didn’t. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the context of the conversation between Clownboat and me that you decided to comment on.

No. To take Paul as read, his vision of Jesus is visionary.

No, that is an interpretation just like saying it wasn’t visionary is. Neither are lying or pretending; they are interpreting. Calling the other a liar is useless rhetoric. Saying they make stuff up and "interpret", and that you don't, is useless rhetoric that bogs the discussion down from being a rational one. This is true when non-Christians do it and when Christians do it.

How can you possibly argue that Paul's vision of Jesus is anything but visionary, coming later than all the others? And if he regards his vision as equivalent to those of the others mentioned in the One Corinthian, and they do not match the Gospel resurrection accounts (though Luke alters the gospels to try to match them) how can you deny that the evidence supports the argument that these are visionary (in the head) experiences of Jesus and not the Gospel - claimed Sunday morning resurrections?

This is a real and serious question and not the rhetoric that you accuse me of. Rather your evasion and denial is more characteristic of what you accuse me of doing. You don't appear to have dealt with any of my points, but just resort to abuse and accusations.

no.I just deleted that. I'm not sure whether you are a moderator or not.

[The Tanager]

How can you possibly argue that Paul's vision of Jesus is anything but visionary, coming later than all the others?

I didn’t argue that. My point was only that both are interpretations. One isn’t (necessarily) lying or pretending or making stuff up to reach either interpretation.

And if he regards his vision as equivalent to those of the others mentioned in the One Corinthian, and they do not match the Gospel resurrection accounts (though Luke alters the gospels to try to match them) how can you deny that the evidence supports the argument that these are visionary (in the head) experiences of Jesus and not the Gospel - claimed Sunday morning resurrections?

But I will argue that it wasn’t visionary in the sense of being “in their heads”. Acts presents Paul’s experience as extra-mental (Acts 9:7, 22:9). Luke knows the difference between appearances and visions (like Stephen’s) and his descriptions of Paul put it in the appearance category. Paul also claims that Jesus appeared to him physically. In 1 Cor 9:1 he says heoraka ou, “have I not seen?” which is the normal word for ordinary sight. Paul doesn’t include the Damascus road experience when discussing the visions he’s had (e.g. 2 Cor 12:1-7). Paul taught a physical resurrection where the body was dead, buried, and rose, saying it was in bodily form (Col 2:9) and connected it with our future bodies, which he would have believed were physical (1 Cor 15:35-57).

In including himself with the other Jesus appearances in 1 Cor 15, Paul isn’t necessarily talking about the how, but simply connecting that they all saw Jesus. But if a “how” is implied it would very much be the other way around since he is giving this list, in part, to rebut those who are denying his apostleship. He would be trying to match what was believed about Peter and the rest, which were always accepted as physical appearances by the earliest Christians.

They don’t match the resurrection accounts exactly, but they don’t contradict them either. That’s because they don’t have to be equally exhaustive accounts; they are serving different purposes.

This is a real and serious question and not the rhetoric that you accuse me of. Rather your evasion and denial is more characteristic of what you accuse me of doing. You don't appear to have dealt with any of my points, but just resort to abuse and accusations.

no.I just deleted that. I'm not sure whether you are a moderator or not.

Yes, that was a real and serious question, but it wasn’t the point I was making at that time. We were talking about your division between your view as taking the text as it reads and those who disagree with you as lies, interpretation, and making stuff up. You made that distinction simply by using different terms, not by supporting your view over the other with reasoning. That’s a type of semantics, which is useless rhetoric.

That’s not evading your other point, but sticking to the point that I was previously making because your comment about Paul’s sighting being in his head continued to semantically beg the question as to what the proper interpretation is. That’s not denying anything, but sticking to the point instead of just moving on to something else because you want to. That’s not abuse, but a logical analysis of your response. And, yes, I am a moderator, but we aren’t above the moderation process ourselves, so feel free to report that or this or any post as abuse.

And then, as you see above, I’m willing to move onto other points, but I’m not going to let my previous point go by the wayside as though it wasn’t THE point I was making in the post you were responding to.

[TRANSPONDER]

That looks like nosnse to me, and you accusatiobns directed to me (and others) are either misguided and invalid or deliberate and abusing.

I only say this and it is not semantics, or any other nit picking rhetoric; there are problems with the gospels and between gospels and paul The goispel discrepacies are provable - take Luke's alteration of the angelic message to suit his narrative. The conclusion follows on -that he knew paul's letters, because he alters the goispel to fiddle in an initial appearance to Simon.

