Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[floo]

Shall we let scripture interpret scripture? Can you find another bible passage in which there is lightening and thunder, which is not described as lightening and thunder? In other words, if it was thunder I think they would have called it that! (There may also have been rain)

But in this instance the writer robably wished to put a supernatural spin, on a very natural event.

[Spud]

No - let's not 'let scripture interpret scripture'.

Let's take a more sceptical approach that brings other aspects into the interpretation - such as the risks of human artifice.

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

[Owlswing]

But in this instance the writer robably wished to put a supernatural spin, on a very natural event.

If, and it is a very large if, the event actually occurred and is not another piece of fiction to bolster the myth.

This is what is supposed to be the basis of the thread.

Did the event - Paul's (not Saul's as I mistyped earlier - sorry for that") flash of light and instantaneous conversion from Christian-hunter-killer to Christian actuallky happen.

So far there has not been produced one iota of evidence for it ever having happened in reality.

We return, therefore, to the only reasonable answer - Christianity, as it is practised today, is based upon FAITH NOT FACT and upon the evidence of the last 2000 years willl ever remain so.

[Owlswing]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

VBut you are not asking us to trust somebody!

You are asking us to trust a book that has been, edited, revised, translated, re-evaluted more times than the front page of the Daily Mirror (day 1) and is no more trustworthy than that publication.

Honestly, Spud, I admire your tenacity, but, you reasons for hanging on to Christianity . . .

[Shaker]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

Why not?

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

I see you've completely ignored Gordon's point. Why bother?

[floo]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

I think the answer to the underlined statement of yours is YES.

I would not trust anyone who makes less than credible assertions.

[Gordon]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

Yes - people who write propaganda tend to do that sort of thing: 'spin' would be a modern term for this, which is why I keep asking if you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies.

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day.

Nor sure we do, but even if we did a bit of due diligence would be sensible.

I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

Super - are all theists equally trustworthy?

[Maeght]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

He may have believed he did but that doesn't mean he did. He may have embellished what happened in the retelling. That is common.

There have always been people who have claimed God spoke to them and inspired them to do things. To create cult for example. Are they all correct?

[Spud]

Did the event - Paul's (not Saul's as I mistyped earlier - sorry for that") flash of light and instantaneous conversion from Christian-hunter-killer to Christian actuallky happen.

If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story. So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic. Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.

[Owlswing]

If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story. So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic. Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.

Your stastement

So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic.

here needs to be edited to be more accurate. It should read

So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which some theological scholars believe is authentic.

[Maeght]

And you can add that Paul claimed to have done those things but did he?

[Sebastian Toe]

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions

That would include Mohammed then. When will you be converting?

[Gordon]

If it did, we can add it to the evidence for the gospel story.

Man living in highly credulous times gets spooked by intense thunderstorm: hardly headlines news, and of course is no more than anecdote.

So how about Paul's letter to the Galatians which scholars believe is authentic.

Even if it is authentic how do you know that the contents don't include mistake, exaggeration or lies? It could be authentic propaganda - have you checked?

Lots of fine detail about how he went to meet Peter and James who agreed he should preach to the Gentiles, and how he challenged Peter about not eating with Gentiles.

Lots of 'fine detail' doesn't imply that this 'fine detail' is accurate: people get stuff wrong and even tell porkies you know, where perhaps adding in some spurious 'fine detail' would help snare the credulous, so it pays to be sceptical where those setting out the 'fine detail' may have a vested interest in proceedings. 

[jeremyp]

Floo- the people traveling with Saul also saw the light and heard the noise. If this was a natural phenomenon that caused Saul to have a seizure, what could it have been? cf. Acts 22:9
"My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me."
PS, are we on the right thread here?

You realise that Acts is untrustworthy, I hope. The only reliable account of Paul's conversion is the one made by Paul himself.

[jeremyp]

Was this provably written or said by Saul?

No.

It was a statement allegedly made by Paul and reported by whoever wrote Acts. However, we have a statement about the event made by Paul himself which does not cohere with this account.

Spud makers the assumption that whatever was written in the Bible is true. This is an unwarranted assumption.

[jeremyp]

Would someone who tricked people into thinking he met the son of God write the sort of stuff Paul did about faith, love, hope, grace etc?

Paul never claimed to have met Jesus.

We all have to trust somebody at the end of the day. I find it is better to trust someone who believes they are accountable to God for their actions (the sort of people we would hope to find in church, where Paul's letters and the belief in the resurrection originate).

The 9/11 hijackers believed they were accountable to God, and look where that got us.

[floo]

Paul never claimed to have met Jesus.
The 9/11 hijackers believed they were accountable to God, and look where that got us.

Ah but they didn't believe in Spud's version of god! 

[Spud]

Yes - people who write propaganda tend to do that sort of thing: 'spin' would be a modern term for this, which is why I keep asking if you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies.

You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.
That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.

[Gordon]

You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.

You mentioned thunder and lightening, Spud: a natural event that is well understood these days but not back in antiquity.

So if you are going to cite natural stuff mentioned in scripture as been significant in some way then that the authors of said scripture probably didn't understand the science of thunderstorms and might see such an event as something not natural would be no great surprise - hence Thor. In that sense a timely thunderstorm, or a claim of a thunderstorm, may have had the same effect as your (silly) train comparison if it was portrayed as having a divine significance.

That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.

Nope: people make mistakes and tell lies, so if you are going to claim those behind the NT were immune from known human artifice then you'll need to explain how you excluded that possibility that they didn't ever lie, didn't ever make mistakes or didn't ever exaggerate.

[floo]

You can't mistake a bolt of lightning. They might have been be awestruck if sparks from train number 49 were lighting up the sky, but the absence of the train excludes that possibility.
That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.

Some people see what they want to see. 

[jeremyp]

That it was seen by a group of eyewitnesses helps to exclude lies, as does Paul's sudden conversion from chief bully of Christians to one of them.

Well we only have the word of the author of Acts that there were any eye witnesses. He may have invented them to add weight to the story.

[jeremyp]

Nope: people make mistakes and tell lies, so if you are going to claim those behind the NT were immune from known human artifice then you'll need to explain how you excluded that possibility that they didn't ever lie, didn't ever make mistakes or didn't ever exaggerate.

No. The first thing you have to establish is if these eye witnesses actually existed or not. If we assume that Paul's account is the more accurate (after all, he was there), the eye witnesses don't really exist.

[Gordon]

No. The first thing you have to establish is if these eye witnesses actually existed or not. If we assume that Paul's account is the more accurate (after all, he was there), the eye witnesses don't really exist.

True - but I'm talking mainly about those who wrote the NT bits claiming there were witness (or miracles etc) and the risk that these writers were exaggerating or lying.

[jeremyp]

True - but I'm talking mainly about those who wrote the NT bits claiming there were witness (or miracles etc) and the risk that these writers were exaggerating or lying.

There isn't really much of a risk with respect to the Acts account of Paul's conversion. We have Paul's account and it is very much more low key than the account in Acts. There is no risk with respect to exaggeration or lying, because we know that the author of Acts is definitely exaggerating or lying. Either that or Paul is deliberately down playing the event, which seems unlikely given that it is Paul.

[Sassy]

Better being a false tit than a right proper one, eh?

Or in the correct saying... "Feeling a right tit"... which for many men has been the truth for them.
So how many of the board members who are male can say they have "felt a right tit?"

Back as you were.