Dagood's doodles

***QUOTE***

At 7:05 PM, May 16, 2006, DagoodS said...

John W. Loftus,

Not exactly. steve has posted a review:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/another-strike-out.html

I would invite anyone to read it.

For example, I am initially accused of being a “fuzz-brain” for indicating that Paul was not introduced by Barnabas in Jerusalem until 17 years after his conversion, whereas Acts implies it happened immediately after his conversion. I am informed what a buffoon I am, as Paul indicates two trips to Jerusalem.

Yesssss…….true…but on which ONE was Paul introduced by Barnabas? (Gal 2:1 and Acts 9:27) [Hint. The way to get around this is claim there was a 14 year gap between Acts 9:26 and 9:27]

***END-QUOTE***

i) No, Acts does not imply that it happened right after Paul’s conversion. Dagood is confusing a narrative sequence with a historical sequence.

The book of Acts covers about 30 years of church history. As a consequence, there’s a fair amount of narrative compression. Luke often jumps from one event to another without indicating the precise time interval. And his order is often topical as well as chronological.

ii) Dagood also has a dishonest habit of converting an omission into a contradiction. If a Bible writer doesn’t say something happened, he equates this with a Bible writer saying that something didn’t happen.

Not to say if something happened and to say something never happened are not convertible propositions.

Paul doesn’t say that Barnabas “only” accompanied him on his second visit to Jerusalem.

What we have are two independent accounts of the same general series of events. They naturally vary in detail. But additions or omissions are not the same thing as contradictions.

There is nothing to “get around,” for silence is not obstacle to consistency.

“The answer to the question of why a Pharisee would align with a Sadducee amounts to “just because” without an understanding of the differences, as well as a complete avoidance of the confrontations recorded in the Gospels and Acts.”

A fine example of Dagood’s mendacity. I did not give a “just because” answer. What I said was:

“The question answers itself. He was in cohorts with a Sadducee because the Sadducee was the high priest.

The high priesthood was a divine institution, whoever the incumbent.

Also, the Pharisees and Sadducees needed each other: the Pharisees needed their opponent’s power while the Sadducees needed their opponent’s popularity. You work with the people in power.

They were using each other. Quite likely.”

Dagood has said nothing to overturn the logic of my explanation. He resorts to a tendentious characterization of the answer instead of rebutting the answer.

***QUOTE***

I liked the response to Damascus being part of the Roman Empire. (Although being under a separate King was not addresses. Rome was part of the Roman Empire, yet the High Priest would have just as much authority (none) there as well.) The bit I liked is that in this regard Josephus is disregarded as a poor historian.

Was Josephus also a poor historian with the Testimonium Flavianum? Somehow I am guessing the claim would be “Not.”!

***END-QUOTE***

Once again, Dagood’s reply bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote. As I pointed out, Josephus does not contradict Luke at this juncture.

But I also added that, even if he did, that wouldn’t disprove Luke’s account.

As usual, Dagood has a problem with elementary reading comprehension.

The fact that the Nabatean colony in Damascus were royal subjects of Aretas does not imply that the city of Damascus was under his control.

Roman rule allowed for officials who acted in a liaison capacity between the Roman overlord and one ethnic community or another.

Syria was a Roman province, and Roman often governed her client states through client kings. Indeed, Aretus was originally appointed by Augustus.

I’d add, though, that we are dealing with two different events:

i) The earlier event of Paul/Saul, then a pre-Christian Pharisee, going to Damascus to extradite the Christian fugitives.

ii) The later event of Paul, the Christian convert, escaping from Damascus.

Assuming that Aretas was in de facto, if not de jure, control of Damascus at the time of Paul’s escape, one cannot automatically retroject this informal coup d’etat to the time of Paul’s (Saul’s) prior mission to extradite the fugitives.

This turns on the chronology of Paul’s life. So Dagood needs to work out a timeline.

Indeed, depending on the relative timing of events, the regime-change to which Dagood appeals could just as well or better account for the change in Paul’s reception.

***QUOTE***

But please, do not take my word for it, nor take steve’s. Do the research on your own. A googlewhack of “Damascus History” ought to get a person started.

***END-QUOTE***

If you want to do serious research, you need to read serious books, not rely solely on the Internet. The Internet is a useful resource, and it’s improving over time.

But only a fraction of the scholarly literature has been digitized, and of that fraction you must be a subscriber to have access to some of it.

Google is not substitute for a good library.

***QUOTE***

As to why Paul would need a letter of introduction, I saw no response.

***END-QUOTE***

Naturally, since I responded to that point in my previous reply to Dagood, which I referred him back to.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/bodily-resurrection-of-christ.html

He would need a letter of reference since the Jewish authorities in Damascus would need to know who he was and who he was representing.

***QUOTE***

Although the concept that it was a letter authorizing extradition was kinda funny.

***END-QUOTE***

Oh, so now he admits that I did respond!

All he can say is that my answer was “kinda funny.”

“Kinda funny” is not a factual refutation.

***QUOTE***

See, my next question is who was trying to arrest Paul, and I am told that the Jews and Damascus authorities would have to work together. (By the by, also implying that Damascus was under a separate authority.)

***END-QUOTE***

No, not under a separate authority. Within the Roman empire, certain groups were allowed limited control over their internal affairs, at the indulgence of Rome. This could always be revoked by Rome. The Jews are a case in point. They enjoyed a measure of self-rule, but they were not autonomous. Whatever authority they had was at the forbearance of Rome, and it could be further circumscribed or revoked at the slightest provocation.

Dagood knows nothing of Roman history and how the Roman empire was administered.

Anyway, as I just pointed out (see above), Dagood is conflating two distinct events, separated in time.

***QUOTE***

But if they were to work together, and needed the letter……are we saying that AFTER his conversion, Paul delivered the letter from the High Priest anyway? Oddest thing I ever heard!”

***END-QUOTE***

An artificial objection base on Dagood’s muddled chronology.

***QUOTE***

See, when discussing with a literalist on the Bible, in one post they will say one thing and in the next, something that is completely contradictory to the first thing they said!

Post 1: “The letters were necessary to extradite the Christians.”
Post 2: “Both the Jewish authorities and Damascus authorities worked together.”

If they worked together, the letters weren’t necessary. If the letters were necessary, then Paul would have to have delivered them in order for the authorities to work together to kill him! Funny.

***END-QUOTE***

Another example of Dagood’s illogicality.

i) How would the letters be unnecessary in case of collaboration? They would be necessary to secure the cooperation of the Jewish authorities in Damascus. A letter from the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to the Jewish authorities in Damascus introducing and authorizing Paul as a deputy of the high priest.

ii) Why would they work together to kill him? From which of Dagood’s many false premises is this an inference?

***QUOTE***

As to the point of Ananias’ Jewishness vs. Christianity, I was informed I failed to distinguish between the Diaspora and the Jerusalem Jews. Then Paul was going to Damascus to persecute the Jerusalem Jews? Shouldn’t he have been going to Jerusalem for that?

***END-QUOTE***

Another one of Dagood’s incredibly obtuse objections.

Ananias was respected by the Jews of his community—the Diaspora Jews residing in Damascus.

But the policy of the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem was quite different. Paul was acting as an agent of the high priest to extradite Christian fugitives from Jerusalem.

***QUOTE***

I don’t bother answering triablogue’s posts. Apparently I give them enough fodder to blog about. (I imagine another will come from this. Lol!)

***END-QUOTE***

Except that he just did what he says he doesn’t do.

However, I can well understand why he’d refrain from answering. Every response of his merely serves to confirm his culpable ignorance and mental confusion.