Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A question for atheists . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    (...) And of course an at best questionable interpretation of πνευματικος directly: "But the natural psuchikos man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (1 Cor 2:14-15)", both pneumatikos and psuchikos, as used here, apply to a person who is alive in the conventional sense.

    MICKELSON/STRONG'S LEXICON
    G4152 πνευματικός pneumatikos (pnev-ma-tiy-kos') adj.
    1. spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.
    2. that which is motivated and controlled through the spirit.
    3. (demonically) of evil spirits.
    4. (divinely) of the Holy Spirit.


    Your scholars have seemingly ignored the dictionary definition.
    Fleshing out this last bit, I remember reading in N.T. Wright that the suffix "-ikon" in "pneumatikon" meant more or less "filled with" or "driven by" whatever precedes it ("pneuma", spirit), and that there's a different suffix for "made of", which Paul could well have used if he meant the spiritual body is "made out of spirit" (whatever that means) rather than "driven by the spirit". I dont remember the specifics, but I guess someone who does know the language can confirm this...? (I don't.)
    We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
    - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
    In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
    Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      The text does not say that Paul saw anything - you are engaging in interpolation.
      It does: Acts 9:3-4: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice...”

      Even if "vision" could be supported, lack of a "fleshly presence" doesn't mean there was not a fleshly existence.
      “Vision” is readily supported, there’s no indication that there was a fleshly presence. This understanding of Jesus’ post resurrection body didn’t evolve until gospels, many decades later. Paul never says in any of his letters that he ever saw Jesus in fleshly form.

      If you talk to someone on Skype, you have a vision: not a fleshly presence.
      Seriously!

      the record there says nothing about the Damascene event: interpolation yet again.
      Paul tacks it onto the end of the Little Creed “8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:8–10. Paul uses the same Greek verb as the tradition, wßfqh (“he was seen”), to describe his experience of the risen Christ; Paul’s experience was the same in character as that of the preceding disciples.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        It does: Acts 9:3-4: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice...”
        Paul says that he had seen Jesus, he makes no reference to the timing of that event. As stated previously, record of the Damascene event shows only that he heard a voice. As your citation demonstrates.


        “Vision” is readily supported, there’s no indication that there was a fleshly presence. This understanding of Jesus’ post resurrection body didn’t evolve until gospels, many decades later. Paul never says in any of his letters that he ever saw Jesus in fleshly form.

        Seriously!
        Yes -seriously. Which part of the analogy did you fail to understand? "there's no indication that there was a fleshly presence" when people have conversed via Skype either: in fact, meeting "fleshly presence" to "fleshly presence" would pretty much be precluded. But again, Paul does not claim that Jesus "got seen" during the Damascene encounter - saying that he did, whether valid or not, is pure supposition and interpolation.

        Paul tacks it onto the end of the Little Creed “8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:8–10. Paul uses the same Greek verb as the tradition, wßfqh (“he was seen”), to describe his experience of the risen Christ; Paul’s experience was the same in character as that of the preceding disciples.
        As has already been shown,
        ・ Paul was claiming that the experience of seeing Christ gave him as much credibility as that of the other apostles. He does not say when
          that occurred.
        ・ Your interpretation that "he got seen" in the same way by Paul as he did by the other apostles can't be supported: optanamai makes reference to
          the subjective response, not to the objective experience. As has been demonstrated by the word's use in other passages of scripture, and by lexicon
          definition.
        ・ Your declaration that πσευκικος indicates Jesus was resurrected as some kind of spirit is given seppa by lexical entries, and by direct reference
          to the word's use in scripture.

