| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fred A Stover
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
 |
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e356ae01-1b7a-4001-b2de-b1f754575b65@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Aug 11, 12:47 pm, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Linda Lee wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:15 pm, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
snip to point
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't
above LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open
and dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging
himself at all.
So much for your discernment.
Judas did not hang himself, the word translated "hanged himself"
means he choked himself off: killed himself. He jumped in the Acts
account; he didn't accidentally fall.
What Matthew reported was that Judas killed himself [apagchomai:
choked himself off/stopped his own breath], not how or when he died.
The Acts account tells us how he died. When he died is after the
resurrection, for Jesus appeared to the 12 and the apostles didn't
presume choose an apostle for Jesus until after His ascension.
G519
???????????
apagchomai
ap-ang'-khom-ahee
From G575 and ?????? agcho? (to choke; akin to the base of G43); to
strangle oneself off (that is, to death)
Come on Fred, you're reaching. Choking oneself to death is not being
"burst asunder", and most people hang themselves in order to be able
to choke themselves past unconsciousness into death.
No reach at all. You need to pay attention. I already told you apagchomai
said nothing of how Judas died: It didn't mean hanged or burst asunder.
It
merely told us he killed himself, which should be obvious when a detailed
account in Acts tells us he fell and burst asunder. The Matthew account
tells us it wasn't an accident.
It does mean hanged as it means strangled and one can't strangle
oneself to death without hanging oneself because they'd lose
consciousness and begin breathing again and wouldn't die. Luke
reported a false rumor (God just burst him open, blew him up), much
more fantastic than the reality.
|
It is a combination of choke (agcho) and off (apo), and Judas stopped his
own breath, killed himself. The automatic choke on your car does not
strangle or hang your carburetor. The Acts account tells us Judas fell to
his death, and Matthew tells us it wasn't an accident.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
| Quote: |
Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a
RUMOR concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is
really galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate
the entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses
did not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and
all his bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's
field, to bury strangers in.
Mat 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto
this day.
It was called the "field of blood" because it was purchased with
'blood money', not because Judas' blood was spewed all over the
ground when he suddenly burst open like Luke had heard. Luke's
report is an elaboration on the truth, and we can't blame Luke
because Luke says he always relied on eyewitnesses.
snip
|
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Chuck Stamford
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation.
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword".
But now according to Luke's Gospel (which Paul assisted him in
writing), they are to carry swords. That sounds more like Paul:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
THAT is contrary to everything Christ taught.
Chuck:
There are several points at which your analysis fails in the above. I'm
not
going to go through them all, and any one of them is fatal to your
conclusion we can't trust Luke when Luke records events from the life of
Paul. Here are a few of the more devastating ones:
1.) Smith's informs us, and it is certainly reasonable, that Luke took
his
information from "every quarter" he could, and that this would include his
mentor, Paul. However, you theorize that the information supplied to Luke
by Paul was Luke's only source for that information, without any
justification for that theory whatsoever, and some pretty good evidence
it's
not true.
For example, Paul's conversion. Now there were several people who
witnessed
that event besides Paul, and it is quite likely Luke had an opportunity to
interview them all. There is therefore no basis in fact for your theory
that Paul merely fed Luke the story, thus making its reliability suspect.
We have no reason to doubt the reliability of Luke's account of Paul's
conversion, and therefore we have no plausible reason to doubt Paul's
vision, or Christ's calling, or the Divine imprimatuer thus stamped on the
balance of Paul's life and ministry...yet you do it anyway.
2.) You note that Luke's gospel contains an enigmatic utterance by Jesus,
and then try to blame it's presence in Luke's gospel on Paul. Several
things are wrong with that as well:
a) Even if the record of Jesus' speech at Luke 22:36 is wrong, and Jesus
never said it, there is no way to tell from the text how Luke got it
wrong,
or where he got this particular pericope. Yet you ascribe it to Paul, in
knee-jerk fashion.
b) Anyone who has studied the gospels in the NT is aware of the fact they
record several such utterances and actions of Jesus; that these sorts of
things aren't just confined to the Luke. It is therefore unreasonable to
assume that just because Luke's gospel contains such an enigmatic
utterance,
that is isn't one Jesus actually made. Some examples of other such
sayings
in other gospels:
i) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matt 8:20
(Clearly Jesus had plenty of places to sleep, not to mention a living
family
and family residence. Luke also records this utterance at 9:58)
ii) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art
an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but
those that be of men. Matt 16:23 (this is a triple tradition saying!)
iii) And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said
unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples
heard it. Mark 11:13-14 (Here Mark informs us that the loving Creator of
the
universe, knowing the fig tree could not have any fruit on it, "for the
time
of figs was not yet", curses the fig tree anyway! Only Matthew and Mark
share this pericope!)
I could go on to list two dozen instances where Jesus says or does
something
easily misunderstood, which means we can't use His difficult to understand
utterances and actions as any sort of criteria for the reliability of the
author who records them.
