Which instances of apologetics in Acts were "sufficient"?

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

For example, what is my confidence that 2+2=4: pretty high. Am I justified in claiming this is a fact--yes.

To a mathematician, 2+2 = 11 or 2+2 = 10 are valid (base 3 and 4 respectively).

 

[Caliban]

I don't agree. Had they been insufficient, he would not have been as successful as he was. His reasoning might not hold water today, but it was certainly sufficient for the times he was in... which is why apologetics today has a different feel.

I think his rhetoric was effective in his day. I just meant that I don't think people ever had sufficient reason to conclude what he said was actually true in objective terms. It was however sufficient to convince a certain number of people that Christianity was true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think his rhetoric was effective in his day. I just meant that I don't think people ever had sufficient reason to conclude what he said was actually true in objective terms. It was however sufficient to convince a certain number of people that Christianity was true.

Oh, I think there was evidence in objective terms.... in Paul's day (assuming that what we read in the New Testament is "true," of course ...)

 

[Caliban]

Oh, I think there was evidence in objective terms.... in Paul's day (assuming that what we read in the New Testament is "true," of course ...)

But that is circular reasoning if argued from the text. The Bible can't be evidence for the claims of the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But that is circular reasoning if argued from the text. The Bible can't be evidence for the claims of the Bible.

No it not circular. It's not circular one bit.

It's not circular at all (assuming you pay attention to the part in brackets above where I noted SPECIFICALLY that we'd have to assume something to begin with ... ) ... and to my mind, for me to note this to you should indicate to you that I'm entering into a hypothetical thought.

 

[Caliban]

No it not circular. It's not circular one bit.

It's not circular at all (assuming you pay attention to the part in brackets above where I noted SPECIFICALLY that we'd have to assume something to begin with ... ) ... and to my mind, for me to note this to you should indicate to you that I'm entering into a hypothetical thought.

I am seriously not following you here--and I'm trying. Can you explain your position clearly: why is this not circular reasoning?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am seriously not following you here--and I'm trying. Can you explain your position clearly: why is this not circular reasoning?

Apparently, you've misunderstood my original statement. Allow me to reiterate it: IF......YOU.....LIVEd.....DURING.......PAUL'S......TIME......AND......IN......PROXIMITY......TO.....HIM......, MET HIM AND SAW HIM.........DO.......WHAT THE TEXT indicates he did, all of which CAME ALONG WITH his claims about the risen Christ, then you would have objective evidence.

This statement of mine above is not circular, especially because I NEVER said it proved anything. I simply provided a conditional.

Of course, despite objective evidence, there's no guarantee you'd like what you see.

 

[Caliban]

Apparently, you've misunderstood my original statement. Allow me to reiterate it: IF......YOU.....LIVEd.....DURING.......PAUL'S......TIME......AND......IN......PROXIMITY......TO.....HIM......, MET HIM AND SAW HIM.........DO.......WHAT THE TEXT indicates he did, all of which CAME ALONG WITH his claims about the risen Christ, then you'd would have objective evidence.

This statement of mine above is not circular, especially because I NEVER said it proved anything. I simply provided a conditional.

Of course, despite objective evidence, there's no guarantee you'd like what you see.

I don't think you would. Were people in Paul's time justified in their belief that the earth was the center of the known universe--no. They were using the best evidence they had at the time, but they were wrong--meaning they were unjustified in their conclusion about the nature of the cosmos. The same could be said for any truth claim they faced; including the claims of Paul regarding Jesus or his Damascus experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you would. Were people in Paul's time justified in their belief that the earth was the center of the known universe--no. They were using the best evidence they had at the time, but they were wrong--meaning they were unjustified in their conclusion about the nature of the cosmos. The same could be said for any truth claim they faced; including the claims of Paul regarding Jesus or his Damascus experience.

You're missing my point. Again, either I've not yet explicated my position well enough for you to understand, OR you don't really want to understand the point I'm attempting to flesh-out.

I could be wrong about you, but it seems to me that you're rhetorical tactics default to the path of least resistance that you think is available to you, which in many cases seems to be to "balderdash" me and claim I'm guilty of "circular reasoning."

Now, which is it?!

 

[Caliban]

You're missing my point. Again, either I've not yet explicated my position well enough for you to understand, OR you don't really want to understand the point I'm attempting to flesh-out.

I could be wrong about you, but it seems to me that you're rhetorical tactics default to the path of least resistance that you think is available to you, which in many cases seems to be to "balderdash" me and claim I'm guilty of "circular reasoning."