        In the face of the actual evidence presented, your appeals to authority don't mean anything worthwhile. For the most part, all that your claims about them would do, if they were accurate, would be to negate any claim that your scholars have some sort of credibility.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Paul says that he had seen Jesus, he makes no reference to the timing of that event. As stated previously, record of the Damascene event shows only that he heard a voice.
          Acts » Chapter 9 » exegesis:

          "As Saul travels to Damascus at midday, he experiences the divine presence: a light from heaven flashing around him and a voice addressing him (compare 7:31/Ex 3:4-10). The descent from Mt. Hermon to Damascus in the plain goes through a region known for violent electrical storms. Though this flashing light may have had the effects of lightning, however, it was a supernatural midday phenomenon.

          Saul and his traveling companions see the light, but Saul sees more: the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory (9:17, 27; 22:14; 26:16; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). So overwhelming is the sight that Saul falls to the ground (compare Ezek 1:28; Dan 8:17). The sound or voice probably reminds him of the bat-qol ("daughter of the voice"), the way pious Jews believed God had directly communicated with human beings since the gift of prophecy had ceased with Malachi (Longenecker 1981:370). But the divine presence creates confusion for Saul, for if God is speaking with him, who is this heavenly figure addressing him?

          Out of his confusion, Saul calls, Who are you, Lord? Is he simply addressing the heavenly being with respect (Marshall 1980:169), or is he for the first time confessing Jesus as his Lord (compare Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3; Kistemaker 1990:332)? His inquiry about the person's identity may indicate the former. He receives a divine disclosure in the clear reply, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting." Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead! Stephen was telling the truth when he bore witness to the Son of Man standing at God's right hand (Acts 7:56). Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior, the Lord (9:20, 28).

          Immediately Jesus issues a divine demand that requires Saul's trust and obedience. In the city he will learn what he must do to fulfill God's purposes (compare 9:16; 14:22).

          Saul's companions probably include a number of wayfarers banded together in a caravan for protection against the hazards of the journey, as well as temple police to aid Saul in his work (Lake and Cadbury 1979:101; Bruce 1988:185). At this encounter they stand speechless, hearing a voice or the sound of a voice but not understanding the words (9:7/22:9). They do not see Jesus, though they see the light (22:9)."

          https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion

          The bolded is more than sufficient to be identified as Paul’s encounter with Jesus, to which he refers when he tacks it onto the end of the Little Creed (1 Corinthians 15:8): "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

          Paul uses the same Greek verb as the tradition, wßfqh (“he was seen”), to describe his experience of the risen Christ, hence Paul’s experience was the same in character as that of the preceding disciples. Namely, that Jesus was experienced or "seen", but not as a physical, fleshly body. We don't get reference to such a body until the gospels written decades later.
          Last edited by Tassman; 05-15-2017, 02:25 AM.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Saul and his traveling companions see the light, but Saul sees more: the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory (9:17, 27; 22:14; 26:16; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8)

            Acts 9:17 ο κυριος απεσταλκεν με The Lord has_sent (perfect tense) me
                     ο οφθεις            the getting-seen_one
                     σοι                 to you
            Byantine Majority does not have Jesus after με: Textus Receptus does, - the result is two different readings. BM = Ananias is the got seen one, TR = Jesus is the got seen one.
            As should be obvious from the discrepancy, either both or neither indicates "got seen by Paul" - and "Ananias got seen by Paul" simply doesn't make sense. Moreover, Ananias has a quality that allows for optanamai to apply to him, just as it does to the two prostitutes in Solomon's court. It should be self evident that "optanamai" can apply to people who are alive in the conventional sense.

            Acts 9:27 Should I take this as authentic? According to your account, Acts was written decades after the events described. According to your account Acts is wholly unreliable. I therefore feel assured that you will reject this account from Acts: after all, the word for see, used here, is not optanomai, but eido. TR, BM, UBS5, NA28 (however, with regard to the Biblical record showing that Paul actually did see Christ during the Damascene event, I stand corrected - any possible doubt being eliminated by the next verse in your list. That inserting this statement into other records is interpolation remains factual.)

            Acts 26:16 Yep, this one has optanomai. Paul saw Jesus during the Damascene event.

