Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
    <- - - - - -

    Nothing yet. I had a falling out so to speak with my adviser and stopped for awhile, but I just recently decided to go back and finish it. My thoughts are leaning towards possibly doing something in the area of the effects of dark matter on galactic dynamics. It would be conjecture as we don't understand dark matter fully - though we have theoretics from supersymmetry - that may offer some clues.
    Yeah. I had a big falling out with the Seminary I was working on my Master's at which I think most people here know about.

    And as you can expect, I'm not really sure what was just said, but it sounds interesting.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by William View Post
      I may have read this issue from somewhere, or it may just be an obvious issue.

      I guess you're right thought, except that the bible has God commanding certain artifacts to be made for worship like the 10 commandments, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the candle sticks, etc, etc... and then of course, creation... but yeah, people worshiping God's Word is probably worse than them not believing what we do have, which is a book that boil down to claims of men.

      Made to accompany worship, and made to be worshiped are very different things. Oh, and yes, worshiping a book, or other inanimate object is worse than not obeying and respecting God.

      having the original, and knowing when it was actually written is worse that the copies we have today... some people practically worship their bibles as it is now, while others argue over when it was written who wrote it, and whether God had anything to do with it...

      I guess I find the excuse to be reaching, but I could be mistaken.
      The thing is we do have an idea of when it was written, and due to textual criticism we are practically certain what the originals said(95% accuracy for OT, 99% for the NT). Did you read the article in full? It goes into a lot, and I don't see how you could have gotten to this response unless you basically skimmed it. If you would have read it, you would have noticed this.

      Source: Tektonics.org

      So the charge of "bibliolatry," while unfortunately sometimes true or appearing to be so, is nevertheless not a true representation of Christian belief. Moreover, given the circumstances, it is clear that "the Word of God" for most people was not what was written on paper, but was the original idea (what I have called the "home office" copy) recorded on paper. Few could have appreciated the significance of a written, inerrant original document.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Please read through the whole article, as I only gave a very brief description of one of it's main points. It has more points, and they are good too. Two of the other major points I will sum up are as follows*. 1) To maintain make all copies inerrant would be extremely coercive, and it's pretty clear that God wants us to make a choice. He wants us to be disciples. 2) Inerrant copies would be impossible for mankind to handle due to our very different understandings.

      *These follow from the fact that the originals would be subject to many problems if they survived, a big one being idolatry. Others stem from a similar reverence for the texts in question.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Yeah. I know about this kind of stuff. Unfortunately, it's metaphysics doing things instead of real history. When people say it had to have happened after the event, it carries with it a hidden premise that any kind of predictive prophecy is not possible. I do not share that presupposition so I do not find such an argument convincing. Now if you can establish that argument, then you have a case, but until then, it should not be used as a premise.

        As for their synagogues, yeah, that makes sense easily enough. Jesus was establishing His own in-group in relation to Israel and setting up a new Israel movement. This had been started by John the Baptist earlier. In that regards, the synagogues of the Jews would not be the places where the people of God would identify. Jesus's ministry was a dividing line and the Jews would have their group judge Jesus's group.

        As for the destruction of the city, the king can easily have a feast in his own city and destroy the city of those who refused to come to his banquet. Note also the description would be inaccurate. The Romans did not burn the city. They only burnt the temple.



        Considering we have Aramaic traditions that put Jesus in the divine identity and are the earliest traditions and we have Paul Christianizing the Shema and including Jesus in it and the Philippian hymn, all of which are universally accepted as Pauline, theological development falls really short as an argument.



        Sorry, but this argument works against you. You can find several times where the epistles, including the Pauline ones, quote the Old Testament and do not source it at all. Why would Paul do that and not explicitly state what he was quoting from? Because he expected his audience to recognize it as a reference they already knew and deemed authoritative. For instance, today a lot of people quote to love your neighbor as yourself. Few know that comes from Leviticus. They just know it comes from a Bible book and Christians should take it authoritatively.

        That Ignatius can quote this without having to say where it's from (Which is common in a high context society anyway) shows how well it was already accepted.

        It looks like your argument boils down to incredulity. You find something very odd and since this is what you would not do and you see yourself as an intelligent person, then surely no other intelligent person would do this. That just becomes a form of anthropological bigotry by assuming every culture has people just like you.



        Mark 7:31 implies that this was going through one city to get to another. If so, that would be a problem, but that has not been shown. What instead is going on is that Mark is giving an itinerary of what happened. If there's some other argument there you consider worthwhile, let me know.