In conclusion, you've provided no plausible justification for doubting,
much
less rejecting Paul's Damascus road conversion and supernatural commission
by the risen Christ. Because your rejection of Paul's conversion and
commission is untenable on the facts recorded in the texts, and you've
provided no plauisble reason to doubt the veracity of the texts that
record
it, you have no plausible reason left to reject the Pauline corpus as
inspired Scripture, which is exactly what 2 Peter 3:16 says it is:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
That leaves only two possible reasons for you to reject Paul (you think
what
he says contradicts other Scripture, or you just don't like what he says),
and both of them lead to undercutting the reliability of the entire New
Testament. So if you reject Paul, to be consistent, you must also reject
the reliability of the gospels, but if you reject their authority, then
you
are free to make up your own Jesus, and your own Christianity, which is
convenient for you, but will have no power to save you from your sins.
Chuck Stamford
because the special Lukan portions of Luke's gospel make up only a
very small portion of his gospel. Therefore, if you accept, as you must
from it's close factual correlation to the other two Synoptics, the
reliability of Luke as a faithful recorder of witness testimony to the
life
of Jesus Christ, then there is no reason to question his Acts, where he
uses
exactly the same sort of witnesses and method of ascertaining the facts
he
records.
It doesn't matter how he ascertained the 'facts'; it is apparent
Judas' death was exaggerated in Acts.
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't above
LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open and
dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging himself at
all. Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a RUMOR
concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is really
galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate the
entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses did
not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the
...
read more »
|
You are willfully ignorant. I ascribe the odd violent saying in Luke
to Paul because scholars believe Paul assisted Luke in writing his
gospel.
Chuck:
I just gave you a very reasoned argument for why you can't do that. This
claim that I'm "willfully ignornat" is a resort to an ad hominem in lieu of
any alternative reasoned defeater, which I can only interpret as your
admission you don't have any reasoned rebuttal If you don't have any
reasoned refutation to what I provided you above, and yet you still continue
to reject the Pauline corpus, you thus demonstrate beyond dispute that your
position is "unreasonable", and that you *will not* let it go.
It's therefore foolish to give you any reasoned argument for why your pov is
false, as you've just demonstrated you don't care whether it's reasoned or
not! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation.
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword".
But now according to Luke's Gospel (which Paul assisted him in
writing), they are to carry swords. That sounds more like Paul:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
THAT is contrary to everything Christ taught.
Chuck:
There are several points at which your analysis fails in the above. I'm
not
going to go through them all, and any one of them is fatal to your
conclusion we can't trust Luke when Luke records events from the life of
Paul. Here are a few of the more devastating ones:
1.) Smith's informs us, and it is certainly reasonable, that Luke took
his
information from "every quarter" he could, and that this would include his
mentor, Paul. However, you theorize that the information supplied to Luke
by Paul was Luke's only source for that information, without any
justification for that theory whatsoever, and some pretty good evidence
it's
not true.
For example, Paul's conversion. Now there were several people who
witnessed
that event besides Paul, and it is quite likely Luke had an opportunity to
interview them all. There is therefore no basis in fact for your theory
that Paul merely fed Luke the story, thus making its reliability suspect.
We have no reason to doubt the reliability of Luke's account of Paul's
conversion, and therefore we have no plausible reason to doubt Paul's
vision, or Christ's calling, or the Divine imprimatuer thus stamped on the
balance of Paul's life and ministry...yet you do it anyway.
2.) You note that Luke's gospel contains an enigmatic utterance by Jesus,
and then try to blame it's presence in Luke's gospel on Paul. Several
things are wrong with that as well:
a) Even if the record of Jesus' speech at Luke 22:36 is wrong, and Jesus
never said it, there is no way to tell from the text how Luke got it
wrong,
or where he got this particular pericope. Yet you ascribe it to Paul, in
knee-jerk fashion.
b) Anyone who has studied the gospels in the NT is aware of the fact they
record several such utterances and actions of Jesus; that these sorts of
things aren't just confined to the Luke. It is therefore unreasonable to
assume that just because Luke's gospel contains such an enigmatic
utterance,
that is isn't one Jesus actually made. Some examples of other such
sayings
in other gospels:
i) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matt 8:20
(Clearly Jesus had plenty of places to sleep, not to mention a living
family
and family residence. Luke also records this utterance at 9:58)
ii) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art
an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but
those that be of men. Matt 16:23 (this is a triple tradition saying!)
iii) And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said
unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples
heard it. Mark 11:13-14 (Here Mark informs us that the loving Creator of
the
universe, knowing the fig tree could not have any fruit on it, "for the
time
of figs was not yet", curses the fig tree anyway! Only Matthew and Mark
share this pericope!)
I could go on to list two dozen instances where Jesus says or does
something
easily misunderstood, which means we can't use His difficult to understand
utterances and actions as any sort of criteria for the reliability of the
author who records them.
In conclusion, you've provided no plausible justification for doubting,
much
less rejecting Paul's Damascus road conversion and supernatural commission
by the risen Christ. Because your rejection of Paul's conversion and
commission is untenable on the facts recorded in the texts, and you've
provided no plauisble reason to doubt the veracity of the texts that
record
it, you have no plausible reason left to reject the Pauline corpus as
inspired Scripture, which is exactly what 2 Peter 3:16 says it is:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
That leaves only two possible reasons for you to reject Paul (you think
what
he says contradicts other Scripture, or you just don't like what he says),
and both of them lead to undercutting the reliability of the entire New
Testament. So if you reject Paul, to be consistent, you must also reject
the reliability of the gospels, but if you reject their authority, then
you
are free to make up your own Jesus, and your own Christianity, which is
convenient for you, but will have no power to save you from your sins.
