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

Malina and Pilch on Religious Visions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
    So no evidence to the contrary then. I don't see you "your point" or how it is in any way a "good" one. Historians prefer firsthand testimony because it's more likely to accurately reflect what the earliest beliefs were. Being committed to later accounts (which are contradictory and contain legendary growth) and asserting that those are somehow more reliable than firsthand testimony is not proper historiography nor a rational position to hold.
    Yes, I know you've made a lame attempt at justifying your waving away other evidence. Pseudo-scholarly handwaving is still handwaving.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Yes, I know you've made a lame attempt at justifying your waving away other evidence. Pseudo-scholarly handwaving is still handwaving.
      Ah, but I'm not "hand waving" it away. I've used it in my analysis to show the growth of the legend over time. Oh, and it's pretty much standard methodology in historiography to prefer firsthand testimony. Which historians do you know of that prefer secondhand or worse unverified hearsay as opposed to a first person account? That's ludicrous!
      Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 06-20-2017, 01:53 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
        Ah, but I'm not "hand waving" it away. I've used it in my analysis to show the growth of the legend over time. Oh, and it's pretty much standard methodology in historiography to prefer firsthand testimony. Which historians do you know of that prefer secondhand or worse unverified hearsay as opposed to a first person account? That's ludicrous!
        Yes, your impugning of the evidence is ludicrous. If you were being consistent, you'd have to throw out nearly all of recorded history - but you're not; you just have an anti-Christian axe to grind.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Yes, your impugning of the evidence is ludicrous.
          None of the evidence is eyewitness reportage and none is recorded until many decades after the event and probably highly embellished, given that the goal was to glorify Jesus and win converts.

          If you were being consistent, you'd have to throw out nearly all of recorded history
          Nonsense. Nearly all of recorded history is supported by multiple pieces of evidence...including artefacts and the like, multiple sources of evidence and independent contemporary sources. But, there are no artefacts and the only contemporary source for the Jesus story is Paul. And even he didn’t meet Jesus personally, merely in a vision which is the point of the argument.

          - but you're not; you just have an anti-Christian axe to grind.
          No more than you have a pro-Christian axe to grind, surely
          “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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            None of the evidence is eyewitness reportage
            Allegedly.
            and none is recorded until many decades after the event
            Allegedly.
            and probably highly embellished,
            Allegedly.
            given that the goal was to glorify Jesus and win converts.
            Wrong. The gospels were written for believers, not for purposes of evangelization.
            Nonsense. Nearly all of recorded history is supported by multiple pieces of evidence...including artefacts and the like, multiple sources of evidence and independent contemporary sources.
            Clearly, you are not a historian.
            But, there are no artefacts and the only contemporary source for the Jesus story is Paul.
            Allegedly.
            And even he didn’t meet Jesus personally, merely in a vision which is the point of the argument.
            Those are not mutually exclusive.
            No more than you have a pro-Christian axe to grind, surely
            Of course I have a pro-Christian axe to grind. However, he's pretending to be neutral on the whole thing, which nobody's buying.

            I think I've said enough on this subject, here and elsewhere. I'll try to stick to the main topic of the thread from this point.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Yes, your impugning of the evidence is ludicrous. If you were being consistent, you'd have to throw out nearly all of recorded history - but you're not; you just have an anti-Christian axe to grind.
              As has been demonstrated (but you're still unwilling to admit for some reason), there are different degrees of evidence. Firsthand testimony trumps anonymous secondhand or worse unverified hearsay. I reject the premise that the gospels qualify as "recorded history" so there's no inconsistency on my part. If you'd like to present some stories that are analogous to someone's spiritual vision evolving to ever changing and inconsistent physical encounters then we can go from there. However, I'm pretty sure anything you'd find similar to that would automatically be rejected as myth, at which point, the special pleading would be obvious. Good day sir!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

                Allegedly.
                There’s no evidence to the contrary.

                Allegedly.
                No, the gospels are dated many decades after the events according to the majority of scholars.