        I love it when this whopper comes up! It makes me laugh so much! Hey. Here's the solution to your "whopper" and it's remarkably easy.

        Let's suppose Mark is the author of Mark and is the testimony of Peter and Matthew knows this.

        Why would Matthew use the testimony of Peter?

        Because Peter was part of the inner three. There were things Jesus shared with only Peter, James, and John. Matthew would not be an eyewitness of those.

        Therefore, Matthew would use that account to get Peter's firsthand testimony.

        Oh well. So much for that whopper. You might want to be careful about what you say is preposterous.

        But please, keep evangelizing. You're doing a great job showing the fundamentalism of skepticism and embarrassing it.
        yet another reason why originals would be nice, and why preserving the originals in the right way would completely eliminate any such disagreements and questions....

        as it is, there's so much left to conjecture and bias on either side to know anything for certain. It truly is faith. But with the multitude of other religions, the multitude of Christian variants, the plethora of issues within the bible, and the fact that things like virgin births and dead people coming back to life seem impossible by all other accounts, I just cant seem to find this stuff convincing.

        The evidence for the Resurrection doesn't seem to match the significance of the event. George Washington crossing the Delaware in a boat isn't too hard to swallow, but I dont care how many books claimed George came back to life and flew across the Delaware, I wouldn't believe that as it resembles legend, mythology and fiction - not anything based in fact, other than the name of a historical person and real river. This isn't a difficult concept, but i think it's that religion makes it hard for some because of the perceived potential for God's rejection, as well as eternal damnation. any thoughts on that?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

          Made to accompany worship, and made to be worshiped are very different things. Oh, and yes, worshiping a book, or other inanimate object is worse than not obeying and respecting God.



          The thing is we do have an idea of when it was written, and due to textual criticism we are practically certain what the originals said(95% accuracy for OT, 99% for the NT). Did you read the article in full? It goes into a lot, and I don't see how you could have gotten to this response unless you basically skimmed it. If you would have read it, you would have noticed this.

          Source: Tektonics.org

          So the charge of "bibliolatry," while unfortunately sometimes true or appearing to be so, is nevertheless not a true representation of Christian belief. Moreover, given the circumstances, it is clear that "the Word of God" for most people was not what was written on paper, but was the original idea (what I have called the "home office" copy) recorded on paper. Few could have appreciated the significance of a written, inerrant original document.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Please read through the whole article, as I only gave a very brief description of one of it's main points. It has more points, and they are good too. Two of the other major points I will sum up are as follows*. 1) To maintain make all copies inerrant would be extremely coercive, and it's pretty clear that God wants us to make a choice. He wants us to be disciples. 2) Inerrant copies would be impossible for mankind to handle due to our very different understandings.

          *These follow from the fact that the originals would be subject to many problems if they survived, a big one being idolatry. Others stem from a similar reverence for the texts in question.
          i have not read through it yet, but will make time to.

          The dates I am currently aware of are that Mark was Written around 70AD and the other gospels a few decades later. But who wrote them? That's up for debate and is often debated.

          Mark appears to have been added to as the earliest copies end at Mk 16:8, with the later copies adding several other verses. This doesnt instill the best confidence for me.

          An orginal could have been made for worship. And a true worshiper and disciple would read through it completely, knowing that idolatry is wrong, no? There would be no bickering over whether Daniel was written before Alexander or after - same with the gospels and the destruction of the temple. This wouldn't be an issue. We'd have a static original to routinely compare translations and copies to. Without reading your paper yet, I still still see this as more sense-able.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Yeah. I know about this kind of stuff. Unfortunately, it's metaphysics doing things instead of real history. When people say it had to have happened after the event, it carries with it a hidden premise that any kind of predictive prophecy is not possible. I do not share that presupposition so I do not find such an argument convincing. Now if you can establish that argument, then you have a case, but until then, it should not be used as a premise.

            As for their synagogues, yeah, that makes sense easily enough. Jesus was establishing His own in-group in relation to Israel and setting up a new Israel movement. This had been started by John the Baptist earlier. In that regards, the synagogues of the Jews would not be the places where the people of God would identify. Jesus's ministry was a dividing line and the Jews would have their group judge Jesus's group.

            As for the destruction of the city, the king can easily have a feast in his own city and destroy the city of those who refused to come to his banquet. Note also the description would be inaccurate. The Romans did not burn the city. They only burnt the temple.