Chuck Stamford
because the special Lukan portions of Luke's gospel make up only a
very small portion of his gospel. Therefore, if you accept, as you must
from it's close factual correlation to the other two Synoptics, the
reliability of Luke as a faithful recorder of witness testimony to the
life
of Jesus Christ, then there is no reason to question his Acts, where he
uses
exactly the same sort of witnesses and method of ascertaining the facts
he
records.
It doesn't matter how he ascertained the 'facts'; it is apparent
Judas' death was exaggerated in Acts.
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't above
LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open and
dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging himself at
all. Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a RUMOR
concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is really
galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate the
entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses did
not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the
...
read more »
You are willfully ignorant. I ascribe the odd violent saying in Luke
to Paul because scholars believe Paul assisted Luke in writing his
gospel.
Chuck:
I just gave you a very reasoned argument for why you can't do that.
|
And I just gave you a very reasoned argument why I can.
| Quote: | This
claim that I'm "willfully ignornat" is a resort to an ad hominem in lieu of
any alternative reasoned defeater, which I can only interpret as your
admission you don't have any reasoned rebuttal
|
Why not interpret it as I noticed you ignore everything about Paul you
don't want to see?
| Quote: | If you don't have any
reasoned refutation to what I provided you above, and yet you still continue
to reject the Pauline corpus, you thus demonstrate beyond dispute that your
position is "unreasonable", and that you *will not* let it go.
It's therefore foolish to give you any reasoned argument for why your pov is
false, as you've just demonstrated you don't care whether it's reasoned or
not!
|
You give no reason why we should follow the false apostle Paul and why
Christ's teachings through his true appointed and trained apostles
isn't good enough for you. It's Christianity, not Paulianity. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chuck Stamford
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:8d829438-57a4-4599-8b12-c0f420ffb45e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation.
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous
witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what
you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have
no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword".
But now according to Luke's Gospel (which Paul assisted him in
writing), they are to carry swords. That sounds more like Paul:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
THAT is contrary to everything Christ taught.
Chuck:
There are several points at which your analysis fails in the above. I'm
not
going to go through them all, and any one of them is fatal to your
conclusion we can't trust Luke when Luke records events from the life of
Paul. Here are a few of the more devastating ones:
1.) Smith's informs us, and it is certainly reasonable, that Luke took
his
information from "every quarter" he could, and that this would include
his
mentor, Paul. However, you theorize that the information supplied to
Luke
by Paul was Luke's only source for that information, without any
justification for that theory whatsoever, and some pretty good evidence
it's
not true.
For example, Paul's conversion. Now there were several people who
witnessed
that event besides Paul, and it is quite likely Luke had an opportunity
to
interview them all. There is therefore no basis in fact for your theory
that Paul merely fed Luke the story, thus making its reliability
suspect.
We have no reason to doubt the reliability of Luke's account of Paul's
conversion, and therefore we have no plausible reason to doubt Paul's
vision, or Christ's calling, or the Divine imprimatuer thus stamped on
the
balance of Paul's life and ministry...yet you do it anyway.
2.) You note that Luke's gospel contains an enigmatic utterance by
Jesus,
and then try to blame it's presence in Luke's gospel on Paul. Several
things are wrong with that as well:
a) Even if the record of Jesus' speech at Luke 22:36 is wrong, and
Jesus
never said it, there is no way to tell from the text how Luke got it
wrong,
or where he got this particular pericope. Yet you ascribe it to Paul,
in
knee-jerk fashion.
b) Anyone who has studied the gospels in the NT is aware of the fact
they
record several such utterances and actions of Jesus; that these sorts of
things aren't just confined to the Luke. It is therefore unreasonable
to
assume that just because Luke's gospel contains such an enigmatic
utterance,
that is isn't one Jesus actually made. Some examples of other such
sayings
in other gospels:
i) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matt 8:20
(Clearly Jesus had plenty of places to sleep, not to mention a living
family
and family residence. Luke also records this utterance at 9:58)
ii) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art
an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but
those that be of men. Matt 16:23 (this is a triple tradition saying!)
iii) And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing
but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said
unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples
heard it. Mark 11:13-14 (Here Mark informs us that the loving Creator of
the
universe, knowing the fig tree could not have any fruit on it, "for the
time
of figs was not yet", curses the fig tree anyway! Only Matthew and
Mark
share this pericope!)
I could go on to list two dozen instances where Jesus says or does
something
easily misunderstood, which means we can't use His difficult to
understand
utterances and actions as any sort of criteria for the reliability of
the
author who records them.
