Originally posted by mikewhitney
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines
Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.
This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.
And as usual, the forum rules apply.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?
Collapse
X
-
"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
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYou can add whatever points you wish to. Permission is granted."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 Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIf my interlocutor is going to divert on to other topics, ignore questions, refuse to substantiate their remarks or dishonestly allege I have written things I have not, I am perforce left to conclude that I am dealing with either [a] a petit poseur or [b] what is generally known as a troll.
If you are speaking from an atheist or agnostic point of view, then you really don't have good standing to argue anything until you show that God doesn't exist. You have stated that miracles don't exist (i.e., within your signature) which really places you on shaky ground until you can prove that God cannot do actions which you might call miracles. I see signs of intelligence in your writing but this is combined with odd presuppositions. Hopefully you will get beyond those.
I think you know that science and faith cover different realms of study. You are treating it as if science has made decisions about deity. This is like saying a plumber's expertise makes him good at brain surgery.
I am ready for you to reestablish credibility in the discussion.Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-14-2020, 09:16 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI'm just seeing what you have to say. You have been evasive. You seem to have a theory (maybe from a book or several books) that you are presenting in little pieces instead of just presenting the full argument or source. So far you have only presented conspiracy theories, which makes it seem you have nothing of substance.
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostIf you are speaking from an atheist or agnostic point of view, then you really don't have good standing to argue anything until you show that God doesn't exist.
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYou have stated that miracles don't exist (i.e., within your signature)"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 Hypatia_Alexandria View PostOne cannot have an exchange of any substance if one’s interlocutor goes off on to irrelevant topics, deliberately misconstrues what one has written, refuses to substantiate their dogmatic assertions with supporting credible evidence, and ignores questions put to them.
That is a philosophical cul-de-sac.
I asked you to define what you understand by a miracle and was met with a deathly silence.
One thing you miss is that a scholar is only correct inasmuch as his assumptions are correct. If the scholar makes an assumption that prophecy cannot happen, his conclusions derived from that may consequently be wrong. The points you are making are not solidly established just because you have found scholars upon which you make your assertions.
The pride of scholars often results from putting too much trust that other scholars have figured out everything sufficiently. This is both among the Christian and non-Christian scholars.Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-15-2020, 01:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYou are very keen to make demands of others when you are singularly loath to provide evidence for your own comments.
Give me the attested historical evidence to support this statement "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down." I will then give you Prof. Ashton's reference.
No he did not.
You are thinking of the Australian academic John F Ashton, who appears to have fallen off his perch. Or perhaps the financial remuneration offered by AiG is substantially larger than the average university salary.
I am referring to Dr John Ashton [1931–2016] who was a former lecturer in New Testament Studies at the University of Oxford from 1984-1996 and Senior Tutor at Wolfson College from 1998-2000.
Furthermore, I would have thought that anyone would recognise that John F Ashton's writings are somewhat far removed from those examining a particular text in the New Testament.
I asked for a direct quote from the book in context including the page number. Why can't you answer this simple question?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christian3 View PostDo you have Dr. John Ashton's book? Have you read it?
Originally posted by Christian3 View PostI asked for a direct quote from the book in context including the page number. Why can't you answer this simple question?"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 mikewhitney View PostI am more of the narrator here than a diatribe partner. If this issue of God's existence is a cul-de-sac, the whole discussion is in that cul-de-sac. It is surprising that you go into this realm then.
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostOne thing you miss is that a scholar is only correct inasmuch as his assumptions are correct. If the scholar makes an assumption that prophecy cannot happen, his conclusions derived from that may consequently be wrong. The points you are making are not solidly established just because you have found scholars upon which you make your assertions. .
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThe pride of scholars often results from putting too much trust that other scholars have figured out everything sufficiently. This is both among the Christian and non-Christian scholars.
What has been made clear to me by the exchanges in this thread with yourself and Christian3 is that you both seem to hold that Christianity, as you now practise it, has always existed and that a Triune deity in the form you now believe it has always been part of your religion and that there is “scriptural” evidence” for this belief dating back to the first century.
Such a view of the origins and history of Christianity is staggeringly ignorant of the facts. The ECFs were men who lived in the Graeco-Roman world and many were trained in Hellenistic ideas. The word “Logos” and "homoousion" are derived from Greek philosophy. The latter being employed by the Neoplatonist Plotinus to describe the relationship between the soul and the divine. It was this term that was adopted at Nicaea to define the concept of a Triune deity. Such concepts had to be drawn from Hellenistic “paganism” because nothing could be found in Scripture that supported such notions.
Nor do you seem to have any knowledge of the situation within the Christian church once it had been given toleration by Constantine in the early fourth century, along with the lavish endowments and financial exemptions that he later made to it. Many of its leading prelates grew very powerful and very rich very quickly. Continuing struggles for Imperial favour and internecine factionalism is what led to Constantine convening Nicaea. There was no orthodoxy in the religion, different groups of Christians believed different things. Hence Constantine wanted to establish an orthodox Christianity that would give some cohesion to the religion and with it ensure political stability within his empire.
Again, if you know nothing of the political situation in that period it will be additionally difficult for you to understand the reasoning behind Constantine’s actions.
The two opposing views at Nicaea in 325 CE were between the ascendant subordinationist beliefs of Arius and his allies who had could produce plenty of scriptural evidence in support of their position; and those of the proto-orthodox group led by his opponent Alexander and those who thought as he did. Furthermore the entire debate was conducted in Greek, which as anyone knows, is a highly inflected language noted for its subtle nuances and shades of meaning.
Furthermore, the decision at Nicaea with the homoousion Trinity being decided over the homoiousion construct actually solved very little within Christianity The debate and disagreement continued to the point where by the last quarter of the fourth century the religion was effectively split, with its imperial advocates, the two Augusti, supporting different beliefs. Valentinian II who reigned in the West from 375 CE until 392 CE was a Homoean and Theodosius I who reigned from 379 CE until 392 CE as Augustus of the East and as sole emperor until 395 CE was a supporter of the Nicene Creed.
The Council of Constantinople of 381 CE, as it is known, established Theodosius’ epistula enforcing the Nicene faith. Those bishops who supported the Nicene orthodoxy would go on to enjoy even further earthly power and treasure when they took over the churches of those who were thus decreed to be heretics. While clerics such as Ambrose held that Theodosius had acknowledged the supremacy of the Church over temporal power the situation was, in fact, the reverse. Theodosius had provided the legal framework within which Christianity had been given dominance over all non Christian religions and the Nicene Creed precedence within Christianity itself. Those who dissented from that orthodoxy would see their works destroyed and suffer either banishment or execution.
As to your own beliefs on miracles and prophecy, academia along with the rest of the rational world does not rely on such superstition and nor should it. We know from history the horrors of religious orthodoxy being enforced and the brutality meted out to those who challenged it."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 Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYes to both questions.
I asked you to provide attested historical evidence in support of your claim that "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down." Why can you not do so?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIt is a philosophical cul-de-sac. You can no more effectively prove the existence of your deity than I can prove its non-existence.
...That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post"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 Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThank you but I did not introduce the issue of a belief in God. I trust you have notified the other contributor [i.e. mikewhitney] not to raise the topic in future on this board.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThank you but I did not introduce the issue of a belief in God. I trust you have notified the other contributor [i.e. mikewhitney] not to raise the topic in future on this board.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostHypatia, if you are not a theist you should not be posting in this area to begin with. Also believing in God is a given in this area, and the problem is arguing AGAINST that belief in this area."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
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment