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

How can we know that God is?

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

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So is she back to being a professional historian again or is she still pretending to be an anthropologist?
    Nothing so specific, and with enough cover to give implausible (but not quite impossible) deniability.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Only to the ignorant or the bigoted.

    Qualifications and academic experience carry some weight even if one might disagree with what the individual academic is proposing.

    It does not follow that we should slavishly assume that every offering produced by any and every academic should be dutifully accepted unquestioningly and we certainly do not do that amongst ourselves as any late night gathering in the bar at a conference will quickly demonstrate. However, the fact that many academics have achieved high recognition from among their peers in their respective fields and we have all met rigorous and demanding academic standards [well at least in Europe] illustrates there is a modicum of competence within academia [and yes that was intended sarcastically] even if we may disagree with an individual's contentions, or even their entire argument.
    Last edited by tabibito; 06-25-2022, 07:24 AM.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      You don't examine the texts to see if they actually say what your preferred commentators claim they do before making claims about the texts. You didn't need to actually say it.
      Are you now posing as a scholar of Koine Greek?

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      You don't compare the texts with your preferred commentators claims about the texts before making judgements about the texts, even when the opportunity to do so is presented.
      The texts we have are not the originals. They are copies of copies of copies.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Your claim to being any kind of scholar is seriously in doubt.
      That you resort to unfounded allegations indicates something.

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        Some believers, very much a minority in my experience, believe all the Bible to be inspired scripture.
        So, you believe that NOT all the bible is inspired scripture – how do you discern what is inspired and what is not?

        . When the exercise is complete, students (almost without exception) accept that not all of the Bible's content is inspired - not because they have been told as much, but because they themselves have assessed the Biblical record itself.
        And who decides which parts of the bible are “inspired” and which are not?

        I am aware that you think it is what you refer to.
        I am referring to the evolution of the notion of the ‘risen’ Jesus. Initially as experienced by Paul i.e., ‘a presence’ surrounded by flashing lights, to the material touchable being in the Gospels 20 plus years later – e.g., doubting Thomas. And ultimately to the Ecumenical Councils declaring Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and fully God as per the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.

        Your own experience should have taught you more caution. It was a professional scholar that you relied on for the significance and definitions of certain words, which in the final analysis had not been provided with anything like accuracy.
        To what are you referring? And who decided on the “accuracy”?

        So? and what do you think my agenda is? Perhaps you know more about my agenda than I do.
        You appear determined to “prove” the gospels were not late documents but closer to the time of Jesus.

        Whether a scholar with a reputation and income to protect is more objective than a layman would depend on whether the layman, with less skin in the game, researches his material. It also depends on what the layman's agenda is. What you believe the layman's or the professional's agenda to be has no influence on the facts.
        Professional historians protect their reputations and credibility by observing the discipline of historical-critical methodology - as practiced by serious historians. Laymen are not necessarily subject to the same discipline.
        “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


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

          So, you believe that NOT all the bible is inspired scripture – how do you discern what is inspired and what is not?
          Why would that be an issue?

          And who decides which parts of the bible are “inspired” and which are not?
          (Taking scripture to be Holy Writ). At the extremes, the differences are readily discernible. If an author states that a comment comes from God, the author claims that it is scripture. If an author states his own opinion, it is not scripture. Observations of every day events are not scripture. "Someone saw a boat" for example.
          Is the written piece "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"? If it is, it is probably scripture. If the same claim is made by an independent (Biblical or in some cases Apocryphal) author, it is scripture. Much is middle ground, the decision then is whether or not the record can be regarded as factual, independently of the role of inspiration: in the absence of conclusive contradictory evidence, two witnesses in support is again a reasonable indicator of factual.

          And ultimately to the Ecumenical Councils declaring Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and fully God as per the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. [/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]
          Given that Paul declared Jesus to be God incarnate (or rather, God become human), and with supporting claims available from Hebrews, any idea that the Biblical record shows that God became man was a late development is demonstrably false. Any idea that Paul did not subscribe to the precept that Christ was raised from the dead relies on (verbal) prestidigitation. The controversies of the early church centred on whether Christ had actually died, not whether he was alive.