            1 Cor 9:1 This time the word is orao. in all four major text groups. !! Paul says that he orao'd Jesus - where does he say (in this verse) that Jesus optanomai'd by him?

            1 Cor 15:8 and once again, optanomai

            Nothing there supports your contention that optanomai has some bearing on the nature of what was seen.
            Last edited by tabibito; 05-15-2017, 03:47 AM.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • "Acts 26:16 Yep, this one has optanomai. Paul saw Jesus during the Damascene event."

              So, despite your arguments to the contrary, Paul DID see “the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory" during his Damascene vision.

              "1 Cor 15:8 and once again, optanomai"

              Hence, having reciting the early creed about Jesus appearing to the apostles he concludes: “and last of all he appeared to me also...” Same word, same sort of "appearance", i.e. as per above.

              And, which of this tortuous argument of yours supports your previous claim that “according to the scriptures” in 1 Cor 15 refers to the gospels or ‘Q’ or some such?
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Carefully missed the point that Paul also described it as orao, I see. Wholly expected.

                As to my comments about Q document or some other non-OT text. It is self evident that the statements Paul cites as existing in a (in his opinion) authoritative text are not in the Old Testament. ergo, they are in the Old Testament. Yep ... sounds legit to some.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Carefully missed the point that Paul also described it as orao, I see. Wholly expected.

                  As to my comments about Q document or some other non-OT text. It is self evident that the statements Paul cites as existing in a (in his opinion) authoritative text are not in the Old Testament. ergo, they are in the Old Testament. Yep ... sounds legit to some.
                  Whatever!
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Originally posted by tabibito
                    "Acts 26:16 Yep, this one has optanomai. Paul saw Jesus during the Damascene event."
                    So, despite your arguments to the contrary, Paul DID see “the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory" during his Damascene vision.
                    As Tabibito says, this was an event, not necessarily a vision.

                    You beg the question by deciding a priori that it was a vision. Note that everyone present saw the light. Visions are normally individualistic; they don't normally come to an entire group of people identically and simultaneously.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      As Tabibito says, this was an event, not necessarily a vision.

                      You beg the question by deciding a priori that it was a vision. Note that everyone present saw the light. Visions are normally individualistic; they don't normally come to an entire group of people identically and simultaneously.
                      Whatever it was it wasn’t a visible encounter with the physical Jesus. And, it was of the same order as the encounters of those listed in the Little Creed of 1 Cor 15. 3-8
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Whatever it was it wasn’t a visible encounter with the physical Jesus. And, it was of the same order as the encounters of those listed in the Little Creed of 1 Cor 15. 3-8
                        If it is of the same order [condition, state] as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 then it would be physical (Luke 24:39). Paul saw Him v.8, but did not handle Him.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          If it is of the same order [condition, state] as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 then it would be physical (Luke 24:39). Paul saw Him v.8, but did not handle Him.
                          "Saul and his travelling companions see the light, but Saul sees more: the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory". "Saul's companions...do not see Jesus, though they see the light..."

                          https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion

                          So it is not a physical encounter in any way that we would understand such an encounter to be.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            "Saul and his travelling companions see the light, but Saul sees more: the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory". "Saul's companions...do not see Jesus, though they see the light..."

                            https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion Yup.

                            So it is not a physical encounter in any way that we would understand such an encounter to be.
                            Yup.

                            The Bible records those matters in the way that you have stated -

                            Contrary to what you have stated:
                            optanomai does not indicate the nature of what has been seen, it indicates an emotional response on the part of the viewer. The fact is demonstrated by both dictionary entries and the way it is used in actual passages of the Bible. FACT: Optanomai makes no distinction between "seeing in a vision" and "seeing in the flesh."
                            Originally posted by Tassman in post#281
                            The word is often used to speak of supernatural appearances, such as for the transfiguration. It is rendered as "appeared" a few times in the Markan appendix, a word indicating something non-physical.
                            It's also used of seeing two prostitutes in the king's court. And Paul does use "orao" 1 Cor 9:1 (and yet, Paul says "optanomai" when referring to Peter and himself seeing Christ. 1 Cor 15:5) - have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?.