In conclusion, you've provided no plausible justification for doubting,
much
less rejecting Paul's Damascus road conversion and supernatural
commission
by the risen Christ. Because your rejection of Paul's conversion and
commission is untenable on the facts recorded in the texts, and you've
provided no plauisble reason to doubt the veracity of the texts that
record
it, you have no plausible reason left to reject the Pauline corpus as
inspired Scripture, which is exactly what 2 Peter 3:16 says it is:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
That leaves only two possible reasons for you to reject Paul (you think
what
he says contradicts other Scripture, or you just don't like what he
says),
and both of them lead to undercutting the reliability of the entire New
Testament. So if you reject Paul, to be consistent, you must also
reject
the reliability of the gospels, but if you reject their authority, then
you
are free to make up your own Jesus, and your own Christianity, which is
convenient for you, but will have no power to save you from your sins.
Chuck Stamford
because the special Lukan portions of Luke's gospel make up only a
very small portion of his gospel. Therefore, if you accept, as you
must
from it's close factual correlation to the other two Synoptics, the
reliability of Luke as a faithful recorder of witness testimony to the
life
of Jesus Christ, then there is no reason to question his Acts, where
he
uses
exactly the same sort of witnesses and method of ascertaining the
facts
he
records.
It doesn't matter how he ascertained the 'facts'; it is apparent
Judas' death was exaggerated in Acts.
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't above
LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open and
dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging himself at
all. Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a RUMOR
concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is really
galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate the
entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses did
not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the
...
read more »
You are willfully ignorant. I ascribe the odd violent saying in Luke
to Paul because scholars believe Paul assisted Luke in writing his
gospel.
Chuck:
I just gave you a very reasoned argument for why you can't do that.
|
And I just gave you a very reasoned argument why I can.
Chuck:
Argument by assertion isn't "reasoned argument", Linda. Luke says he
gleaned his facts from multiple sources. You can't simply SAY this passage
came from Paul, and then SAY that's a "reasoned argument" for it coming from
Paul. Where's your evidence that's true?
| Quote: | This
claim that I'm "willfully ignornat" is a resort to an ad hominem in lieu
of
any alternative reasoned defeater, which I can only interpret as your
admission you don't have any reasoned rebuttal
|
Linda:
Why not interpret it as I noticed you ignore everything about Paul you
don't want to see?
Chuck:
Because that wouldn't make any sense at all, that's why. If I was truly
doing that, it would be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate that fact.
The ad hom shows only that it's not easy for you, from which I've drawn the
very reasonable inference it's not easy for you because there is no such
demonstration available to you.
| Quote: | If you don't have any
reasoned refutation to what I provided you above, and yet you still
continue
to reject the Pauline corpus, you thus demonstrate beyond dispute that
your
position is "unreasonable", and that you *will not* let it go.
It's therefore foolish to give you any reasoned argument for why your pov
is
false, as you've just demonstrated you don't care whether it's reasoned or
not!
|
Linda:
You give no reason why we should follow the false apostle Paul and why
Christ's teachings through his true appointed and trained apostles
isn't good enough for you. It's Christianity, not Paulianity.
Chuck:
I've given you a very good reason: Paul's Damascus road conversion and
choosing by our Lord, Jesus Christ. And I've just shown you why you have no
good reason to doubt that event. And if that's not enough, then you have
Acts 15, which again shows the Apostles' certification of Paul's genuine
faith, calling, and ministry of the Gospel. There it's not even POSSIBLE
that Paul is Luke's only source, for the "us"/"we" shift in Luke's Acts
(which most understand as Luke indicating his presence at the events he
records) begins in chapter 16, while Paul is with Silas, whom James sent
along with Judas from the council at Jerusalem:
Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed
with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by
fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying,
"These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way
of salvation." 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed,
turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to
come out of her." And he came out that very hour.
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized
Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.
Acts 16:16-19 (NKJV)
This gives us a VERY good reason to believe that if Luke wasn't at the
council in Jerusalem himself (which he very well may have been, but we have
no data to suggest he was), he spent several weeks (at least!) in the
company of Silas (all the time Luke uses the "us"/"we" pronouns while Paul
and Silas are together), who was not only there, but was sent by the council
to certify both the council's letter, and Paul's and Barnabas' preaching.
Luke, then, would have had PLENTY of opportunity to interview Silas AT
LENGTH, and compare that with what Paul and Barnabas had to tell him about
what transpired at the council. And Luke would have then conjoined these
individual recollections and reduced them to the account of that council we
now find in Acts 15.
There is therefore no good reason to suppose that Luke's account of the
council at Jerusalem is biased in any way in favor of Paul, but on the
contrary is a completely reliable account of the event if anything Luke ever
wrote is. And since you seem to take Luke's gospel as reliable, doubting
him only when he certifies for you that Paul was a true apostle, and known
to be such by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, is what demonstrates a
severe bias. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
On Aug 15, 7:48 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:8d829438-57a4-4599-8b12-c0f420ffb45e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation..
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous
witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what
you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have
no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword".
But now according to Luke's Gospel (which Paul assisted him in
writing), they are to carry swords. That sounds more like Paul:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
THAT is contrary to everything Christ taught.