          The fine details of the Constantinian Church's findings are indeed questionable: there was an admission that the "deeper matters" (for which read, "precepts that we like") of doctrine could not be established on the basis of scripture. Adherence to scripture was the hallmark of the heretics, but it is unfortunate that the heretics also subscribed to some incorrect background premises** that were shared by the self styled orthodox proponents. A developing Christology can be traced from times of the Bible through those of the apologists and on into the convoluted and confused offering that is now considered orthodox. Paul's declarations are simple - Logos (not by that name) abdicated godhood, became human, lived and died as a human, was resurrected. To the best of my knowledge, Paul did not EXPLICITLY declare that Jesus resumed godhood (willing to be shown otherwise), but the implicit claim is strong enough (willing to be shown otherwise).

          {{** primarily, the idea that OT references to wisdom identified wisdom as the preincarnate Christ.}}

          To what are you referring? And who decided on the “accuracy”?
          The whole "the use of ωφθη shows that what was seen was not physical" issue.

          You appear determined to “prove” the gospels were not late documents but closer to the time of Jesus.
          If someone presented a reasonable argument to the contrary, that would no longer be my apparent agenda.

          Professional historians protect their reputations and credibility by observing the discipline of historical-critical methodology - as practiced by serious historians. Laymen are not necessarily subject to the same discipline.
          Ah yes. "as practiced by serious historians." Theologians tend not to be historians, much less serious historians. And again, I invite you to post copies of the arguments provided in support of late dates that you find convincing. If firm evidence is provided, I will be quite happy to recant. "Majority consensus says" or "Professor Okurigana says" is nothing like evidence that a sound supporting argument exists.
          Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2022, 02:58 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            Why would that be an issue?



            (Taking scripture to be Holy Writ). At the extremes, the differences are readily discernible. If an author states that a comment comes from God, the author claims that it is scripture. If an author states his own opinion, it is not scripture. Observations of every day events are not scripture. "Someone saw a boat" for example.
            Is the written piece "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"? If it is, it is probably scripture. If the same claim is made by an independent (Biblical or in some cases Apocryphal) author, it is scripture. Much is middle ground, the decision then is whether or not the record can be regarded as factual, independently of the role of inspiration: in the absence of conclusive contradictory evidence, two witnesses in support is again a reasonable indicator of factual.



            Given that Paul declared Jesus to be God incarnate (or rather, God become human), and with supporting claims available from Hebrews, any idea that the Biblical record shows that God became man was a late development is demonstrably false. Any idea that Paul did not subscribe to the precept that Christ was raised from the dead relies on (verbal) prestidigitation. The controversies of the early church centred on whether Christ had actually died, not whether he was alive.

            The fine details of the Constantinian Church's findings are indeed questionable: there was an admission that the "deeper matters" (for which read, "precepts that we like") of doctrine could not be established on the basis of scripture. Adherence to scripture was the hallmark of the heretics, but it is unfortunate that the heretics also subscribed to some incorrect background premises** that were shared by the self styled orthodox proponents. A developing Christology can be traced from times of the Bible through those of the apologists and on into the convoluted and confused offering that is now considered orthodox. Paul's declarations are simple - Logos (not by that name) abdicated godhood, became human, lived and died as a human, was resurrected. To the best of my knowledge, Paul did not EXPLICITLY declare that Jesus resumed godhood (willing to be shown otherwise), but the implicit claim is strong enough (willing to be shown otherwise).

            {{** primarily, the idea that OT references to wisdom identified wisdom as the preincarnate Christ.}}



            The whole "the use of ωφθη shows that what was seen was not physical" issue.



            If someone presented a reasonable argument to the contrary, that would no longer be my apparent agenda.



            Ah yes. "as practiced by serious historians." Theologians tend not to be historians, much less serious historians. And again, I invite you to post copies of the arguments provided in support of late dates that you find convincing. If firm evidence is provided, I will be quite happy to recant. "Majority consensus says" or "Professor Okurigana says" is nothing like evidence that a sound supporting argument exists.
            As previously noted the entire idea that the Gospels were written after the Fall of Jerusalem is based upon the idea that the prophecies attributed to Jesus just had to be later interpolations because after all, it is impossible to accurately predict the future.

            Except that there are documented instances of it taking place over and over.

            More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

            Obviously, this means Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.

            A few more examples.

            The iconic TV comedy and variety show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," where they predicted not only the future presidency of Ronald Reagan -- who at the time was the governor of California and on virtually nobody's list of potential presidential contenders -- but also the exact year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This all happened in 1969, a full two decades before East and West Germany were reunited.

