# The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

Continued from here.

Happy huntin'.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok, let's get a few things straight here...

1) At no point did I ever refer to the Bible in itself was bovine feces. If you look at what I actually said in context, I was _specifically_ addressing traditional Christian apologism and fundamentalist doctrine. The Bible, in my mind, is a multi-layered work that can be subject to a myriad of diverse interpretations. This is especially true in the Jewish tradition of _midrash_, the Christian tradition of _docetism_, or the Muslim tradition of _tawil_.

2) Contrary to popular belief, the Bible most commonly used by Christians was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Christian 'Old Testament' is a an intertestamental work known as the _Septugaint_, a Greek rendering of the Torah which has many overt transliteration changes intended to make Judaism more agreeable to the Hellenistic philosophy popular at the time. To give but one example: the Septugaint references a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth, the Torah does not. As for the 'New Testament' itself, every one of its books are originally in Greek.

3) There are a few minority Christian groups speckled throughout the Middle East that are living exceptions to Point 2, such as the _Peshitta_ --- but the overwhelming bulk of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians use Greek works as their source material for Biblical translations.

4) I would not agree with any definition of 'Christian' as 'one who professes belief in Jesus Christ', popular as it may be. Not all groups that are historically or currently recognized as 'Christian' believe that Jesus Christ even existed as a historical person. Even among those that do, not all subscribe to the belief that he was some sort of divine Redeemer (much in the tradition of the Hellenistic Mystery Schools). In fact, my guess is that most 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE would be excluded by popular definitions of 'Christianity' (which was far more diverse and variegated in the first few centuries of its history than it is now).

5) I don't think I should have to reiterate that the belief that God has personal opinions about life and that only a select group of special people knows what they are is both exceedingly dangerous, unabashedly irrational, and morally arrogant to the extreme. It also further reflects my previous thesis: that, for most people, any personal 'god' is simply a deified projection of their own superego (which itself is informed by authoritative sources of the culture and community one is raised up in).

6) One should be cautious when proclaiming what 'Paul' did or did not write. Of the 13 letters of the New Testament attributed to him, roughly 7 are believed to be mostly 'authentic' --- and, even among those 7, it is pretty much well-acknowledged that they were edited and manipulated by early Church authorities like Tertullian. Supposedly, the letter to the Galatians is supposed to be the least doctored of all the Pauline works. The Pastorals, by contrast, are almost univerally accepted as forgeries of later centuries.

7) While the Marcionite schools of Gnosticism is regarded as 'heresy' today, during the first two centuries CE, it was without doubt the most popular and widespread of any single sect of Christianity. The 7 'authentic' Pauline letters were written to churches that are all known to be centers of Marcionism by the middle of the 2nd century CE. This is very telling.

8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is _hades_ in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.

9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.

That about sums it up. Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 3, 2005)

i have a question
when you say religion bans something.. what does that mean to you?
like, why would religion ban something?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i have a question
> when you say religion bans something.. what does that mean to you?
> like, why would religion ban something?



You'd have to clarify your context here...

Are you referring to doctrinal heresy?? Or, are you referring to what any given faith defines as 'evils' or 'sins'??

In either case, most religions I have experience with typically resort to an Appeal To Authority ("cuz God said so") or an Appeal To Tradition ("cuz that's how we've always done it") to defend their positions on the matter.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 3, 2005)

yah.. i dont know what i want to know anymore
the questions about religion could be tough to ask and to answer...
i just have different understanding of religion forbidding something..
for example they were talking about gay marriage.. so the listed a bunch of reasons and religion was one of them... my understanding is relgions bans it because of all of the rest of the reasons.. u know what i mean?
you can disregard my question though.. im not sure im expression myself right


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> yah.. i dont know what i want to know anymore
> the questions about religion could be tough to ask and to answer...
> i just have different understanding of religion forbidding something..
> for example they were talking about gay marriage.. so the listed a bunch of reasons and religion was one of them... my understanding is relgions bans it because of all of the rest of the reasons.. u know what i mean?
> you can disregard my question though.. im not sure im expression myself right



I'm still not entirely sure I comprehend your meaning here.

