RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 5, 2015 at 8:42 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2015 at 9:23 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
-Except, again, that it wasn't. It is your imagination which leads you to conspiracies where none exist, and where none need exist....apparently. If you can't accept this simple fact then you aren't having a conversation with me, no matter who you decide to quote tag. I can accept that the legendary, the mythical, the fictive, and the literary found their way into the text -as we see it there today- without any need for a grand or petty conspiracy, personally. I don't have to wonder about the motives of the authors to see that this is what happened, because I have the book right here..same as you, same as anybody.....
-So, we both agree that it is benign (do you accept that -my- position on the matter, rather than your own impositions, is proven to your satisfaction?)...and yet you've lost your shit.
-Disregard acts, meaning stories about distance healing poly blends aren't reliable as history -not even when they agree with other, more reliable things-. Agreed? Depends on those "other sources". If, by this, you means "other parts of the narrative" you are discussing narrative continuity, not history.
-"Whichever paul" is precisely equal to no paul. I'll need you to contain yourself and not balk when I start snipping tidbits out. Or, I can introduce you to a guy named paul right now and we can be done with it? Which -of the numerous candidate pauls- proposed by those who believe in pauls are you comfortable claiming confidence for? I assume we're only discussing "early" or "authentic" pauls....but the fields still pretty wide at this point, there's more than one paul even within those "undisputed epistles". That rules out acts (and just about anything -other- than the genuine epistles) as historically informative -even when it agrees with those epistles. A person cannot, for example, say "early paul" and then point to things beyond that very limited text, supposedly written in his own hand, as though they supported it. They don't..and can't, or else we've left "early paul" and moved on to a different category of paul.
So, you see, "Paul of the seven epistles" is a non-answer, it's responding with "anypaul". When you're done pissing and moaning, I'll be right here, to discuss all those pauls. Maybe we'll find the historic one together where better men have failed for centuries?
-So, we both agree that it is benign (do you accept that -my- position on the matter, rather than your own impositions, is proven to your satisfaction?)...and yet you've lost your shit.
-Disregard acts, meaning stories about distance healing poly blends aren't reliable as history -not even when they agree with other, more reliable things-. Agreed? Depends on those "other sources". If, by this, you means "other parts of the narrative" you are discussing narrative continuity, not history.
-"Whichever paul" is precisely equal to no paul. I'll need you to contain yourself and not balk when I start snipping tidbits out. Or, I can introduce you to a guy named paul right now and we can be done with it? Which -of the numerous candidate pauls- proposed by those who believe in pauls are you comfortable claiming confidence for? I assume we're only discussing "early" or "authentic" pauls....but the fields still pretty wide at this point, there's more than one paul even within those "undisputed epistles". That rules out acts (and just about anything -other- than the genuine epistles) as historically informative -even when it agrees with those epistles. A person cannot, for example, say "early paul" and then point to things beyond that very limited text, supposedly written in his own hand, as though they supported it. They don't..and can't, or else we've left "early paul" and moved on to a different category of paul.
So, you see, "Paul of the seven epistles" is a non-answer, it's responding with "anypaul". When you're done pissing and moaning, I'll be right here, to discuss all those pauls. Maybe we'll find the historic one together where better men have failed for centuries?
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!