            In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell, best known as the inventor of the telephone, warned of how the continuing unchecked burning of fossil fuels would "have a sort of greenhouse effect" on the planet and recommended collecting solar power from sunlight and using it as an energy source.

            Mark Twain, perhaps in jest, predicted his own death:

            "I came in with Halley’s comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t. The Almighty said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"


            Twain was born two weeks after the comet appeared in 1835 and died on April 21, 1910, the day after the comet returned.

            Not so amusingly, in 1955 the actor Alec Guinness warned James Dean, after the latter was showing off his new car and boasting how fast it could go, "Please do not get into that car, because if you do … by 10 o'clock at night next Thursday, you'll be dead." That next Thursday Dean died in an auto accident driving that car.

            In 1888, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's first Chancellor, accurately predicted World War I, proclaiming: "One day the Great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans."

            And in John Brunner’s 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, America in 2010 is run by a President Obomi in a world with satellite news and DVRs (although the book itself was about a world suffering from overpopulation).

            All of which numerous Biblical scholars would dismiss as impossible.





            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              As previously noted the entire idea that the Gospels were written after the Fall of Jerusalem is based upon the idea that the prophecies attributed to Jesus just had to be later interpolations because after all, it is impossible to accurately predict the future.

              Except that there are documented instances of it taking place over and over.

              More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

              Obviously, this means Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.

              A few more examples.

              The iconic TV comedy and variety show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," where they predicted not only the future presidency of Ronald Reagan -- who at the time was the governor of California and on virtually nobody's list of potential presidential contenders -- but also the exact year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This all happened in 1969, a full two decades before East and West Germany were reunited.

              In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell, best known as the inventor of the telephone, warned of how the continuing unchecked burning of fossil fuels would "have a sort of greenhouse effect" on the planet and recommended collecting solar power from sunlight and using it as an energy source.

              Mark Twain, perhaps in jest, predicted his own death:

              "I came in with Halley’s comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t. The Almighty said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"


              Twain was born two weeks after the comet appeared in 1835 and died on April 21, 1910, the day after the comet returned.

              Not so amusingly, in 1955 the actor Alec Guinness warned James Dean, after the latter was showing off his new car and boasting how fast it could go, "Please do not get into that car, because if you do … by 10 o'clock at night next Thursday, you'll be dead." That next Thursday Dean died in an auto accident driving that car.

              In 1888, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's first Chancellor, accurately predicted World War I, proclaiming: "One day the Great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans."

              And in John Brunner’s 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, America in 2010 is run by a President Obomi in a world with satellite news and DVRs (although the book itself was about a world suffering from overpopulation).

              All of which numerous Biblical scholars would dismiss as impossible.



              Some of it could be attributed to the "ten thousand monkeys effect," but it stretches credibility to attribute all of them to freaks of chance. There are enough documented events to give anyone sensible pause to at least consider the possibility that not everything can be attributed to natural cause.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                Some of it could be attributed to the "ten thousand monkeys effect," but it stretches credibility to attribute all of them to freaks of chance. There are enough documented events to give anyone sensible pause to at least consider the possibility that not everything can be attributed to natural cause.
                Swift's detailed description of Mars' two moons would be difficult to shoehorn into such a category.

                Moreover, I recall once reading something about Jesus' prophecies concerning the Temple, and that was that given the increasing hostilities between the Jews in the Holy Land and the Romans, the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple were all but inevitable. Of course that could be a case of where hindsight is 20/20. But the point is that the prophecies was not such a wild one that the only explanation can be that it was added later, after the fact.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Swift's detailed description of Mars' two moons would be difficult to shoehorn into such a category.
                  That one is not readily amenable to shoehorning, admittedly, but I'm sure someone will find a way to do it. I'll have to look into Swift's story: it looks interesting.

                  Moreover, I recall once reading something about Jesus' prophecies concerning the Temple, and that was that given the increasing hostilities between the Jews in the Holy Land and the Romans, the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple were all but inevitable. Of course that could be a case of where hindsight is 20/20. But the point is that the prophecies was not such a wild one that the only explanation can be that it was added later, after the fact.
                  Actually, a later redaction wouldn't help the cause of the late date proponents. The list of usable objections to an early date would in fact be diminished.

