RE: Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?
October 6, 2023 at 11:00 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2023 at 11:17 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
-and the trouble begins all over again.
Explaining narrative agreement or disagrement by ideological consistency does not seem to fit with the notion that the inclusion of alleged asserted or implied biographical details... embarrassing or otherwise... has anything to do with the hypothetical historic person. If biographical details of the hypothetical historic person were left out because they didn't fit a later authors ideology, or included because they did, all biographical details even in the event of a historic person must be assumed to be suspect.
Yet it does seem like this is exactly what biblical authors and those who didn't make it into magic book but exist in the periphery did, and had always done. When they recounted their version of a character it was yet another version of someone elses version of a character. There need be no real person at the end of this chain, only characters - and here again we're still assuming there was one, it's just that it wouldn't appear to have anything to do with the literary tradition that gave us our set of possible biographical details. That there are any of them in magic book at all relies on nothing more than a deeply motivated assumption as such.
All of this, in the context of what magic book is actually about - a fantasy pitch regarding miracle working magic men. You cant trust acts and you cant trust john and you cant trust most of what was attributed to paul and we assume that the authors of luke and matthew took liberties specific to their own interests and there's a whole lost document that no one's ever seen and no one seemed to know anything about. It would be weird that arguing for any component of the consensus would seem to deflate the overall conclusion of the consensus if it weren't so comprehensively the case with every single component of it. The consensus builds a very strong case for mythical or legendary characters at absolute best and then throws it's hands in the air declaring it good evidence for historicity instead.
Explaining narrative agreement or disagrement by ideological consistency does not seem to fit with the notion that the inclusion of alleged asserted or implied biographical details... embarrassing or otherwise... has anything to do with the hypothetical historic person. If biographical details of the hypothetical historic person were left out because they didn't fit a later authors ideology, or included because they did, all biographical details even in the event of a historic person must be assumed to be suspect.
Yet it does seem like this is exactly what biblical authors and those who didn't make it into magic book but exist in the periphery did, and had always done. When they recounted their version of a character it was yet another version of someone elses version of a character. There need be no real person at the end of this chain, only characters - and here again we're still assuming there was one, it's just that it wouldn't appear to have anything to do with the literary tradition that gave us our set of possible biographical details. That there are any of them in magic book at all relies on nothing more than a deeply motivated assumption as such.
All of this, in the context of what magic book is actually about - a fantasy pitch regarding miracle working magic men. You cant trust acts and you cant trust john and you cant trust most of what was attributed to paul and we assume that the authors of luke and matthew took liberties specific to their own interests and there's a whole lost document that no one's ever seen and no one seemed to know anything about. It would be weird that arguing for any component of the consensus would seem to deflate the overall conclusion of the consensus if it weren't so comprehensively the case with every single component of it. The consensus builds a very strong case for mythical or legendary characters at absolute best and then throws it's hands in the air declaring it good evidence for historicity instead.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