Chuck:
There are several points at which your analysis fails in the above. I'm
not
going to go through them all, and any one of them is fatal to your
conclusion we can't trust Luke when Luke records events from the life of
Paul. Here are a few of the more devastating ones:
1.) Smith's informs us, and it is certainly reasonable, that Luke took
his
information from "every quarter" he could, and that this would include
his
mentor, Paul. However, you theorize that the information supplied to
Luke
by Paul was Luke's only source for that information, without any
justification for that theory whatsoever, and some pretty good evidence
it's
not true.
For example, Paul's conversion. Now there were several people who
witnessed
that event besides Paul, and it is quite likely Luke had an opportunity
to
interview them all. There is therefore no basis in fact for your theory
that Paul merely fed Luke the story, thus making its reliability
suspect.
We have no reason to doubt the reliability of Luke's account of Paul's
conversion, and therefore we have no plausible reason to doubt Paul's
vision, or Christ's calling, or the Divine imprimatuer thus stamped on
the
balance of Paul's life and ministry...yet you do it anyway.
2.) You note that Luke's gospel contains an enigmatic utterance by
Jesus,
and then try to blame it's presence in Luke's gospel on Paul. Several
things are wrong with that as well:
a) Even if the record of Jesus' speech at Luke 22:36 is wrong, and
Jesus
never said it, there is no way to tell from the text how Luke got it
wrong,
or where he got this particular pericope. Yet you ascribe it to Paul,
in
knee-jerk fashion.
b) Anyone who has studied the gospels in the NT is aware of the fact
they
record several such utterances and actions of Jesus; that these sorts of
things aren't just confined to the Luke. It is therefore unreasonable
to
assume that just because Luke's gospel contains such an enigmatic
utterance,
that is isn't one Jesus actually made. Some examples of other such
sayings
in other gospels:
i) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the
air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matt 8:20
(Clearly Jesus had plenty of places to sleep, not to mention a living
family
and family residence. Luke also records this utterance at 9:58)
ii) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou
art
an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but
those that be of men. Matt 16:23 (this is a triple tradition saying!)
iii) And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing
but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and said
unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples
heard it. Mark 11:13-14 (Here Mark informs us that the loving Creator of
the
universe, knowing the fig tree could not have any fruit on it, "for the
time
of figs was not yet", curses the fig tree anyway! Only Matthew and
Mark
share this pericope!)
I could go on to list two dozen instances where Jesus says or does
something
easily misunderstood, which means we can't use His difficult to
understand
utterances and actions as any sort of criteria for the reliability of
the
author who records them.
In conclusion, you've provided no plausible justification for doubting,
much
less rejecting Paul's Damascus road conversion and supernatural
commission
by the risen Christ. Because your rejection of Paul's conversion and
commission is untenable on the facts recorded in the texts, and you've
provided no plauisble reason to doubt the veracity of the texts that
record
it, you have no plausible reason left to reject the Pauline corpus as
inspired Scripture, which is exactly what 2 Peter 3:16 says it is:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
That leaves only two possible reasons for you to reject Paul (you think
what
he says contradicts other Scripture, or you just don't like what he
says),
and both of them lead to undercutting the reliability of the entire New
Testament. So if you reject Paul, to be consistent, you must also
reject
the reliability of the gospels, but if you reject their authority, then
you
are free to make up your own Jesus, and your own Christianity, which is
convenient for you, but will have no power to save you from your sins..
Chuck Stamford
because the special Lukan portions of Luke's gospel make up only a
very small portion of his gospel. Therefore, if you accept, as you
must
from it's close factual correlation to the other two Synoptics, the
reliability of Luke as a faithful recorder of witness testimony to the
life
of Jesus Christ, then there is no reason to question his Acts, where
he
uses
exactly the same sort of witnesses and method of ascertaining the
facts
he
records.
It doesn't matter how he ascertained the 'facts'; it is apparent
Judas' death was exaggerated in Acts.
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't above
LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open and
dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging himself at
all. Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a RUMOR
concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is really
galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate the
entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses did
not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the
...
read more »
You are willfully ignorant. I ascribe the odd violent saying in Luke
to Paul because scholars believe Paul assisted Luke in writing his
gospel.
Chuck:
I just gave you a very reasoned argument for why you can't do that.
And I just gave you a very reasoned argument why I can.
Chuck:
Argument by assertion isn't "reasoned argument", Linda. Luke says he
gleaned his facts from multiple sources. You can't simply SAY this passage
came from Paul, and then SAY that's a "reasoned argument" for it coming from
Paul. Where's your evidence that's true?
This
claim that I'm "willfully ignornat" is a resort to an ad hominem in lieu
of
any alternative reasoned defeater, which I can only interpret as your
admission you don't have any reasoned rebuttal
Linda:
Why not interpret it as I noticed you ignore everything about Paul you
don't want to see?
Chuck:
Because that wouldn't make any sense at all, that's why. If I was truly
doing that, it would be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate that fact.
The ad hom shows only that it's not easy for you, from which I've drawn the
very reasonable inference it's not easy for you because there is no such
demonstration available to you.
If you don't have any
reasoned refutation to what I provided you above, and yet you still
continue
to reject the Pauline corpus, you thus demonstrate beyond dispute that
your
position is "unreasonable", and that you *will not* let it go.
It's therefore foolish to give you any reasoned argument for why your pov
is
false, as you've just demonstrated you don't care whether it's reasoned or
not!