            Considering we have Aramaic traditions that put Jesus in the divine identity and are the earliest traditions and we have Paul Christianizing the Shema and including Jesus in it and the Philippian hymn, all of which are universally accepted as Pauline, theological development falls really short as an argument.



            Sorry, but this argument works against you. You can find several times where the epistles, including the Pauline ones, quote the Old Testament and do not source it at all. Why would Paul do that and not explicitly state what he was quoting from? Because he expected his audience to recognize it as a reference they already knew and deemed authoritative. For instance, today a lot of people quote to love your neighbor as yourself. Few know that comes from Leviticus. They just know it comes from a Bible book and Christians should take it authoritatively.

            That Ignatius can quote this without having to say where it's from (Which is common in a high context society anyway) shows how well it was already accepted.

            It looks like your argument boils down to incredulity. You find something very odd and since this is what you would not do and you see yourself as an intelligent person, then surely no other intelligent person would do this. That just becomes a form of anthropological bigotry by assuming every culture has people just like you.



            Mark 7:31 implies that this was going through one city to get to another. If so, that would be a problem, but that has not been shown. What instead is going on is that Mark is giving an itinerary of what happened. If there's some other argument there you consider worthwhile, let me know.



            I love it when this whopper comes up! It makes me laugh so much! Hey. Here's the solution to your "whopper" and it's remarkably easy.

            Let's suppose Mark is the author of Mark and is the testimony of Peter and Matthew knows this.

            Why would Matthew use the testimony of Peter?

            Because Peter was part of the inner three. There were things Jesus shared with only Peter, James, and John. Matthew would not be an eyewitness of those.

            Therefore, Matthew would use that account to get Peter's firsthand testimony.

            Oh well. So much for that whopper. You might want to be careful about what you say is preposterous.

            But please, keep evangelizing. You're doing a great job showing the fundamentalism of skepticism and embarrassing it.
            Nick, you can come up with your own theories and harmonizations all you want. I demonstrated to you the position of the MAJORITY of scholars who date the writing of the Gospel of Matthew to 80-90 AD. I also demonstrated that the majority of scholars do not believe that Matthew the tax collector wrote this book. You may disagree, but you disagree with a minority of scholars.

            Your statement about Matthew relying on John Mark's second-hand information from Peter to form his own gospel is pathetic and shows why skeptics throw up their hands in disbelief and disgust when debating conservative Christians like yourself: "If ANY harmonization is possible, then there is no discrepancy or error." I have heard and read many pathetic harmonizations, but this one takes the MOTHER OF ALL WHOPPERS prize! Are you seriously telling me that the Creator of the Universe, the ultimate author of the Bible, needed Matthew to borrow information from a second hand source to give mankind his message of salvation; salvation from an eternity of eternal pain and suffering???

            Just how deep into ridiculousness will you go, Nick, to prop up this ancient tall tale before you finally admit it is ALL man-made? A "God" had nothing to do with it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Nope.



              I don't know what you mean by that.
              so you believe in other miracle from other religions and sources, but cant recall one?

              the other question regarding divine acceptance was trying to ask that if you did indeed believe other miracles had indeed happened within other religions, do you think that points to truth in that religion as in God's approval of that religion?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                Yeah. I had a big falling out with the Seminary I was working on my Master's at which I think most people here know about.

                And as you can expect, I'm not really sure what was just said, but it sounds interesting.
                No, I never heard about that. I had other problems with my advisor, but part of it was because his daughter was constantly sexually harassing me with messages and when I told her "I'm in a relationship you need to stop" I never got along with him after that. Can you imagine if it was the other way around?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  Nick, you can come up with your own theories and harmonizations all you want. I demonstrated to you the position of the MAJORITY of scholars who date the writing of the Gospel of Matthew to 80-90 AD. I also demonstrated that the majority of scholars do not believe that Matthew the tax collector wrote this book. You may disagree, but you disagree with a minority of scholars.
                  Yeah. I realize that. So what? I want to know why the majority think that and I found the arguments unconvincing. Should I say "Well the arguments are unconvincing, but if that's what the majority of scholars say, even if I think the data points elsewhere I'll just go along with it?"

                  By the way, it's interesting that in the debate when I cited scholars, you dismissed them because they were biased.

                  Did they all suddenly lose their bias when you wanted to use them?

