Paul's Conversion

[variant]

Once again you really don't know the texts.

Yes, I do. Since we don't know the source material they are inherently more questionable than those you compare them to.

Not at al laughable, unless you want to discount most of human history. And the quality is fine too.

It is your comparison to a remarkably well documented historical event that is laughable here.

Some history. With the Enlightenment came an Aristotelian emphasis on human rationality at the expense of all else. Science became divinised. A German scholar, (Wellhausen) applied that mechanical framework to the Bible. Since science rendered the supernatural unnecessary, being unprovable them miracles and divine acts were a priori impossible. Therefore any such elements in Scripture were accretions, mere superstitions or embellishments. This is your intellectual ancestry.

Such a view held pretty much into the 20th Century. New archaeological and historical materials were emerging that discounted the a-historical deconstruction of the German scholars. By the 1950's theirs became a minority position. As a side note the same mental framework led to questioning whether Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. That is an abandoned viewpoint now by and large in literary circles.

Your own intellectual framework is under challenge as I have noted previously - no response to that I notice. On may fronts - philosophy of science, epistemology, ancient history and awareness of the overriding cultural context of any 'fact' - place you in a very dated mould.

John
NZ

I'm fine with my intellectual framework thanks. If you want to challenge it you should start documenting some modern supernatural events with a camera and a lab.

Till then I feel quite correct to question all mythological works from the past that reference supernatural claims in the sketchy way that history was done back then.

Unless you are fine with all mythical claims from the sketchy past are you? The acts of the Buddah perhaps?

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I do. Since we don't know the source material they are inherently more questionable than those you compare them to.




It is your comparison to a remarkably well documented historical event that is laughable here.




I'm fine with my intellectual framework thanks. If you want to challenge it you should start documenting some modern supernatural events with a camera and a lab.

Why a camera and a lab?

Why can't such documentation come in the form of a written record?

 

[variant]

Why a camera and a lab?

Why can't such documentation come in the form of a written record?

People lie about this stuff all the time, you don't accept supernatural claims from other religions either.

 

[Elioenai26]

People lie about this stuff all the time, you don't accept supernatural claims from other religions either.

Ok....

And people can't lie about the supernatural and at the same time make a video about it? People can't "fake" it on videos?

Scientists have been caught on several occasions lying about their research findings which were conducted in "laboratories".

And even if people lie about the supernatural all the time, that does not mean we discard every record of a supernatural event based on the fact that some people lie about the supernatural.

How do you know what I accept from other religions?

 

[variant]

Ok....

And people can't lie about the supernatural and at the same time make a video about it? People can't "fake" it on videos?

Scientists have been caught on several occasions lying about their research findings which were conducted in "laboratories".

It's harder to do and easier to spot.

And even if people lie about the supernatural all the time, that does not mean we discard every record of a supernatural event based on the fact that some people lie about the supernatural.

I am saying that the records of supernatural events are automatically suspect in light of the fact that they don't happen when we have good recording equipment and objective observers around.

How do you know what I accept from other religions?

If you are a Christian you automatically don't accept all supernatural claims, it is required.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's harder to do and easier to spot.

Not if the people are experts at faking it and making videos of it. I immediately think of people who do this stuff for a living....movie producers, special effects artists, etc. etc.

I am saying that the records of supernatural events are automatically suspect in light of the fact that they don't happen when we have good recording equipment and objective observers around.

Who says that supernatural events do not happen in the presence of good recording equipment and observers around?

If you are a Christian you automatically don't accept all supernatural claims, it is required.

Why is it required?

 

[variant]

Not if the people are experts at faking it and making videos of it. I immediately think of people who do this stuff for a living....movie producers, special effects artists, etc. etc.

Point to the examples of accepted video/lab hoaxes of supernatural events.

Who says that supernatural events do not happen in the presence of good recording equipment and observers around?

Everyone. The evidence doesn't exist.