                  The record is present and in the same place in any manuscript that is available, which doesn't happen with late redactions. The woman caught in adultery, for example, is not present in all manuscripts, and it doesn't have a fixed location in the records where it is found (subject to my memory being accurate).

                  WRT the fall of Jerusalem, what the gospel records fail to do is explicitly mark Jesus' comments as prophecy, which a late redaction would have done. There is no emphasis whatever in the record of Jesus' predictions concerning the fall of Jerusalem. But, as one commentator pointed out, the prediction could be made without the need for divinely inspired prophecy. The reasoning goes as follows,
                  • There is an itinerant messianic preacher
                  • There is a history, where the sins of the nation resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple.
                  • There is an acknowledged prophet (John)
                  • There is a king
                  • There is a law regarding kings; that their sins will be counted as the sin by the whole nation
                  • The king has the prophet executed without just cause

                  The itinerant preacher could easily put two and two together to predict a repeat of the destruction of the first temple. Nothing supernatural involved, just an expectation that happened to be borne out in reality.
                  Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2022, 09:09 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                    Why would that be an issue?
                    WHY? Because throughout church history religious wars have been waged over the issue of whose got it right.

                    Is the written piece "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"? If it is, it is probably scripture. If the same claim is made by an independent (Biblical or in some cases Apocryphal) author, it is scripture. Much is middle ground, the decision then is whether or not the record can be regarded as factual, independently of the role of inspiration: in the absence of conclusive contradictory evidence, two witnesses in support is again a reasonable indicator of factual.
                    And who is the arbiter deciding what is “profitable for teaching” and what is not?

                    Given that Paul declared Jesus to be God incarnate (or rather, God become human), and with supporting claims available from Hebrews, any idea that the Biblical record shows that God became man was a late development is demonstrably false. Any idea that Paul did not subscribe to the precept that Christ was raised from the dead relies on (verbal) prestidigitation. The controversies of the early church centred on whether Christ had actually died, not whether he was alive.
                    There is no sleight of hand in accepting that Paul subscribed to the precept of Christ being raised from the dead any more than modern Christians claim to know the risen Jesus as their personal friend and savior. In neither case is there necessarily a material body involved.

                    But that’s not the argument which is that it is the biblical evolution of the notion of the ‘risen’ Jesus. Initially as experienced by Paul i.e., ‘a non-material presence, to the material touchable being in the Gospels 20 plus years later – e.g., doubting Thomas.

                    The fine details of the Constantinian Church's findings are indeed questionable: there was an admission that the "deeper matters" (for which read, "precepts that we like") of doctrine could not be established on the basis of scripture.
                    Actually, the Constantinian Church and the Ecumenical Councils established what books constitute the canon of the NT and the Christological doctrines that are the basis of modern Christianity.

                    The whole "the use of ωφθη shows that what was seen was not physical" issue.
                    Please explain, my Koine Greek is not what it was.

                    If someone presented a reasonable argument to the contrary, that would no longer be my apparent agenda.
                    The majority of credentialed scholars disagree with your “apparent agenda”.

                    Ah yes. "as practiced by serious historians." Theologians tend not to be historians, much less serious historians.
                    Sarcasm noted but it is misplaced. Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman, to name but two, are notable historians AND theologians who practice discipline of historical-critical methodology and - along with the majority - date the gospels late. I am prepared to accept their expertise.

                    And again, I invite you to post copies of the arguments provided in support of late dates that you find convincing. If firm evidence is provided, I will be quite happy to recant.
                    I am content to accept the conclusions of the experts in the field on the grounds that their expertise exceeds mine. You, apparently, are not.
                    “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


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                      I am content to accept the conclusions of the experts in the field on the grounds that their expertise exceeds mine.


                      No way to address that politely, so I won't address it.

                      [I am content to accept the conclusions of the experts] ...You, apparently, are not.
                      Indeed I am not - I have paid attention to the arguments presented in support of the conclusions. Credentials are of far less interest than the soundness of arguments. It is of course more reasonable to seek for reasoned argument from credentialled persons than from laymen and outsiders, but it is nothing like a scholarly approach to accept (neither to reject) anyone's conclusions without weighing the arguments presented, issue by issue.
                      Last edited by tabibito; 06-27-2022, 02:26 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                        More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

                        Obviously, this means Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.