Traditional theological apologetics are typically highly circular and self-confirming in nature, if that's what you were going for. The perfect example are traditional arguments concerning the 'infallibility' of Bible --- whereby we 'know' the Bible is the infallible Word of God simply because it says so. That is what is known as circular reasoning.

As for the origins of why any given religion bans or forbids a given way of thinking or behaving, it most likely has a lot to do with historical, economic, and cultural context. Much of the 'patriarchal' principles of many traditional religions, for example, are largely a product of agrarian and equestrian societies in which it was physically impossible for women to engage in long-term 'bread-winning' due to a lack of upper body strength and the risk of maternal miscarriage. As such, it would have been communally beneficial for women to 'submit' to men as the principle providers to the household.

This is due to limitations in technology correlating with constraints in culture. In no way is it 'divinely ordained'. My guess is much of the rules and prescripts of traditional religion are of this order.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 3, 2005)

i come from a different background 
and do not know much about the bible and such..
but my understanding is what is referred to by the 'bible' today isnt really the bible that was revealed to Jesus, or the 'Bible' he brought to the world. i understand the current one is something like 'commentary' that Jesus' companions wrote about him, or things they reported about him. again im not too sure.. but if this is the case what you have today as the 'Bible' is infallible actually, because it is just like any other book written by humans.
Forgive me if i disagree with you when you say religions forbid certain things based on cultural, historical, or economic input. the reason for my disagreement is usually religions come to revolutionize the way people live, and to change and correct societies. this is why you always hear prophets are beging chased by a large group of people.. especially those of power and wealth.
also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!
again, im not sure of anything im saying.. but talking to you is pretty informative so far
thanks


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 3, 2005)

all i have to say about the bible and god is.......prove it

the only thing people have to live with everyday is their own guilt over things which they could have done but did not do.

in the end they have forgiveness of all sins commited. this brings people peace, to know that the most heinous crimes commited dont mean squat as long as you take jesus into your heart.

whatever makes you sleep better at night.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 3, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> but my understanding is what is referred to by the 'bible' today isnt really the bible that was revealed to Jesus, or the 'Bible' he brought to the world. i understand the current one is something like 'commentary' that Jesus' companions wrote about him, or things they reported about him. again im not too sure..



What needs to be understood is that the role 'Jesus Christ' plays in the early Christian sects of the first few centuries CE, as well as the particular teachings he expounds, vary considerably from group to group. There is absolutely no sense of uniformity whatsoever among early Christianity --- which, of course, is no problem given the Christian tradition of _docetism_ (the understanding that the Gospel narrative records 'spiritual' or 'mystical' events, and not actual biographical or historical accounts), but is a real pain in the keister to Biblical literalism.

The truth of the matter is that there were quite literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian 'Gospels' in the first few centuries CE. The four Gospels we have inherited in the Christian Bible were chosen by the Council of Nicea (circa 330 CE) for political reasons (at the behest of the recently-converted Emperor Constantine), not because they were the most popular or the most well-documented. It is well-recognized at this point, for example, that the famed Gospel of Thomas (a list of sayings and parables similar to the hypothetical Q Gospel) is as old (if not older) as the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), and that it quite possibly served as a partial source material for them (along with Q).

In general, the 'Jesus Christ' of most early Christian groups is represented as a symbol, personification, or embodiment of the Logos (Word) and Sophia (Wisdom). Many early Christians --- like Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Dionysius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and even Galatians' Paul --- are virtually _unconcerned_ with the biographical or historical details of Jesus' life, or those of his supposed disciples. They seem to view him mostly as a mystical reality, a manifestation or 'vehicle' of the Logos.