Linda:
You give no reason why we should follow the false apostle Paul and why
Christ's teachings through his true appointed and trained apostles
isn't good enough for you. It's Christianity, not Paulianity.
Chuck:
I've given you a very good reason:
|
No, you haven't.
Real apostle James: Jas 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God
and the Father is this, To visit [relieve]the fatherless and widows in
their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
False apostle Paul (who actually says if the young widows remarry,
they have "damnation" having left the "faith"):
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to
wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house
to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear
children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to
speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them
relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve
them that are widows indeed.
Christ's instructions to the real apostles:
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words,
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your
feet. [notice no mention of threatening them and remaining or
returning]
False apostle Paul's way:
2Co 13:2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present,
the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore
have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not
spare:
2Co 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me,
False apostle Paul's rule over the believers:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
There is nothing comparable to this in Christ's instructions to the
apostles.
Paul's Damascus road conversion and
| Quote: | choosing by our Lord, Jesus Christ. And I've just shown you why you have no
good reason to doubt that event. And if that's not enough, then you have
Acts 15, which again shows the Apostles' certification of Paul's genuine
faith, calling, and ministry of the Gospel. There it's not even POSSIBLE
that Paul is Luke's only source, for the "us"/"we" shift in Luke's Acts
(which most understand as Luke indicating his presence at the events he
records) begins in chapter 16, while Paul is with Silas, whom James sent
along with Judas from the council at Jerusalem:
Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed
with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by
fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying,
"These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way
of salvation." 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed,
turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to
come out of her." And he came out that very hour.
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized
Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.
Acts 16:16-19 (NKJV)
This gives us a VERY good reason to believe that if Luke wasn't at the
council in Jerusalem himself (which he very well may have been, but we have
no data to suggest he was), he spent several weeks (at least!) in the
company of Silas (all the time Luke uses the "us"/"we" pronouns while Paul
and Silas are together), who was not only there, but was sent by the council
to certify both the council's letter, and Paul's and Barnabas' preaching.
Luke, then, would have had PLENTY of opportunity to interview Silas AT
LENGTH, and compare that with what Paul and Barnabas had to tell him about
what transpired at the council. And Luke would have then conjoined these
individual recollections and reduced them to the account of that council we
now find in Acts 15.
There is therefore no good reason to suppose that Luke's account of the
council at Jerusalem is biased in any way in favor of Paul, but on the
contrary is a completely reliable account of the event if anything Luke ever
wrote is. And since you seem to take Luke's gospel as reliable, doubting
him only when he certifies for you that Paul was a true apostle, and known
to be such by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, is what demonstrates a
severe bias. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Linda Lee
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
On Aug 15, 2:54 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:100acd92-fcb8-42ca-af6f-2c544e618363@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 7:48 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:8d829438-57a4-4599-8b12-c0f420ffb45e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net
wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation.
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous
witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what
you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke
using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have
no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword".
But now according to Luke's Gospel (which Paul assisted him in
writing), they are to carry swords. That sounds more like Paul:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
THAT is contrary to everything Christ taught.
Chuck:
There are several points at which your analysis fails in the above.
I'm
not
going to go through them all, and any one of them is fatal to your
conclusion we can't trust Luke when Luke records events from the life
of
Paul. Here are a few of the more devastating ones:
1.) Smith's informs us, and it is certainly reasonable, that Luke
took
his
information from "every quarter" he could, and that this would include
his
mentor, Paul. However, you theorize that the information supplied to
Luke
by Paul was Luke's only source for that information, without any
justification for that theory whatsoever, and some pretty good
evidence
it's
not true.
For example, Paul's conversion. Now there were several people who
witnessed
that event besides Paul, and it is quite likely Luke had an
opportunity
to
interview them all. There is therefore no basis in fact for your
theory
that Paul merely fed Luke the story, thus making its reliability
suspect.
We have no reason to doubt the reliability of Luke's account of Paul's
conversion, and therefore we have no plausible reason to doubt Paul's
vision, or Christ's calling, or the Divine imprimatuer thus stamped on
the
balance of Paul's life and ministry...yet you do it anyway.
2.) You note that Luke's gospel contains an enigmatic utterance by
Jesus,
and then try to blame it's presence in Luke's gospel on Paul. Several
things are wrong with that as well:
a) Even if the record of Jesus' speech at Luke 22:36 is wrong, and
Jesus
never said it, there is no way to tell from the text how Luke got it
wrong,
or where he got this particular pericope. Yet you ascribe it to Paul,
in
knee-jerk fashion.
b) Anyone who has studied the gospels in the NT is aware of the fact
they
record several such utterances and actions of Jesus; that these sorts
of
things aren't just confined to the Luke. It is therefore unreasonable
to
assume that just because Luke's gospel contains such an enigmatic
utterance,
that is isn't one Jesus actually made. Some examples of other such
sayings
in other gospels:
i) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of
the
air
have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Matt
8:20
(Clearly Jesus had plenty of places to sleep, not to mention a living
family
and family residence. Luke also records this utterance at 9:58)
ii) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:
thou
art
an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but
those that be of men. Matt 16:23 (this is a triple tradition saying!)
iii) And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply
he
might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing
but
leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered and
said
unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his
disciples
heard it. Mark 11:13-14 (Here Mark informs us that the loving Creator
of
the
universe, knowing the fig tree could not have any fruit on it, "for
the
time
of figs was not yet", curses the fig tree anyway! Only Matthew and
Mark
share this pericope!)