Why is it required?

Because you're not a Mormon for instance.

 

[Elioenai26]

Point to the examples of accepted video/lab hoaxes of supernatural events.

I said people can "fake" supernatural events and at the same time make them very believable.

This is not controversial and I do not have to provide examples of it. Watch any documentary or t.v. show regarding the matter and you will see.

Everyone. The evidence doesn't exist.

Variant, this is clearly false. There have been numerous documented exorcisms where an individual possessed by demonic spirits has demonstrated supernatural powers.

Sometimes I think you do not even take these matters seriously and just post whatever comes into your mind without even thinking the matter through!

Because you're not a Mormon for instance.

I am not a Mormon because Mormonism's teachings contradict what Christ taught. Since Christ is God and cannot lie, I reject Mormonism on that basis alone, just like I reject Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and every other religion on the basis that they contradict the teachings of God Himself.

 

[super animator]

This isn't philosophy, but rather general apologetics.

 

[variant]

I said people can "fake" supernatural events and at the same time make them very believable.

This is not controversial and I do not have to provide examples of it. Watch any documentary or t.v. show regarding the matter and you will see.

Not what I was talking about. Is there a single bit of evidence out there that is taken to be evidence of supernatural things on video ever?

Something that is not dismissed by looking into how it was done?

The answer is no, and it is non controversial.

Variant, this is clearly false. There have been numerous documented exorcisms where an individual possessed by demonic spirits has demonstrated supernatural powers.

Sometimes I think you do not even take these matters seriously and just post whatever comes into your mind without even thinking the matter through!

A clearly documented exorcism? We can tell that they are supernatural? How? Exactly?

Having a raving person respond to whatever an exorcism is doesn't really evince the supernatural.

I'm talking about miracles here not parlor shows.

I am not a Mormon because Mormonism's teachings contradict what Christ taught. Since Christ is God and cannot lie, I reject Mormonism on that basis alone, just like I reject Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and every other religion on the basis that they contradict the teachings of God Himself.

The problem with that is of course that you reject the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith and his meetings with angels.

So, you have your conclusion and you accept evidence of supernaturalism specifically only in order to support that conclusion.

I don't have to tell you that this is a completely fallacious way to look at evidence.

And you wonder why I don't accept supernatural claims in the Bible as evidence? Well, it's about consistency, I reject all supernatural claims without some significant evidence. There is no other consistent position for me to take.

 

[Elioenai26]

This isn't philosophy, but rather general apologetics.

Epistemology is a broad category.

 

[ebia]

His, by his own admission, was NOT a theophany. Mohammad never claimed to have a vision of God at all, but rather, the angel Gabriel.

But that distinction isn't really important to the issue at hand, is it?

 

[Elioenai26]

But that distinction isn't really important to the issue at hand, is it?

Actually, I only mentioned it to clarify that even if we were to believe Mohammad's vision was authentic, it could not be classified as a theophany.

Carry on...!

 

[KCfromNC]

Peter was one of the Inner Three. So was John. Matthew was himself also a disciple.

That is three of the four gospel writers right there.

Which gospel did Peter write?

Anyway, proof that any of these guys wrote the gospels attributed to them? I know this is a common belief among conservative religious groups, but this isn't shared by people who actually study history.

 

[Elioenai26]

Which gospel did Peter write?

Mark, who wrote the Gospel according to Mark, wrote down all that Peter had seen and done while with Jesus during His three year ministry. He also recorded the death, burial, and resurrection....all of which he himself as well as Peter would have witnessed first hand. Peter did not write a gospel, rather, he shared all that he had witnessed with Mark and Mark wrote it. Therefore, we have the eyewitness testimony of Peter and John, two of the Inner Three, Matthew a disciple, and James, the other member of the Inner Three in his epistle.

Anyway, proof that any of these guys wrote the gospels attributed to them? I know this is a common belief among conservative religious groups, but this isn't shared by people who actually study history.