Most of these early Christians, even Paul, also chastise their brethren for interpreting the Gospels literally. Minucius Felix is even more to-the-point, when he defends his fellow Christians of "worshipping a criminal that died on a piece of wood" --- making it clear in no uncertain terms that they do not wished to be accused of such "atrocities".



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> but if this is the case what you have today as the 'Bible' is infallible actually, because it is just like any other book written by humans.



I think what you mean to say here is that the Bible is actually fallible, like all other works of human literature.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> Forgive me if i disagree with you when you say religions forbid certain things based on cultural, historical, or economic input.



So, you think its just coincidental that, say, Judaism forbids the eating of pork at a time in Hebrew history when it would have been economically beneficial to the community to invest more effort into the fish industry??

Or, say, we see roughly 90% of the principal deities in agrarian and equestrian pantheons being male --- but, coincidentally, only about 30% of the principal deities of horticultural pantheons are male (with another 30% being female and another 30% being a combination of both)??

Or, say, we see an emphasis on self-determinism, free will, and 'natural theology' when an economic middle class begins to emerge in Western Europe??

Sorry, I'm not buyin' it.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> the reason for my disagreement is usually religions come to revolutionize the way people live, and to change and correct societies. this is why you always hear prophets are beging chased by a large group of people.. especially those of power and wealth.



Care to cite some historical examples??

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many religious leaders are exactly the type of charismatic visionaries you're making them out to be. But, when it comes to sheer _mythology_, we can't ignore this is simply a product of the time and place it comes from.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!



No, I didn't ignore anything.

I simply have a fuller knowledge of historical anthropology and know full well that women have not always been relegated to second-class citizens in human society. There are _direct correlations_ with gender roles in any given culture as pertaining to a society's level of technology and their principal means of subsistance.

We see feminism flourishing in industrial and informational societies in large part because the technology no longer relies on upper body strength and no longer poses a risk of miscarriage to pregnancies.

I also know that the ideology that women don't like to pursue careers because they're biologically 'meant' to stay at home is complete load of bovine feces.

Laterz.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 3, 2005)

Originally Posted by *mantis*
_also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!_

Heretic888 replied:
No, I didn't ignore anything.

I simply have a fuller knowledge of historical anthropology and know full well that women have not always been relegated to second-class citizens in human society. There are _direct correlations_ with gender roles in any given culture as pertaining to a society's level of technology and their principal means of subsistance.

We see feminism flourishing in industrial and informational societies in large part because the technology no longer relies on upper body strength and no longer poses a risk of miscarriage to pregnancies.

I also know that the ideology that women don't like to pursue careers because they're biologically 'meant' to stay at home is complete load of bovine feces."

Herry, As always, I'm in awe of your grasp of --- stuff.:asian: 

Mantis, I'm trying to understand your statement "because there is something in them ... that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!":erg:   While being pregnant and giving birth have an emotional context to them, I must admit to being mystified as to what it is that made me *emotionally want* to become a mother.  Please expand upon your thoughts.  KT


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, let's get a few things straight here...




Bravo.  Excellent post.  Even though you hammered me on a point or two.  

I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says I've given you too many.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## kenposis (Oct 4, 2005)

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.

~Jessica


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is _hades_ in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.
> 
> 9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.




I agree with your observations on Hell...and if anyone is interested in this, you might consult "The Formation of Hell" by Alan Bernstein.  In the thread on Gay marriage, however, the Hell I was referring to drew upon common perceptions of Hell as a place of unending torment.  When we speak of Gays and their supposed after-death punishment for their sodomy, this is the most common view espoused by Christians who condemn them.  I acknowledge views less horrific...that Hell is merely an absence of the glory of God; that Hell is (for some) a cleansing of sins prior to a return to God; that Hell is a "second death" where the soul undergoes annihilation.  I'd suggest that these are not well known or widely held views among those that condemn homosexuals, however.