I could go on to list two dozen instances where Jesus says or does
something
easily misunderstood, which means we can't use His difficult to
understand
utterances and actions as any sort of criteria for the reliability of
the
author who records them.
In conclusion, you've provided no plausible justification for
doubting,
much
less rejecting Paul's Damascus road conversion and supernatural
commission
by the risen Christ. Because your rejection of Paul's conversion and
commission is untenable on the facts recorded in the texts, and
you've
provided no plauisble reason to doubt the veracity of the texts that
record
it, you have no plausible reason left to reject the Pauline corpus as
inspired Scripture, which is exactly what 2 Peter 3:16 says it is:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as
our
beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they
that
are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
unto
their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16
That leaves only two possible reasons for you to reject Paul (you
think
what
he says contradicts other Scripture, or you just don't like what he
says),
and both of them lead to undercutting the reliability of the entire
New
Testament. So if you reject Paul, to be consistent, you must also
reject
the reliability of the gospels, but if you reject their authority,
then
you
are free to make up your own Jesus, and your own Christianity, which
is
convenient for you, but will have no power to save you from your sins.
Chuck Stamford
because the special Lukan portions of Luke's gospel make up only a
very small portion of his gospel. Therefore, if you accept, as you
must
from it's close factual correlation to the other two Synoptics, the
reliability of Luke as a faithful recorder of witness testimony to
the
life
of Jesus Christ, then there is no reason to question his Acts, where
he
uses
exactly the same sort of witnesses and method of ascertaining the
facts
he
records.
It doesn't matter how he ascertained the 'facts'; it is apparent
Judas' death was exaggerated in Acts.
And for evidence *someone* of these alleged eyewitnesses wasn't above
LYING to Luke, Luke's account of Judas Iscariot bursting open and
dying does not jibe with Matthew's account of Judas hanging himself at
all. Since Matthew had a relationship with Judas, I will believe
Matthew's report over the reports of hearsay sworn to Luke by people
who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Judas' death. Luke reported a RUMOR
concerning what Peter had said about how Judas died just as he
reported rumors about Paul's alleged experiences. (And what is really
galling is people use these inconsistencies to try to negate the
entire NT as false when it is only evidence Luke's eyewitnesses did
not always give him correct information.)
Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an
hundred and twenty,)
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry.
Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity;
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out.
Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Mat 27:5 And he [Judas Iscariot] cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED HIMSELF.
Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It
is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the
price of blood.
Mat 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the
...
read more »
You are willfully ignorant. I ascribe the odd violent saying in Luke
to Paul because scholars believe Paul assisted Luke in writing his
gospel.
Chuck:
I just gave you a very reasoned argument for why you can't do that.
And I just gave you a very reasoned argument why I can.
Chuck:
Argument by assertion isn't "reasoned argument", Linda. Luke says he
gleaned his facts from multiple sources. You can't simply SAY this
passage
came from Paul, and then SAY that's a "reasoned argument" for it coming
from
Paul. Where's your evidence that's true?
Noticing that you supply none here, having had a second opportunity to do
so.
This
claim that I'm "willfully ignornat" is a resort to an ad hominem in lieu
of
any alternative reasoned defeater, which I can only interpret as your
admission you don't have any reasoned rebuttal
Linda:
Why not interpret it as I noticed you ignore everything about Paul you
don't want to see?
Chuck:
Because that wouldn't make any sense at all, that's why. If I was truly
doing that, it would be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate that fact.
The ad hom shows only that it's not easy for you, from which I've drawn
the
very reasonable inference it's not easy for you because there is no such
demonstration available to you.
If you don't have any
reasoned refutation to what I provided you above, and yet you still
continue
to reject the Pauline corpus, you thus demonstrate beyond dispute that
your
position is "unreasonable", and that you *will not* let it go.
It's therefore foolish to give you any reasoned argument for why your
pov
is
false, as you've just demonstrated you don't care whether it's reasoned
or
not!
Linda:
You give no reason why we should follow the false apostle Paul and why
Christ's teachings through his true appointed and trained apostles
isn't good enough for you. It's Christianity, not Paulianity.
Chuck:
I've given you a very good reason:
Linda:
No, you haven't.
