Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you keep prattling on about an argument from silence?  We both agree that "paul" had alot to say...do we not?

Hell..the OP contention..is that "paul" had so very much to say that "paul" underpins western thought.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you keep prattling on about an argument from silence?  We both agree that "paul" had alot to say...do we not?

Hell..the OP contention..is that "paul" had so very much to say that "paul" underpins western thought.

Sorry, this was a side topic, and not so much about the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find the subjects inexorably tied to each other.  If "paul" had so much to say that we might wonder whether the narrative thrust is a significant contribution to the origins of western thought..all this silly shit about silence is irrelevant.  This guy talked...and talked..and talked.  He praised people for agreeing with his ideology, and he admonished those who christed wrong.  He said all sorts of shit about christ, and about what he believed.  If we want to know what "paul" believed..we can refer to scripture..and there is no use, space, or reason to ask you what you think he believed based on what you believe 2k years and many schisms seperated....and there..RR...there, on the subject of -your- christian beliefs.."paul" truly is silent.

[RoadRunner79]

I find the subjects inexorably tied to each other.  If "paul" had so much to say that we might wonder whether the narrative thrust is a significant contribution to the origins of western thought..all this silly shit about silence is irrelevant.  This guy talked...and talked..and talked.  He praised people for agreeing with his ideology, and he admonished those who christed wrong.  He said all sorts of shit about christ, and about what he believed.  If we want to know what "paul" believed..we can refer to scripture..and there is no use, space, or reason to ask you what you think he believed based on what you believe 2k years and many schisms seperated....and there..RR...there, on the subject of -your- christian beliefs.."paul" truly is silent.

You say they are inexorably linked, but then call the argument from silence irrelevant.  I'm confused.

I don't see where what you assume about my beliefs is relevant however.    If you are saying that Paul didn't talk about myself, I agree.

[Jehanne]

I missed this gem earlier, nestled in the middle of a rant.  You're absolutely correct here...there is no historical source to be had for that contention..there is only the content of the gospels.  

A modern christian person™ might enjoy believeing that "paul" believed as they believe, and it might even be the dogma of their subsect that this is the case.....but a very smart man once commented on unnecessary interjections and I think he got that right too.

The indication seems to be, that Paul had the support of the other disciples, and the support of the early Church.   They say that they taught the same thing. As well Paul endorsed them, and said that they believed the same Gospel.   While I think it's reasonable, that there may have been some differences, the evidence seems to point to the opposite of the conclusion from the argument from silence.

Your views do not represent modern scholarship; you are an extremist, as far as higher Biblical scholarship is concerned.

[RoadRunner79]

The indication seems to be, that Paul had the support of the other disciples, and the support of the early Church.   They say that they taught the same thing. As well Paul endorsed them, and said that they believed the same Gospel.   While I think it's reasonable, that there may have been some differences, the evidence seems to point to the opposite of the conclusion from the argument from silence.

Your views do not represent modern scholarship; you are an extremist, as far as higher Biblical scholarship is concerned.

Ok.... I think that a number of Scholars who would agree (although probably ones you ignore).  But if they disagree, then I ask what is the reason for their different conclusion?   If you have a good reason to believe otherwise, then I'm happy to listen.  Vague appeals to authority not so much.

[Jehanne]

Your views do not represent modern scholarship; you are an extremist, as far as higher Biblical scholarship is concerned.

Ok.... I think that a number of Scholars who would agree (although probably ones you ignore).  But if they disagree, then I ask what is the reason for their different conclusion?   If you have a good reason to believe otherwise, then I'm happy to listen.  Vague appeals to authority not so much.

I think that's where you go wrong; there is absolutely nothing wrong with embracing the well-established positions of a community of scholars who, unlike you or me, are experts in their field of study.  After all, what is the alternative?  Someone like William Lane Craig, who may just be an covert fraud?

[RoadRunner79]

Ok.... I think that a number of Scholars who would agree (although probably ones you ignore).  But if they disagree, then I ask what is the reason for their different conclusion?   If you have a good reason to believe otherwise, then I'm happy to listen.  Vague appeals to authority not so much.

I think that's where you go wrong; there is absolutely nothing wrong with embracing the well-established positions of a community of scholars who, unlike you or me, are experts in their field of study.  After all, what is the alternative?  Someone like William Lane Craig, who may just be an covert fraud?

As I said, I'm happy to look at what they have to say.   I'm not interested in playing dueling scholars however.   From what I have seen, there is not  any new evidence or reasoning which explain the shift in scholarly opinion.  It is more about a priori assumptions, or an attitude change within the academic field. 

For me, I look at history, what Paul said, what others said, how the early Church responded, and I don't see this disparity, concerning Paul and the others.  Now there where some outside groups that did differ (gnostics and such).  This also explains the early church preference for Apostolic succession.   

You haven't provided even a list of scholars and what they say.   I'm skeptical and ask why?

edit:  I would ask again, if you blindly follow the majority of theologians opinions?

[Jehanne]

I think that's where you go wrong; there is absolutely nothing wrong with embracing the well-established positions of a community of scholars who, unlike you or me, are experts in their field of study.  After all, what is the alternative?  Someone like William Lane Craig, who may just be an covert fraud?

As I said, I'm happy to look at what they have to say.   I'm not interested in playing dueling scholars however.   From what I have seen, there is not  any new evidence or reasoning which explain the shift in scholarly opinion.  It is more about a priori assumptions, or an attitude change within the academic field. 

For me, I look at history, what Paul said, what others said, how the early Church responded, and I don't see this disparity, concerning Paul and the others.  Now there where some outside groups that did differ (gnostics and such).  This also explains the early church preference for Apostolic succession.   

You haven't provided even a list of scholars and what they say.   I'm skeptical and ask why?

Just take any New Testament class at the 3,000+ 4-year colleges in the United States; here's one great resource (among many):

Religious Studies Courses (RELS)

[The Grand Nudger]

I find the subjects inexorably tied to each other.  If "paul" had so much to say that we might wonder whether the narrative thrust is a significant contribution to the origins of western thought..all this silly shit about silence is irrelevant.  This guy talked...and talked..and talked.  He praised people for agreeing with his ideology, and he admonished those who christed wrong.  He said all sorts of shit about christ, and about what he believed.  If we want to know what "paul" believed..we can refer to scripture..and there is no use, space, or reason to ask you what you think he believed based on what you believe 2k years and many schisms seperated....and there..RR...there, on the subject of -your- christian beliefs.."paul" truly is silent.

You say they are inexorably linked, but then call the argument from silence irrelevant.  I'm confused.

Perpetually, I suspect.  

I don't see where  what you assume about my beliefs is relevant however.    If you are saying that Paul didn't talk about myself, I agree.

I don't need to make assumptions about your beliefs anymore than I need to make assumptions about "paul's" beliefs, for the same reason in both cases.  This is how I know that you do not believe the same things..and also how I know that the contents of some of your beliefs are certainly false.  OFC Paul didn't talk about you..how could he be aware of you?  Similarly, Paul did not know about your christianity....and how could he?