As for Christianity not equaling the Bible, you caught me in a fallacy in my stating that I could not dance around the conflicting messages of damnation and divine love.  However; I was directing that (again) at those who freely buy into the Boschian Hell of agony and who yet espouse a compassionate God.  I still can not dance around that issue, but I can accept that there are those who don't dance the dance in the first place and yet call themselves Christians.  With them I have no argument.

Thanks for opening this very inflammatory thread.  I look forward to your posts.  I have to say, Heretic, when it comes to theology I always learn something from you...I just wish you'd post more references so I can build up my Christmas wish-list for books.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
> Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.
> 
> ~Jessica




Normally I don't like to post twice in a row, but in dealing with two separate people that is sometimes useful.

Jessica, what have you read that counters the views espoused in the link you provided?  When you weighed the arguments, what arguments from the other side did you consider?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 4, 2005)

Dante taught me all I need to know about Hell.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Herry, As always, I'm in awe of your grasp of --- stuff.:asian:





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Bravo. Excellent post. Even though you hammered me on a point or two.



Thanks, guys.  :asian: 

And, Steve, to be completely fair... you had it comin'.   

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.



The phrase 'been there, done that' suddenly comes to mind. 

C'man, now, you're re-hashing those old arguments?? Descartes?? Aquinas?? Pascal?? Puh-leeze. 

Sorry, but you may want to do a bit more reading on the subject of philosophy. _Every one_ of those arguments is completely fallacious and, more often than not, circular and self-confirming. For the most part, they're all based on _a priori_ metaphysical assumptions derived from pre-existing religious tradition.

To give but one example, let's look at Thomas Aquinas' 'Unmoved Mover' argument --- that, essentially, because all movement has a causation there must be a singular origin for all 'motion' in the universe. That origin, verily, is 'God'.

Any casual examination of this argument totally breaks it down:

1) There is _no good reason_ to believe that the 'motion' of the universe does, in fact, _not_ follow an unending chain of causality, which Aquinas believed to be 'impossible'.

2) There is _no good reason_ to believe that only ONE 'Unmoved Mover' is possible.

3) There is _no good reason_ to believe this 'Unmoved Mover' is the 'God' figure of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

All the other arguments cited in the link are pretty much as easily eroded as the above.



			
				kenposis said:
			
		

> Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.



In other words, an Appeal To Authority. More circular logic. Wee!

Laterz.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Dante taught me all I need to know about Hell.


Aw - you beat me to it.

Then again, that's assuming that there's a belief in Hell and more than one interpretation of it.  

I agree with BlackCatBonz' statement about (I'm paraphrasing here) Hell being within the individual - i.e., you have to live with yourself and your choices and their consequences.  It's interesting that we provide ourselves with opportunities for asking for forgiveness from a Divine Being (this day being the beginning of that time for me and those believing as I do, ending next Wednesday)  but are we really asking that entity for forgiveness or _ourselves_ for forgiveness?  Will our bad mistakes and poor judgment magically disappear?  I'm curious as to how you all see it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
> Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.
> 
> ~Jessica


 I had a skim through the first page, and it's arguments for God's existance.

 Those are all very common arguments that any first year philosophy student has heard, and all are full of more holes then swiss cheese...

 The biblical argument fails completely as it has no logical premiss, it says "We know it in our hearts".

 The Ontological one was actually shot down by a Chrisitan monk who "proved" the existance of a perfect island with it.  Basically it says "I define God as something that exists, therefore he exists"

 The cosmological argument fails because just because everything has an effect, and effects go back a long way, we got no idea what the initial one was.  To assume it was supernatural just because we don't know is a big falacy.  Like saying, I found this penny, I'm not sure how it got there, but someone must have put it there, so it must have been Elvis back from the grave.

 The moral argument is just evolution, if we didn't have a moral code we wouldn't have survived, so natural selection kicks in and beings develop a moral code in order to adapt to living in groups.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I agree with your observations on Hell...and if anyone is interested in this, you might consult "The Formation of Hell" by Alan Bernstein.



