(a) "Simple common sense" is not proof, and an appeal to it is not "show"ing.kaufmannphillips wrote:
You did not show that Paul "must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke":
RND wrote:
Brother KP, Dr. Luke travelled with Paul extensively in a roughly 30 year period. Simple common sense would tell you that Paul would have shared his knowledge of and his interactions with the Bereans to the good Doctor.
(b) What is your basis for claiming that "Luke travelled with Paul extensively in a roughly 30 year period"?
(c) What is your basis for claiming that Luke is the author of Acts?
Would Paul necessarily have discussed every phase of his missionary journeys with the author of Acts? We do not know that Paul was aware of the book's being composed, and we do not know how involved or uninvolved he may have been in the course of its research and preparation. Paul went numerous places and met numerous people. If he did not intentionally try to catalog or narrate his career for the author of Acts (for the purpose of the book's production, or otherwise), it is not unreasonable to acknowledge that he might never have referred to a particular episode in incidental conversation.kaufmannphillips wrote:
It is by no means necessary for Paul himself to have commented on this episode to the author of Acts. Friends and colleagues do not always discuss every episode in their careers with one another.
RND wrote:
That's a simplistic generalization frankly.
May you never be on a jury of somebody's peers.kaufmannphillips wrote:
Even if Paul did happen to mention this episode to the author, it is not a given that his comments correspond to those made in the Acts passage.
RND wrote:
The documentation of the encounter is simple proof that Paul must have relayed this information to Dr. Luke. Your point is even more speculative.
The mere presence of an account about Paul does not prove that he was involved in relaying the information in that account.
"Maybe" is not proof, and does not "show" that Paul "must have obviously shared his encounters with Dr. Luke."RND wrote:
Or, maybe, Dr. Luke got his information to document Paul's encounters from all of them!Again, you have to speculate more than look at the situation in a common, naturally communicative formula.
I wrote "So be clear, in your mind and in your argument, about what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text." If you do not shy away from such clarification, have we any problem here?kaufmannphillips wrote:
Am I to understand, then, that you shy away from clarifying what you derive from the mystical and what you derive from the text?
RND wrote:
No, not at all. The Holy Spirit speaks first to the individual. I have the privilege of defining what the HS is saying to me through scripture. I would shy away from another man's attempt at clarifying my encounters.
When it comes to beliefs that you have derived from the mystical - might some of these be challenging to validate from the text? Would you say that scripture has the capacity to validate every particular move of the holy spirit?kaufmannphillips wrote:Many people invoke the imprimatur of the holy spirit - e.g., the Latter-Day Saints, Benny Hinn. Not all such claims are convincing. Neither will you find that your claims of inspiration are convincing to all parties. They may imagine you to have confused your subconscious or your pious imagination with the holy spirit. You can choose to rant about their lack of credence, or you can move along to other avenues of discussion. Which do you consider more likely to be effective?
RND wrote:
Validating my beliefs through scripture.
Child's play, no? For one who moves beyond flaccidity to dig beneath the surface of scripture?kaufmannphillips wrote:
Meti ho luchnos erchetai hina hupo ton modion tethe, e hupo ten klinen, ouch hina epi ten luchnian epithethe?
RND wrote:
Terribly childish.
Deriving from the text is not by definition excluding the activity of the spirit in the process of derivation. The spirit may be involved in any righteous natural process. But what the spirit cannot do is make an interpretation derivable from the text when it is not in fact derivable from the text.kaufmannphillips wrote:
On one hand, I have not said not to rely upon the spirit. I have said to be clear about what you derive from the spirit and what you derive from the text.
RND wrote:
It is the Holy Spirit that makes understanding the scriptures possible.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
On the other hand - do you imagine that the spirit cannot make use of what is derived from the text?
RND wrote:
The purpose of the Spirit is to reveal what it helped build in what is laid out in scripture. "God breathed."
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Or that the process of deriving from the text must be devoid of reliance upon the spirit?
RND wrote:
Huh? Without the Holy Spirit understanding the scriptures is not possible.
Can your interpretation be derived from the text itself, or can it not be derived from the text itself? Do the fundamental mechanics of the text yield your interpretation? Or is your interpretation essentially dependent upon extraneous revelation from the spirit? These are worthwhile questions.