                Allegedly.
                The later gospels are more fantastic than the earlier ones, which indicates embellishment.

                Wrong. The gospels were written for believers, not for purposes of evangelization.
                “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”.- John 20.31 Sounds like evangelization to me!

                Clearly, you are not a historian.
                I repeat: Historical-critical methodology requires multiple pieces of evidence...including artifacts and the like, multiple sources of evidence and independent contemporary sources...the more that is available, the more reliable the history.

                Allegedly.
                The only contemporary source for the Jesus story is Paul. See above re dating.

                Those are not mutually exclusive.
                Nevertheless, there’s no record of Paul ever meeting Jesus personally other than in the form of a vision.

                Of course I have a pro-Christian axe to grind. However, he's pretending to be neutral on the whole thing, which nobody's buying.
                Presenting facts contrary to standard Christian theology doesn’t necessarily mean that RC has an axe to grind. This is just your rationalisation.

                I think I've said enough on this subject, here and elsewhere. I'll try to stick to the main topic of the thread from this point.
                OK!
                “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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                  I'm not saying Paul's information comes entirely from revelation, I'm saying he supplemented what he learned from other Christians with revelations of his own and those from his churches...
                  I've often wondered about the nature of Paul's revelations. This is what makes the most sense to me:

                  Paul was trained as a Pharisee, meaning he was intimately familiar with the Old Testament, including its numerous messianic prophecies. He was also almost certainly familiar with the Christian message and the claims of a resurrected Messiah but obviously rejected it. Then he had his Damascus Road experience which he surely recognized as an encounter with the divine, and in the days that followed, while he was struck blind, he turned all of his knowledge of scripture to reconciling what he had experienced on the road and came to the conclusion that he had witnessed the resurrected Jesus as foretold by scripture. Since scripture comes from God, and since it took a divine kick in the pants to get him to recognize the truth, he could say without artiface or pretence that his knowledge of Christian theology came from God.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    That sounds like a modern argument, JEPD style. Off-hand, it seems unlikely.

                    I think I have Pilch & Malina's commentary on Revelation lying about unread. I should dig it up and take a crack at it (I'm currently in the midst of Andrew of Caesaria's commentary on the book - a translation by Eugenia Constantinou is available on academia.edu).
                    Turns out I have the older book written by Malina alone.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Turns out I have the older book written by Malina alone.
                      That's like Hall without Oates.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I've often wondered about the nature of Paul's revelations. This is what makes the most sense to me:

                        Paul was trained as a Pharisee, meaning he was intimately familiar with the Old Testament, including its numerous messianic prophecies. He was also almost certainly familiar with the Christian message and the claims of a resurrected Messiah but obviously rejected it. Then he had his Damascus Road experience which he surely recognized as an encounter with the divine, and in the days that followed, while he was struck blind, he turned all of his knowledge of scripture to reconciling what he had experienced on the road and came to the conclusion that he had witnessed the resurrected Jesus as foretold by scripture. Since scripture comes from God, and since it took a divine kick in the pants to get him to recognize the truth, he could say without artiface or pretence that his knowledge of Christian theology came from God.
                        The scholars I'm most familiar with hold the view that the nature of Paul's revelation is specifically his teaching on circumcision and dietary laws. We know that he received the Gospel from other Christians (1 Cor 15:3-8), but the grace of the Gospel concerning the law was the revelation from the Lord that he eventually got the Jerusalem Church to come on board with.

                        As to the reference to the Last Supper which Paul "received" from the Lord in 1 Cor 11, again the scholars I've read don't believe Paul necessarily had a vision of the Last Supper. That's not what he's saying. Rather, Paul is reciting a tradition that goes back to the early Christian community in Jerusalem. What Paul received from the Lord is the guarantee on the accuracy and authority of the tradition, since, apparently, the Corinthian church was doing it wrong.
                        Last edited by Adrift; 08-02-2017, 03:27 PM.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                        34 responses
                        118 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post tabibito  
                        Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                        21 responses
                        129 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                        Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                        80 responses
                        421 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  
                        Working...
                        X