Now, which is it?!

I just asked to to explain why this is not circular reasoning--instead your next post is to complain about how this conversation is going. Just answer the question and it will all be cleared up. You are frustrating yourself. I am just asking you to explain your position--that's a good thing. Look, this is simple; It took post #43 to be circular reasoning. Maybe you see it another way--great--I'm trying to understand.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just asked to to explain why this is not circular reasoning--instead your next post is to complain about how this conversation is going. Just answer the question and it will all be cleared up. You are frustrating yourself. I am just asking you to explain your position--that's a good thing. Look, this is simple; It took post #43 to be circular reasoning. Maybe you see it another way--great--I'm trying to understand.

Alright. My statement in post #43 above is not circular because:

1) If you were an actual traveling companion of Paul, like say Barnabas or Silas, or (by imputation from Tradition) Luke, or a number of others, and if the New Testament text of the book of Acts is at all 'true,' THEN you as an individual would have a large number of successive miraculous instances additional to the mere claim regarding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus or his 2nd had claim that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead in some substantive way.

2) You could fact check what you think you saw at that point with others with you or in the same crowd or group and ask them: "Did you just see what I saw?"

Of course, neither you nor I were there, nor could we be there. Instead, neither of us has purely objective evidence TODAY attesting that what Paul claimed about either himself toward Damascus or that Jesus is Risen is somehow true. Fortunately, in post #43 above, I wasn't claiming that you and I have objective evidence with the book of Acts. I'm simply pointing out that there are more successive details aligned with the overall person and work of Paul than SIMPLY his claim about Damascus or about the nature of Jesus.

 

[Caliban]

If you were an actual traveling companion of Paul, like say Barnabas or Silas, or (by imputation from Tradition) Luke, or a number of others, and if the New Testament text of the book of Acts is at all 'true,' THEN you as an individual would have a large number of successive miraculous instances additional to the mere claim regarding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus or his 2nd had claim that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead in some substantive way.

I don't grant that the book of Acts is true. Any use of the NT as evidence is circular.

2) You could fact check what you think you saw at that point with others with you or in the same crowd or group and ask them: "Did you just see what I saw?"

This is not circular--correct. Paul's contemporaries could try to find an eyewitness to the resurrection or of the miraculous events described in the Gospels or in Paul's own ministry. Of course, everyone had died by then except Paul who saw a light. It is unclear what his companions experienced since their are conflicting accounts in Acts 9:3-8; Acts 22:6-11; and Acts 26:13-19.

I don't see how tradition or the text of the NT is evidence something actually happened (I know you are not claiming that here), but, it is evidence Paul and his followers believed it. I believe Paul believed his message and that his deep sincerity was compelling to others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't grant that the book of Acts is true. Any use of the NT as evidence is circular.

Whether or not the use of the NT is circular would depend upon what exact point is being attempted to be "proved." For instance, the NT can serve at least as evidence for the idea that persons named Peter and Paul (among others) lived in the 1st century in the area of Israel and believed that another person by the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rose again from the dead.

On the other hand, it would be circular un-reasoning if we attempted to say that the book of Acts is a divinely inspired book simply because the author of Acts happened to assert in his text that his text is divinely inspired (which, of course, he did not).

This is not circular--correct. Paul's contemporaries could try to find an eyewitness to the resurrection or of the miraculous events described in the Gospels or in Paul's own ministry. Of course, everyone had died by then except Paul who saw a light.

What are you talking about in saying that "everyone had died...."? Huh? What?

As I already specified earlier, I wasn't referring only to the Damascus story but to the successive events/details involved in the collective narrative about Paul (or Peter as another example) we find in the book of Acts.

It is unclear what his companions experienced since their are conflicting accounts in Acts 9:3-8; Acts 22:6-11; and Acts 26:13-19.

Conflicting accounts? By the same author? Now, that is a strange sight to see, isn't it? Do you think the author forgot what he had written earlier about the same event?

I don't see how tradition or the text of the NT is evidence something actually happened (I know you are not claiming that here), but, it is evidence Paul and his followers believed it. I believe Paul believed his message and that his deep sincerity was compelling to others.

Sure. From our vantage point today, and unless we engage with further considerations about the nature of historical writings or even quasi-historical accounts from the past via the Philosophy of History and the field of Historiography, we could just let sleeping saviors lie sleeping.