Anyone with intellectual honestly (which seems to exclude any Bible apologist) will see this is a serious point and nothing to do with semantic or epistemological fiddling, and to pretend that it is is frankly unworthy of a credible apologist.

Now that is only indirectly Pauline, but Acts (as I argued) is, and Luke evidently borrows from Paul (escape from damascus,; council of jerusalem) and rewrites it it to suit himself, and his fiddling of the gospels is support for him doing that.

Taking each point of discussion independently as though it was 'clean hands' is another dirty trick of Bible apologetics. The boy acts like he had never cried wolf before.

No, I will not let you misdirect the matter onto foggy discussions of semantics or invalidating epistemology. I intend to stick to what is in the Bible, taken as meaning what it says, and treating it as evidence.

I just checked; you are a moderator. So I'm going to risk it again. You lack intellectual honesty, so ought to be stripped of your position as a moderator. Now let the bullying by the Biblical begin. I would not be the first atheist martyr by any means.

[otseng]

So I'm going to risk it again. You lack intellectual honesty, so ought to be stripped of your position as a moderator. Now let the bullying by the Biblical begin. I would not be the first atheist martyr by any means.

Moderator Final Warning

Obviously you recognized you are violating the rules.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

So I'm going to risk it again. You lack intellectual honesty, so ought to be stripped of your position as a moderator. Now let the bullying by the Biblical begin. I would not be the first atheist martyr by any means.

Moderator Final Warning

Obviously you recognized you are violating the rules.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Got it. I hate to do personals but 'The spirit moved me' as they say. It had to be said.

[Difflugia]

Paul also claims that Jesus appeared to him physically. In 1 Cor 9:1 he says heoraka ou, “have I not seen?” which is the normal word for ordinary sight.

As a minor counterpoint, the verb horao and a corresponding noun, horasis, are used in the Septuagint in reference to divine visions of God at Numbers 24:3-4 and 24:15-16 (both say the same thing):

“Says Balaam son of Beor;

says the man who truly sees [horon].

Says one who hears divine oracles,

who saw [eiden, 3S aorist active indicative of horao] a divine vision [horasin],
in sleep when his eyes had been uncovered:

[Diogenes]

But I will argue that it wasn’t visionary in the sense of being “in their heads”. Acts presents Paul’s experience as extra-mental (Acts 9:7, 22:9). Luke knows the difference between appearances and visions (like Stephen’s) and his descriptions of Paul put it in the appearance category. Paul also claims that Jesus appeared to him physically....

Luke of course is not a witness of what Paul claimed to see. Surely you are not claiming that because Paul claimed he saw Jesus in the flesh, that he actually did see him physically? There is absolutely NO question that every thing Paul reported (according to Luke) happened AFTER Paul had been without food or water and silent for three days.

This most likely is corroboration that Paul was in delirium for some of those 72 hours. During that time he likely had dreams (or 'visions') which were real to him. Paul's 'Christianity' is based on those visions which he took to be real.

If we heard such reports today we would have little doubt that these supernatural claims of Paul's are based upon things that occurred only in Paul's head. 2000 years of religious tradition does not alter that analysis.

[The Tanager]

Luke of course is not a witness of what Paul claimed to see. Surely you are not claiming that because Paul claimed he saw Jesus in the flesh, that he actually did see him physically?

No, that was not my claim. My claim was only that Paul and Luke claim it was a physical appearance rather than a vision (against Transponder’s seeming claim that Paul viewed his experience as a vision and claimed the other disciples also had visions like him).

[TRANSPONDER]

Luke of course is not a witness of what Paul claimed to see. Surely you are not claiming that because Paul claimed he saw Jesus in the flesh, that he actually did see him physically?

No, that was not my claim. My claim was only that Paul and Luke claim it was a physical appearance rather than a vision (against Transponder’s seeming claim that Paul viewed his experience as a vision and claimed the other disciples also had visions like him).

Well, I contest that either Paul or Luke (Acts) claim it was a physical appearance. It was certainly NOT the Sunday appearances and thus the 1 Cor. list of appearances which Paul equates with his own later vision does not support the gospel accounts of the resurrection. That's the point.

What is your evidence or argument that Paul or indeed Acts was a physical body appearance, never mind support for the Sunday resurrection appearances. I can't wait to see how you do this.