                        All of which numerous Biblical scholars would dismiss as impossible.
                        The following was on a recommended reading by the head of faculty a couple of years ago at the university that I attend. I have posted it before, but it is worth mentioning again.

                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Some aspects of Biblical Criticism, not only source criticism, need some serious reconsideration. Someone noticed, and wrote a pointed satirical paper in which A A Milne's "Winnie the Pooh" books were examined by "Source Critical" methods .
                        The paper itself was written by Frederick Crews (Professor emeritus of English at the University of California) so the "credentialled academic" criterion is met. In my original post, there was no mention of Crews' credentials and how the paper came to my attention. Without that information, and without bothering to check for that information, there would be many who feel justified in dismissing the criticisms that the paper levels at the way in which source criticism is misapplied. Had it been written by an author lacking in academic credentials, it would seem, it would have no value whatever and no credibility.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 06-27-2022, 03:23 AM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          The following was on a recommended reading by the head of faculty a couple of years ago at the university that I attend. I have posted it before, but it is worth mentioning again.



                          The paper itself was written by Frederick Crews (Professor emeritus of English at the University of California) so the "credentialled academic" criterion is met. In my original post, there was no mention of Crews' credentials and how the paper came to my attention. Without that information, and without bothering to check for that information, there would be many who feel justified in dismissing the criticisms that the paper levels at the way in which source criticism is misapplied. Had it been written by an author lacking in academic credentials, it would seem, it would have no value whatever and no credibility.
                          As yes, the source criticism of Winnie the Pooh (also the thread where H_A shows how close she pays attention to posts while demanding information).

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            As yes, the source criticism of Winnie the Pooh (also the thread where H_A shows how close she pays attention to posts while demanding information).
                            Source Criticism of Winnie the Pooh highlighted problems with Source Criticism that I had identified before ever hearing the name for the process.
                            So the question arises; how and in what way is the article more scholarly, accurate, or authoritative because a professor wrote it than if a layman had written it?
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              As previously noted the entire idea that the Gospels were written after the Fall of Jerusalem is based upon the idea that the prophecies attributed to Jesus just had to be later interpolations because after all, it is impossible to accurately predict the future.

                              Except that there are documented instances of it taking place over and over.

                              More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

                              Obviously, this means Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.
                              A few more examples.

                              The iconic TV comedy and variety show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," where they predicted not only the future presidency of Ronald Reagan -- who at the time was the governor of California and on virtually nobody's list of potential presidential contenders -- but also the exact year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This all happened in 1969, a full two decades before East and West Germany were reunited.

                              In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell, best known as the inventor of the telephone, warned of how the continuing unchecked burning of fossil fuels would "have a sort of greenhouse effect" on the planet and recommended collecting solar power from sunlight and using it as an energy source.

                              Mark Twain, perhaps in jest, predicted his own death:

                              "I came in with Halley’s comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t. The Almighty said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"


                              Twain was born two weeks after the comet appeared in 1835 and died on April 21, 1910, the day after the comet returned.

                              Not so amusingly, in 1955 the actor Alec Guinness warned James Dean, after the latter was showing off his new car and boasting how fast it could go, "Please do not get into that car, because if you do … by 10 o'clock at night next Thursday, you'll be dead." That next Thursday Dean died in an auto accident driving that car.

                              In 1888, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's first Chancellor, accurately predicted World War I, proclaiming: "One day the Great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans."

                              And in John Brunner’s 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, America in 2010 is run by a President Obomi in a world with satellite news and DVRs (although the book itself was about a world suffering from overpopulation).

                              All of which numerous Biblical scholars would dismiss as impossible.



                              The above are known as coincidences, not prophecies. Likewise the 1898 novel Futility [aka The Wreck of The Titan].
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06



                                More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.
                                All of that can be attributed to coincidence, as we see above: likewise the destruction of Ghengis Khan's two invasion fleets by well out of season typhoons (the original kamikaze) two years in succession, then too the bloke that Josephus mentioned running around for about four (66CE and on) years predicting the fall of Jerusalem. It would be kind of inconvenient to attribute Jesus' prediction to coincidence as well; that would mess with the claims that there is evidence for the gospels being written late in the piece.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 06-27-2022, 09:12 AM.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                177 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                427 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                304 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,513 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X