                            Paul claimed that having seen Jesus placed him on an equal footing with the other apostles. How does that in any way impact on whether Jesus had actual flesh and blood? Do you really contend that a person seen in a vision could not possibly be alive (in the conventional sense)? Do you contend that a person has to be physically present (or absent) on both of two different occasions for his word and commissioning of apostles to be equal in authority? Whether the seeing is face to face or in a vision is not part of the equation.
                            Paul claims to be equal in apostleship to the other apostles based upon an equal experience with the risen Jesus.
                            Nowhere does Paul say that he has the same experience - only that seeing Christ is seeing Christ. Do you really think that things have to be the same before they can be considered equal?
                            Last edited by tabibito; 05-18-2017, 05:00 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kbertsche
                              Thus, the creed claims that Christ died according to the OT Scriptures, and He has been raised according to the OT Scriptures. The creed is not necessarily claiming that the substitutionary sacrifice or the three days are found in the OT. (This is explained in much more detail by Anthony C. Thiselton in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, and is illustrated in William Rainey's Greek diagram, which I will try to attach.)
                              That this is the conventional understanding is understood.

                              Points currently under consideration: Did Paul never cite anything other than the Old Testament? It is a matter of Biblical record that he did so on two occasions (if the claim that Titus was written by Paul is valid - otherwise only one).
                              Titus 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (The author clearly does not assign "authoritative" or "true" to this one.) nonetheless - he did quote it (and admittedly, nothing indicates that the original was committed to writing.)
                              Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said - The author claims that Paul cited "certain of your poets" when speaking to the people of Athens.
                              Paul certainly cited at least one non Old Testament record.

                              Further consideration: A particular person is writing a theology term paper. He makes reference almost exclusively to Biblical texts. But - one very useful citation, matching nothing in the theological texts he is using, is drawn from a medical text. The single statement in question is about lying. There is a number of scriptural citations that come close to the quote.
                              In this day and age of course, no problem arises. References are detailed enough that a quick glance will show that he hasn't drawn all his material from the Bible - there will be no making the mistake of thinking he has made a loose quote of a Bible verse. With only the kinds of citation that were used in the first century, you could be forgiven for thinking that he had loosely quoted something from the Bible: after all everything else is from the Bible. Is it really that safe a bet that Paul would not have cited something other than the New Testament?

                              Did Paul call anything other than the Old Testament writings "γραφη"?
                              It can't be demonstrated that he did. Is there evidence that he may have? ....

                              Did Paul ever use proegraphe (written in the past) as reference to anything that wasn't in the Old Testament?
                              Romans 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

                              Certainly looks as though that refers to the Old Testament, but what about the other passage containing proegraphe?

                              ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν τη αληθεια μη πειθεσθαι οις κατ οφθαλμους ιησους χριστος προεγραφη εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος
                              Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who put you under a spell? Was not Jesus the Messiah clearly portrayed before your very eyes as having been crucified?
                              Where did "written before" go in the various translations?
                              Last edited by tabibito; 05-18-2017, 06:52 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                "Saul and his travelling companions see the light, but Saul sees more: the risen Lord Jesus in all his resplendent glory". "Saul's companions...do not see Jesus, though they see the light..."

                                https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion

                                So it is not a physical encounter in any way that we would understand such an encounter to be.
                                When you see someone live over a closed circuit video, as an modern example, does that make those you see not physical? Jesus at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55) is there as a man (1 Timothy 2:5). We are not talking about video, but God making the man Jesus' heavenly presence present to Paul (Acts 26:16).
                                Last edited by 37818; 05-18-2017, 08:17 AM.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X