RE: The Question of the Greek New Testament
April 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm
(This post was last modified: April 27, 2015 at 2:25 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The stories about "paul" being a roman citizen are hilarious in their own right. He claims to have been born a roman and all of a sudden the sentries tremble in his presence? Then, teh damned joos plot against him -just like they did against jesus.... those fuckers! Of course, because the super apostle deserves no less, and despite various civil disturbances and outright war in the region......The Evil Empire is so kind as to provide "paul" with hundreds of soldiers, complete /w cavalry to escort him out of the jurisdiction saving his neck (that the authors expected anyone to believe that Rome would do such a thing for any reason..let alone some crackpot claiming to be roman- is hard to understand) - he even gets a boat........ This only sets the stage.
It really shouldn't be so radical, proposing that such a man never existed, that such events never took place. The claim to roman citizenship is, itself, a magical claim.....it takes an awfully uncritical mind not to notice how ridiculous the narrative, and thus the claim..actually are. That's one of the more amusing things about the NT, to me. Even the seemingly mundane describes supernatural events.
Let's put this plainly. No soldier, ever, gave a fuck what some rando claimed, and Rome never devoted a full combat unit to protect said rando from the local authorities -which they themselves established and supported-. This story, the claim to "pauls" citizenship.......is a narrative device. It overcomes critical objections at the exact point in the narrative that they present themselves...and sets the foundation for explaining "pauls" equally magical globe trotting conversion sideshow. We may, someday, find earlier versions of this story, but at no point would an earlier date change the above. The narrative itself will remain as fictive as it has always been, regardless of the first time the story was told.
@Aractus....I fail to see any means of confirming that "paul" was a roman -if- there were a "paul" to begin with, and I fail to see how an earlier date for any narrative would lend credence to a story which is suspect not on the grounds of it's date, but on the contents of the narrative -itself-? I still do not see what is left to explain once we acknowledge that greek was lingua franca, and that the work was intended for public view? There needs be no "paul", "paul" need not be roman, and going by the narratives supporting the claim, as above - it's obvious horseshit...and you don;t need a degree in textual criticism or tehology in order to determine this. You can perform a very simple experiment, let's call it "rigorous historical reenactment".
-Approach a state or federal officer after having been accused by local authorities of having committed a crime with the claim "I am a "x" citizen". Check to see how much tremble appears on the statey's face, see what sort of escort that gets you...and where you end up. For additional historical accuracy, do it in an active warzone in which you look suspiciously like the local insurgent flavor.......
It really shouldn't be so radical, proposing that such a man never existed, that such events never took place. The claim to roman citizenship is, itself, a magical claim.....it takes an awfully uncritical mind not to notice how ridiculous the narrative, and thus the claim..actually are. That's one of the more amusing things about the NT, to me. Even the seemingly mundane describes supernatural events.
Let's put this plainly. No soldier, ever, gave a fuck what some rando claimed, and Rome never devoted a full combat unit to protect said rando from the local authorities -which they themselves established and supported-. This story, the claim to "pauls" citizenship.......is a narrative device. It overcomes critical objections at the exact point in the narrative that they present themselves...and sets the foundation for explaining "pauls" equally magical globe trotting conversion sideshow. We may, someday, find earlier versions of this story, but at no point would an earlier date change the above. The narrative itself will remain as fictive as it has always been, regardless of the first time the story was told.
@Aractus....I fail to see any means of confirming that "paul" was a roman -if- there were a "paul" to begin with, and I fail to see how an earlier date for any narrative would lend credence to a story which is suspect not on the grounds of it's date, but on the contents of the narrative -itself-? I still do not see what is left to explain once we acknowledge that greek was lingua franca, and that the work was intended for public view? There needs be no "paul", "paul" need not be roman, and going by the narratives supporting the claim, as above - it's obvious horseshit...and you don;t need a degree in textual criticism or tehology in order to determine this. You can perform a very simple experiment, let's call it "rigorous historical reenactment".
-Approach a state or federal officer after having been accused by local authorities of having committed a crime with the claim "I am a "x" citizen". Check to see how much tremble appears on the statey's face, see what sort of escort that gets you...and where you end up. For additional historical accuracy, do it in an active warzone in which you look suspiciously like the local insurgent flavor.......
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!