The Question of the Greek New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

All well and good Huggy, but were not talking about roman laws, we're talking about a fantasy narrative with a legal backdrop (donk donk).  Or...did you think that any of that spoke to my post?

Rights are routinely shat upon in the best case scenario..first world, where we have swift and reliable means of confirmation. Now..remember, Ass end of the roman empire, at war, turn of the milllen.

Military personnel and police routinely do illegal things, routinely deprive people of their due process...and this is now, when we have swift and reliable means for determining that this has been done - some semblance of accountability. Now.......remember, ass end of the roman empire, at war, turn of the millen.

But, ignore all that...why did you leave out the roman -army- assigned to escort and the ships to carry him all the way to where he needed to get for the story to begin proper? Is there not some roman law that makes this feasible to you, which you can counter my -actual- objection with?

-If you're a roman legal buff, we can have that convo, but you....and this is ironic because I mentioned this type of mindset specifically in my post - swallowed this story whole. You are contented that rome had laws.....and for whatever reason, that small, irrelevant fact blinds you to the driving current of the narrative, and the specifics of that narraative as they apply to actual life beyond the covers of a book. This shit happens in stories, not in life. London is a real place- that was never attacked by an undead vampire lord, out to steal white women and children. The setting of a story, a place, or a place in time - is no indicator of the truth of it's contents....or, perhaps it is, and Dracula is a historical document?

[Rhondazvous]

The original "lying for Christ"?

Well, as someone said a couple of posts back, the Bible can be interpreted however one wants to interpret it, though imo we should strive to interpret it correctly, as in how the author intended his audience to perceive it and given the historical context. Personally, I don't see this as an instance of "lying" for the sake of the Gospel as much as I see it as instruction for meeting people where they're at in life for the sake of the Gospel. Sort of how one may dress differently for certain occasions, or use less "appropriate" language amongst their peers than they would with their parents, etc. I think Paul is saying that one must politic, though not necessarily with intention to deceive, but to relate to the person or party in a way that one can establish a good rapport.

 Your interpretation of Paul's word would be acceptable by most Christians looking for a solution, but is it based on historical context or on your own ideas about what it takes to "relate" to people?

Outside his own claims, no other biblical writer confirms Paul as an apostle Barnabas vouches for Paul's conversion, but falls short of calling him an apostle.  Although in the book of Acts we see Paul meeting with all the saints and going off on an evangelism spree, in Paul's own writings, particular in Galatians 1, he gives a sworn affidavit that he never met the saints. Words like immediately and straightway preclude interpreting these as anything but a contradiction. Paul's accounts of his conversion, where in one version he sees a light but hears no voice, and in another he hears a voice but sees no man, are quite contradictory. Why should we be generous in interpreting his claims of being all things to all people?

[Minimalist]

Again, what I said was that there is evidence of a first century mss, and that evidence is the testimony of two respected New Testament scholars.

Bullshit.

Right now they are playing "I've Got A Secret."



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...n-culture/

A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they've found the remains of Noah's ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey's Mount Ararat (map).

It wasn't.

[Mudhammam]

Well, as someone said a couple of posts back, the Bible can be interpreted however one wants to interpret it, though imo we should strive to interpret it correctly, as in how the author intended his audience to perceive it and given the historical context. Personally, I don't see this as an instance of "lying" for the sake of the Gospel as much as I see it as instruction for meeting people where they're at in life for the sake of the Gospel. Sort of how one may dress differently for certain occasions, or use less "appropriate" language amongst their peers than they would with their parents, etc. I think Paul is saying that one must politic, though not necessarily with intention to deceive, but to relate to the person or party in a way that one can establish a good rapport.

 Your interpretation of Paul's word would be acceptable by most Christians looking for a solution, but is it based on historical context or on your own ideas about what it takes to "relate" to people?

Outside his own claims, no other biblical writer confirms Paul as an apostle Barnabas vouches for Paul's conversion, but falls short of calling him an apostle.  Although in the book of Acts we see Paul meeting with all the saints and going off on an evangelism spree, in Paul's own writings, particular in Galatians 1, he gives a sworn affidavit that he never met the saints. Words like immediately and straightway preclude interpreting these as anything but a contradiction. Paul's accounts of his conversion, where in one version he sees a light but hears no voice, and in another he hears a voice but sees no man, are quite contradictory. Why should we be generous in interpreting his claims of being all things to all people?

As far as I am aware, there are a few possible references to his conversion experience in his writings but the bulk are found in Acts. So, I'm not so if you can put the blame on Paul if those appear contradictory. Secondly, I don't know Greek, and some of the differences could be due to the translation of certain Greek words that have multiple meanings in English. I haven't studied it so I don't want to jump to a rash conclusion; it wouldn't surprise me if there were contradictions between the separate accounts but that wouldn't necessitate that Paul is lying. Luke undoubtedly embellished certain events, or recorded them as he heard from others who embellished them.

[Aractus]

Your Noah's ark claim wasn't made by any reputable archaeologists. Your comparison is invalid.

[Minimalist]

You are empowered to decide who is and who is not reputable?

Who died and made you king?

[Polaris]

Again, what I said was that there is evidence of a first century mss, and that evidence is the testimony of two respected New Testament scholars.

Bullshit.

Right now they are playing "I've Got A Secret."



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...n-culture/

A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they've found the remains of Noah's ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey's Mount Ararat (map).

It wasn't.

You are empowered to decide who is and who is not reputable?

Who died and made you king?

"way, way, way too young."

Really scientific.  Sounds like one of the bloggists you love to quote. It just gets more stupid after that...I am disappointed National Geographic allowed its name to be associated with that drivel.

[Rhondazvous]

Again, what I said was that there is evidence of a first century mss, and that evidence is the testimony of two respected New Testament scholars.

Bullshit.

Right now they are playing "I've Got A Secret."



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...n-culture/

A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they've found the remains of Noah's ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey's Mount Ararat (map).

It wasn't.

I like it when you're not cussing at me. Ooh, that's mean.

Notice that having evidence of a manuscript is not the same as having the manuscript.

Evangelical Christians aren't exactly disinterested parties here.Their concept of evidence tends to be on the liberal end of the spectrum. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen. In other words, bullshit.

[tokutter]

^ I don't know where you come up with these wacky ideas. Paul was martyred for his beliefs, and as far as we can tell he was executed in the 60's in the first century. That's consistent with the internal evidence in his epistles, with the accounts given in Acts, with the written recollections by early 2nd century church figures, and by the fact that his presence in Christianity ends at the end of Acts which itself terminates in the mid-60's. There are no further letters from him, and there are no further mentions of him alive.

What kind of a con man is willing to suffer persecution and die for their con??

How bout dis one





DAVID "com on baby light my fire" KORESH

OR dis one




JOSEPH "stormin mormon" SMITH

[Minimalist]

Notice that having evidence of a manuscript is not the same as having the manuscript.

Precisely.  They claim they have evidence.  The rest of us have bupkes except their word which is worth exactly shit.


There have been so many of these scams lately ( remember the Lead Codices, or the Jehoash tablet, or the James Ossuary, or the First Temple Pomegranite, or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, to name a few.)

Even when there are legitimate archaeological finds like the Ebla library or the DSS we go through a period which scholars call "the silly season" where every religious shitwit pronounces the new find as "proof" of their fairy tale. They are not.