                  Your statement about Matthew relying on John Mark's second-hand information from Peter to form his own gospel is pathetic and shows why skeptics throw up their hands in disbelief and disgust when debating conservative Christians like yourself: If ANY harmonization is possible, then there is no discrepancy or error. I have many pathetic harmonizations, but this one takes the MOTHER OF ALL WHOPPERS! Are you seriously telling me that the Creator of the Universe, the ultimate author of the Bible, needed Matthew to borrow information from a second hand source to give mankind his message of salvation; salvation from an eternity of eternal pain and suffering???
                  It's pathetic? Why is that? Peter would have seen firsthand several events Matthew didn't. Why wouldn't Matthew use that? Oh. I know why!

                  Gary says otherwise!

                  Just how deep into ridiculousness will you go, Nick, to prop up this ancient tall tale before you finally admit it is ALL man-made? A "God" had nothing to do with it.
                  Keep up your evangelism dude. You make yourself look more ridiculous regularly. Let me know when you plan to escape fundamentalism entirely.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                    No, I never heard about that. I had other problems with my advisor, but part of it was because his daughter was constantly sexually harassing me with messages and when I told her "I'm in a relationship you need to stop" I never got along with him after that. Can you imagine if it was the other way around?
                    If it was the other way around you'd be posting from a jail cell if at all. (Not saying you're guilty. I don't think that at all, but a jury wouldn't listen.)

                    The seminary I was attending had leadership that went after my father-in-law. I spoke up in his defense. THat would not end well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by William View Post
                      I agree, and the #1 ignores all those listed in Hebrews 11 as being champions of faith, who had direct signs and miracles and interactions with God or with his angels... Such certainty didnt seem to diminish their faith, according the the Bible.

                      and #2, I do not mean to question God, but rather weigh the evidence and try these claims made about God by men who wrote a book. these men claim to speak for God - I question them. I wonder whether they can be trusted. God can do as he likes and men can lie and be mistaken, so I do not trust every word or every claim that men make.
                      William, Gary's point 1 relies on a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is loyalty given to those who have proven trustworthy. So, those heroes of faith are excellent examples. They had evidence of God's trustworthiness, so gave Him their loyalty.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        I have some beliefs and these people can have beliefs such as prophecy not being possible, but you do not come to the text with them. You seek to eliminate them as much as possible when doing academic research. (If you're reading the Bible for devotional purposes, that's a different matter.)

                        If you think my presuppositions are clouding with the data, then feel free to show that.
                        and if you think that I anly seek to tear the bible down, then you are free to show that.

                        When I was a christian, i held the bible to a different light than I did everything else. It was just true. I didn't question it and everything read regarding its validity was slanted toward that end.

                        Now I read the bible as I would any book or any claim. I do not believe prophecies are impossible or that God is not real, yet I find myself skeptical of claims regarding these, as there are many claims and very little experiences of such. So like most people, I am more skeptical of certain things than i am of others, and i try to be fair about it.

                        So a claim that something happened is just a claim. History is recorded by people, and they sometimes embellish or even lie, so much of it I take with a grain of salt, as if it were all based on a true story. It's not even only miraculous or supernatural events that i am prone to be skeptical of, but number of enemies killed in a battle, etc. Things like that. Also claims that are too harsh of an enemy or too flattering of a ally - I doubt the accuracy of such typically.

                        When prophecies are given vaguely, then i am skeptical of said fulfillment. when the prophecy and fulfillment are both given in the same book, it appears to be a claim made after the fact, like if I were to write a book today that claimed i foretold 9/11.

                        and I think I can show biblical prophecies that simply failed and I could say that if I showed the to you, you'd just ignore the text and invent anything that you thought fixed it, claiming nothing is impossible for God... but that gets us nowhere.

                        and I was really just trying to point out that we wall have some presuppositions and that some are bigger than others.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          William, Gary's point 1 relies on a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is loyalty given to those who have proven trustworthy. So, those heroes of faith are excellent examples. They had evidence of God's trustworthiness, so gave Him their loyalty.
                          John 20:31 comes to mind.

                          Do you have a passage that aligns with your thought?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by William View Post
                            and if you think that I anly seek to tear the bible down, then you are free to show that.
                            I do not. You are much more reasonable than Gary is.

                            When I was a christian, i held the bible to a different light than I did everything else. It was just true. I didn't question it and everything read regarding its validity was slanted toward that end.
                            Understandable position and even though I hold the conclusion that it is true, I do not think we should have the position of never questioning the book. The book includes questioning the God of the book. If you can question God, why not the book?