Oh, some light reading over the winter break. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In the thread on Gay marriage, however, the Hell I was referring to drew upon common perceptions of Hell as a place of unending torment.  When we speak of Gays and their supposed after-death punishment for their sodomy, this is the most common view espoused by Christians who condemn them.



Yup, I'd have to agree with you there.

I'd also have to say that that particular vision of 'hell' is by and large a product of medieval theology. Obviously, we see some of the more fanatical literalists of the early Church pronounce how those that disagree with them will burn and they will laugh at their misery from the loftiness of Providence --- but those were typically minority opinions among a greater backdrop of what most Christian intellectuals considered to be an alternate school of Platonism.

Nah, we don't see the whole 'fire and brimstone' thing really taking off until sometime during the aptly-named Dark Ages. It is that legacy modern Christianity has inherited. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I acknowledge views less horrific...that Hell is merely an absence of the glory of God; that Hell is (for some) a cleansing of sins prior to a return to God; that Hell is a "second death" where the soul undergoes annihilation.  I'd suggest that these are not well known or widely held views among those that condemn homosexuals, however.



Yup, again.

Personally, I'm gonna have to go with the Roman Catholic Church on this one --- 'hell' is defined as separation from 'God', it is a state of being, it is not a literal 'place'. In other words, you don't go to 'hell' when you die. You could very well be in 'hell' right now.

Come to think of it, that's, um, pretty much the Platonic context for _hades_, too --- that the physical body (experienced as an insolated, individual, exclusive identity as such) is a 'tomb for the soul'. Huh, imagine that. A continuity. Who'dah thunk it??

P.S.: The state of 'cleansing one of sins before returning to God' sounds more like Purgatory, in my opinion. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for Christianity not equaling the Bible, you caught me in a fallacy in my stating that I could not dance around the conflicting messages of damnation and divine love.



Looks like, but I was really addressing some critiques others made of my previous statements.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> However; I was directing that (again) at those who freely buy into the Boschian Hell of agony and who yet espouse a compassionate God.  I still can not dance around that issue, but I can accept that there are those who don't dance the dance in the first place and yet call themselves Christians.  With them I have no argument.



Okies.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Thanks for opening this very inflammatory thread.  I look forward to your posts.



Ah aim's tah pleeze.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have to say, Heretic, when it comes to theology I always learn something from you...I just wish you'd post more references so I can build up my Christmas wish-list for books.



Hrmmm.... well, I cited a LOT of works in my previous 'Historical Jesus' threads. Oftentimes, with direct quotations from said works. You could try perusing through those if you're looking for academic specifics.

In general, though, I post when I'm at college and don't lug around my entire library with me. Because of this, I'm pretty much jotting down what I can recall off-hand. 

As a good general source, though, I'd recommend Tim Freke and Pete Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? and Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, as well as Neil Douglas-Klotz's The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus. A good online source is Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

wow..
thanks for answering each one of my points.. you too sound very reasonable..
and yes i meant the bible is indeed fallible. 
i still do think that it's economy-independent when it comes to forbidding things. i think the supreme existence in a religion forbids thing for one of two reasons:
1. to correct society, example Buddha forbidding lying, or encouraging mercy.
2. to test people and see who abides to the rules and who does not, and that's in religions that believe in the after-life, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I do not really have solid examples of when religions came to correct society. but why would there be prophets if they didnt to correct or change something?
good seeing all those posts, especially Heretic's ones..


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In other words, an Appeal To Authority. More circular logic. Wee!


People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.

MrH


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.
> 
> MrH



Rude? Crass? Hrmm... I prefer honest.   

Yes, everyone is free to discuss their beliefs on the topic. But, as is the nature of public discourse, be expected to have said beliefs looked at, examined, and questioned. It shouldn't come as a surprise when it happens. 