Of course it is.

KC, I do not believe you have done your homework on this subject. Instead you just say that the authorship of the gospels is not a belief that is shared by people who actually study history....

But who are these people who study history that you refer to? Do you have names? Citations? References? If so, I would love to look at them.

 

[quatona]

How do you explain the conversion of the apostle Paul?

It is a well attributed, nearly undeniable fact attested by believers and skeptics alike. Paul was a devout Jew of the Pharisee sect. He viewed Christianity as a threat to the Mosaic religion and devoted himself to destroying it. And then suddenly he became a devout Christian for no apparent gain and at great personal risk. He became a preacher of the faith he tried to destroy and consequentially became the most influential figure in western culture. We know about his dramatic conversion from his authentic letters and from outside sources. He claims that the risen Christ appeared to him. There are really only three possible explanations and I only find option 3 convincing:

1. The Fraud Theory -- For some reason Paul lied about his experience. But for what convincing reason would he completely change the trajectory of his life and go, eventually, to martyrdom if he was lying about it?

2. The Vision Theory -- Paul honestly thought he saw the risen Christ but was mistaken. He only had a subjective vision. But this kind of phenomenon is hardly becoming of an educated man with obvious intellectual rigor who otherwise shows no signs of mental instability. It also does not explain the other parties involved in the incident (those who accompanied Paul and Ananias).

3. The Resurrection of Christ -- That Jesus really rose from death and really appeared to Paul and thus ensured his conversion and the victory of Christianity over the western world.

How do you explain it?

Since you have already determined that there are only three options you´ll allow to pick from...I´ll have to pass.

 

[KCfromNC]

Mark, who wrote the Gospel according to Mark, wrote down all that Peter had seen and done

So it doesn't answer my question about 1st hand accounts of all of these alleged eyewitnesses. Thanks for coming clean.

KC, I do not believe you have done your homework on this subject.

Thanks for sharing.

How are you coming on that evidence for the identies of the gospel authors I asked for?

 

[RDKirk]

Since you appear to presume that Christ existed at all, and more, that he was resurrected, you have placed this topic in the wrong area for worthwhile discussion of the specifics of Paul's conversion.

You should have placed this in a Christian-only area of the forum.

How do you explain the conversion of the apostle Paul?

It is a well attributed, nearly undeniable fact attested by believers and skeptics alike. Paul was a devout Jew of the Pharisee sect. He viewed Christianity as a threat to the Mosaic religion and devoted himself to destroying it. And then suddenly he became a devout Christian for no apparent gain and at great personal risk. He became a preacher of the faith he tried to destroy and consequentially became the most influential figure in western culture. We know about his dramatic conversion from his authentic letters and from outside sources. He claims that the risen Christ appeared to him. There are really only three possible explanations and I only find option 3 convincing:

1. The Fraud Theory -- For some reason Paul lied about his experience. But for what convincing reason would he completely change the trajectory of his life and go, eventually, to martyrdom if he was lying about it?

2. The Vision Theory -- Paul honestly thought he saw the risen Christ but was mistaken. He only had a subjective vision. But this kind of phenomenon is hardly becoming of an educated man with obvious intellectual rigor who otherwise shows no signs of mental instability. It also does not explain the other parties involved in the incident (those who accompanied Paul and Ananias).

3. The Resurrection of Christ -- That Jesus really rose from death and really appeared to Paul and thus ensured his conversion and the victory of Christianity over the western world.

How do you explain it?

 

[brightlights]

Since you have already determined that there are only three options you´ll allow to pick from...I´ll have to pass.

You're welcome to suggest another that I have failed to see.

 

[brightlights]

Since you appear to presume that Christ existed at all, and more, that he was resurrected, you have placed this topic in the wrong area for worthwhile discussion of the specifics of Paul's conversion.

You should have placed this in a Christian-only area of the forum.

I haven't presumed either of these things.