                            Now I read the bible as I would any book or any claim. I do not believe prophecies are impossible or that God is not real, yet I find myself skeptical of claims regarding these, as there are many claims and very little experiences of such. So like most people, I am more skeptical of certain things than i am of others, and i try to be fair about it.
                            I am extremely skeptical of prophecy claims to, but I would honestly recommend starting with the resurrection. Also, don't make inerrancy an issue. It's not an essential. I know very devout Christians who I don't doubt love Jesus more than I do who deny inerrancy.

                            So a claim that something happened is just a claim. History is recorded by people, and they sometimes embellish or even lie, so much of it I take with a grain of salt, as if it were all based on a true story. It's not even only miraculous or supernatural events that i am prone to be skeptical of, but number of enemies killed in a battle, etc. Things like that. Also claims that are too harsh of an enemy or too flattering of a ally - I doubt the accuracy of such typically.
                            Sure, but I would advise here to study the language and idioms of the people. We use the same today when a football team is said to have massacred another one.

                            When prophecies are given vaguely, then i am skeptical of said fulfillment. when the prophecy and fulfillment are both given in the same book, it appears to be a claim made after the fact, like if I were to write a book today that claimed i foretold 9/11.
                            And that's also understandable. I think one of the best books on this lately that has come out is by my friend Dee Dee Warren looking at Matthew 24 called "It's Not The End of the World." I interview her this Saturday on the book. It's a look at the prophecy in Matthew 24.

                            and I think I can show biblical prophecies that simply failed and I could say that if I showed the to you, you'd just ignore the text and invent anything that you thought fixed it, claiming nothing is impossible for God... but that gets us nowhere.

                            and I was really just trying to point out that we wall have some presuppositions and that some are bigger than others.
                            No. I wouldn't. I would take such seriously, but I would also be willing to say some could fall outside of my own personal area of expertise. I do not dare claim to be an expert on every prophecy out there. I still point to the resurrection. If a prophecy was in error, well I'd have to rethink my stance on inerrancy. I still have the resurrection. If the resurrection is in error, I must rethink everything.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by William View Post
                              so you believe in other miracle from other religions and sources, but cant recall one?
                              Why should it be necessary for me to recall a particular miracle for my statement "I don't reject outright any of the miraculous claims of other religions" to be valid?

                              the other question regarding divine acceptance was trying to ask that if you did indeed believe other miracles had indeed happened within other religions, do you think that points to truth in that religion as in God's approval of that religion?
                              Oh. No.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by William View Post
                                i have not read through it yet, but will make time to.
                                That explains a lot.

                                The dates I am currently aware of are that Mark was Written around 70AD and the other gospels a few decades later. But who wrote them? That's up for debate and is often debated.
                                I haven't done as much study in the authorship area. I'm not a scholar, and I haven't gotten into this area. Didn't Nick cite scholars earlier who put the works earlier, and did argue for the authenticity of the assigned authors? Ask him, I'm pretty sure he would know this far better than I do.

                                Mark appears to have been added to as the earliest copies end at Mk 16:8, with the later copies adding several other verses. This doesnt instill the best confidence for me.
                                A few lines that do not contradict anything Jesus said or did bothers you? Really? I don't really see why this is a problem.

                                An orginal could have been made for worship. And a true worshiper and disciple would read through it completely, knowing that idolatry is wrong, no? There would be no bickering over whether Daniel was written before Alexander or after - same with the gospels and the destruction of the temple. This wouldn't be an issue. We'd have a static original to routinely compare translations and copies to. Without reading your paper yet, I still still see this as more sense-able.
                                Muslims say idolatry is wrong. Do you know how many are taught to handle to Quran?

                                Source: Tektonics.org "Wildcat"

                                But for comparison we might consider Muslim treatment of copies of the Quran. While it does not seem that Muslims hold to quite the view that every copy is inspired, consider some standard treatment of the text even in its current state (thanks to "Wildcat" for this info):

                                It has to be wrapped in a nice cloth. It has to be put on this thing that looks like a stand so you don't put it on your lap. It has to be duly kissed on front, back and top before you open it and most of all you believe it is all the truth and NEVER EVER DARE question it's integrity and when you read it you have to recite it in a prose, you don't read it like a book and some people move back and forth, i.e sway slightly when they recite it.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                They will say this is not idolatry, but deserved reverence and respect for what Allah has revealed through the angel Jibreel.

                                Please read the whole article before your next response.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X