I fully expect such, and your post is, in fact, a confirmation of my expectation coming to fruit. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> thanks for answering each one of my points.. you too sound very reasonable..



Appearances can be deceiving. 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> and yes i meant the bible is indeed fallible.



Truthery! 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> i still do think that it's economy-independent when it comes to forbidding things.



Okies.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> i think the supreme existence in a religion forbids thing for one of two reasons:
> 1. to correct society, example Buddha forbidding lying, or encouraging mercy.
> 2. to test people and see who abides to the rules and who does not, and that's in religions that believe in the after-life, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.



Yes, I would agree that many religious principles exist to genuinely better mankind and lead to a greater moral wisdom. But, at the same time, just as many religious edicts are nothing more than a product of their time and place in history --- this is why the Bible condones slavery, but we moderns find it reprehensible.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> I do not really have solid examples of when religions came to correct society. but why would there be prophets if they didnt to correct or change something?



Some 'prophets' may be the real deal. But, just as many (if not more) are nothing short of power-hungry conmen trying to expound control and dominion over others. In fact, historically, I'd say the latter was more typical than the former.

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 4, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> People have their beliefs. No need to be rude or crass. Are we not here to discuss our beliefs on the topic? Its refreshing to hear someone actually state where they are coming from.
> 
> MrH


Yes, but we're also here to critique those opinions as well.  Just because an opinion is about a sensitive topic such a religion or gender roles doesn't make it immune to outside assessment.  

Unless, of course, we're to regard the spiritual beliefs of the Waco Texas Christian cult as equally valid and inspiring as the writings of Mahatma Ghandi, in which case I see no point to discussion in the first place.  And no, neither of those beliefs are part of this thread topic, just an example.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, some light reading over the winter break.



Oohhhh no.  Quite heavy reading...and not the most approachable prose.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> P.S.: The state of 'cleansing one of sins before returning to God' sounds more like Purgatory, in my opinion.



I can't recall if I read it in Bernstein or elsewhere.  There is a conception of Hell that isn't purgatory, but Hell itself.  I know of a Buddhist Hell that does this, so perhaps I'm thinking of that one.  It burns the soul clean of sins prior to reincarnation, I believe.  Of course, Buddhist Hell doesn't really count here.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmm.... well, I cited a LOT of works in my previous 'Historical Jesus' threads. Oftentimes, with direct quotations from said works. You could try perusing through those if you're looking for academic specifics.



Perhaps you have...I just don't recall it from the threads that I've been in on. You once gave me some stuff when I asked, which I've appreciated.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) There is _no good reason_ to believe that the 'motion' of the universe does, in fact, _not_ follow an unending chain of causality, which Aquinas believed to be 'impossible'.
> 
> 2) There is _no good reason_ to believe that only ONE 'Unmoved Mover' is possible.
> 
> ...


 there could be a good reason..
 the reason could be that God told you so!
 and here kicks in the job of prophets with miracles and proofs, as well as books such as the bible, the testament and the Quran. 
 these books should have the necessary evidence to convince the good, the bad, and the ugly. 
 their job is to have answers for philosophers, illeterate people, poor people, scientists, and every other class of mentalities. 
 i know you are thinking the bible only contains stories people told about Jesus, and it doesnt contain 'solid' answers.
 now, i want to remind you that you should not judge all religions just because you do not find such info in the bible, right?


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 4, 2005)

Seems I'm a bit late, some people DO have to work you know! 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, let's get a few things straight here...
> 
> 1) At no point did I ever refer to the Bible in itself was bovine feces. If you look at what I actually said in context, I was _specifically_ addressing traditional Christian apologism and fundamentalist doctrine. The Bible, in my mind, is a multi-layered work that can be subject to a myriad of diverse interpretations. This is especially true in the Jewish tradition of _midrash_, the Christian tradition of _docetism_, or the Muslim tradition of _tawil_.