Chuck:
Since you have chosen to ignore my argument and simply deny I've given it to
you,
|
Like you deleted everything I've pointed out to you and pathetically
left all of your arguments from this and prior posts?
| Quote: | so that you can go on to present whatever is was you thought of as an
"argument" Paul was a true apostle,
|
I am not arguing Paul was a true apostle; you are.
| Quote: | unfettered by whatever that argument
was, you have once again demonstrated only that you are unwilling to engage
in any reasoned argument on the subject, but are simply obsessed with your
bias.
|
Same back at you.
| Quote: |
We will continue this if or when you can control yourself enough to actually
engage the following argument that was presented to you, and do so in a
coherent fashion that neither ignores it, nor denies it's existence:
Paul's Damascus road conversion and
choosing by our Lord, Jesus Christ. And I've just shown you why you have
no
good reason to doubt that event. And if that's not enough, then you have
Acts 15, which again shows the Apostles' certification of Paul's genuine
faith, calling, and ministry of the Gospel. There it's not even POSSIBLE
that Paul is Luke's only source, for the "us"/"we" shift in Luke's Acts
(which most understand as Luke indicating his presence at the events he
records) begins in chapter 16, while Paul is with Silas, whom James sent
along with Judas from the council at Jerusalem:
Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed
with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by
fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying,
"These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the
way
of salvation." 18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly
annoyed,
turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ
to
come out of her." And he came out that very hour.
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they
seized
Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities..
Acts 16:16-19 (NKJV)
This gives us a VERY good reason to believe that if Luke wasn't at the
council in Jerusalem himself (which he very well may have been, but we
have
no data to suggest he was), he spent several weeks (at least!) in the
company of Silas (all the time Luke uses the "us"/"we" pronouns while Paul
and Silas are together), who was not only there, but was sent by the
council
to certify both the council's letter, and Paul's and Barnabas' preaching.
Luke, then, would have had PLENTY of opportunity to interview Silas AT
LENGTH, and compare that with what Paul and Barnabas had to tell him about
what transpired at the council. And Luke would have then conjoined these
individual recollections and reduced them to the account of that council
we
now find in Acts 15.
There is therefore no good reason to suppose that Luke's account of the
council at Jerusalem is biased in any way in favor of Paul, but on the
contrary is a completely reliable account of the event if anything Luke
ever
wrote is. And since you seem to take Luke's gospel as reliable, doubting
him only when he certifies for you that Paul was a true apostle, and known
to be such by the leaders of the Jerusalem church, is what demonstrates a
severe bias.
|
No it doesn't. You imagine so; scholars say Luke was influenced by
Paul in Luke's writings.
Yes, let's continue this if and when new archaeological evidence
provides proof that any of the real apostles' writings included an
admonition to Gentiles that Paul was their apostle and not Peter whom
Luke also said announced that God had appointed as the apostle to the
Gentiles.
Ignore and/or delete this too; I know you will: Acts 15:7 "And when
there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men
and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among
us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,
and believe." [Notice Luke reports Peter said GOD chose among them
and made Peter apostle to the Gentiles. Peter was an apostle chosen
and trained by the Messiah, and his word is more authoritative to me
than Paul's.]
Real apostle James: Jas 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God
and the Father is this, To visit [relieve]the fatherless and widows in
their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
False apostle Paul (who actually says if the young widows remarry,
they have "damnation" having left the "faith"):
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to
wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house
to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies,
speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear
children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to
speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
1Ti 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them
relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve
them that are widows indeed.
Christ's instructions to the real apostles:
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words,
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your
feet. [notice no mention of threatening them and remaining or
returning]
False apostle Paul's way:
2Co 13:2 I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present,
the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore
have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not
spare:
2Co 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me,
False apostle Paul's rule over the believers:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.
There is nothing comparable to this in Christ's instructions to the
REAL apostles. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chuck Stamford
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire online.... |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote in message
news:100acd92-fcb8-42ca-af6f-2c544e618363@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 7:48 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Linda Lee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:8d829438-57a4-4599-8b12-c0f420ffb45e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 4:55 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:09eb3e22-a36e-455b-aefc-2bdabfb284d6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 11, 9:10 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bd124227-4da9-4217-a969-04570e221b29@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 7:08 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
"LindaLee" <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:a167815a-2108-42ff-bc44-63f511c8fa6b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 4:22 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net
wrote:
You're saying nothing different than I did, except you believe all
these nameless eyewitnesses who supplied Luke with misinformation.
I'm saying you are being arbitrary in assuming these anonymous
witnesses
gave him false information.
You don't say they did in Luke's gospel. You
can't,
I didn't try. But at least once Luke's gospel says the opposite of
what Christ is supposed to have said according to Matthew.
Smith's Bible Dictionary – Luke – “The ancient opinion that Luke wrote
his Gospel under the influence of Paul rests on the authority of
Irenreus, Tertulian, Origen and Eusebius. The four verses, Luk_1:1-4,
could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the
exclusive guidance of Paul, or of any one apostle and, as little could
they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another. The
truth seems to be that St. Luke, seeking information from every
quarter, sought it from the preaching of his beloved master St. Paul;
and the apostle, in his turn, employed the knowledge acquired from
other sources by his disciple.”
Chuck:
As questionable as Smith's Bible Dictionary is at many points, what
you've
chosen to quote here merely underscores what I've said about Luke
using
the
same method to write both his gospel and Acts. You therefore must be
consistent in any analysis you make of them both, and you seem to have
no
problems with the reliability of the Gospel according to Luke.
Linda:
Paul's assistance would explain the verse following which is very odd
and out-of-character for the Messiah: Luke 22:36 says, “Then said he
unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.”
That statement doesn't correlate at all with the Messiah saying in
Matt. 26:52 "Put up again thy sword int |
| |