 I wasn't trying to misquote you, in fact I wasn't actually refering to you specifically, just using your words in my point. A bit of plagerism if you will. Your correct, it is subject to many interpretations...does that fact alone make all interpretations correct, or only one correct? 
 I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical. I'm actually kind of confused why you would refer to it as Christian tradition. Christological tendencies don't make it a Christian tradition. In fact, I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) Contrary to popular belief, the Bible most commonly used by Christians was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Christian 'Old Testament' is a an intertestamental work known as the _Septugaint_, a Greek rendering of the Torah which has many overt transliteration changes intended to make Judaism more agreeable to the Hellenistic philosophy popular at the time. To give but one example: the Septugaint references a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth, the Torah does not. As for the 'New Testament' itself, every one of its books are originally in Greek.


 Thats actually not true. Well partly. The bible was never written in aramaic, not canonised portions at least. There is really no proof to support the belief that the bible (OT) was originally written completely in hebrew or any other language. Most of the earliest descovered portions are however. Until I see an argument not lacking evidentiary proof, I dont think there is any point in arguing that further. It really changes nothing about this discussion.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) There are a few minority Christian groups speckled throughout the Middle East that are living exceptions to Point 2, such as the _Peshitta_ --- but the overwhelming bulk of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians use Greek works as their source material for Biblical translations.


 Thats a half statement. Greek works as their source material for New Testament biblical translation, I would agree.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4) I would not agree with any definition of 'Christian' as 'one who professes belief in Jesus Christ', popular as it may be. Not all groups that are historically or currently recognized as 'Christian' believe that Jesus Christ even existed as a historical person. Even among those that do, not all subscribe to the belief that he was some sort of divine Redeemer (much in the tradition of the Hellenistic Mystery Schools). In fact, my guess is that most 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE would be excluded by popular definitions of 'Christianity' (which was far more diverse and variegated in the first few centuries of its history than it is now).


 Thats the problem, we need a deffinition. There are way too many floating around. Personally according to the bible, a christian would be "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ". I dont see the problem with using that deffinition. I dont know where your getting your historical and current data, but saying a group of people have christological tendencies or beliefs is not the same as calling them christians. Since the bible is what is being debated here, shouldn't we seek to find its definition of Christian? We can't make posts, one using a historical definition from the first few centuries, and one using a deffinition of current times. I think you need to look at the root of the word Christian, and its inception and creation (no pun intended). Its original usage had much more of a precise deffinition then it does now, in my opinion.
   OK, all that to say, lets settle on a def.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 5) I don't think I should have to reiterate that the belief that God has personal opinions about life and that only a select group of special people knows what they are is both exceedingly dangerous, unabashedly irrational, and morally arrogant to the extreme. It also further reflects my previous thesis: that, for most people, any personal 'god' is simply a deified projection of their own superego (which itself is informed by authoritative sources of the culture and community one is raised up in).


 Very good point! Only your now defining christians as a whole as people who believe that "God" has personal opinions about life *and* that only they know them. I wouldn't call that belief Christian in the biblical deffinition of the word. In fact, any person who claims to know God's opinions would be called out as a false prophet in any group I grew up in.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 6) One should be cautious when proclaiming what 'Paul' did or did not write. Of the 13 letters of the New Testament attributed to him, roughly 7 are believed to be mostly 'authentic' --- and, even among those 7, it is pretty much well-acknowledged that they were edited and manipulated by early Church authorities like Tertullian. Supposedly, the letter to the Galatians is supposed to be the least doctored of all the Pauline works. The Pastorals, by contrast, are almost univerally accepted as forgeries of later centuries.


 I agree with you there. I do think however that most "christians" hold faith in that God has control over current (past) events, including the manipulations of the gospel. Its pretty widely accepted that God did not physically write the scriptures himself, correct? In the eyes of most "christians" it wouldn't matter who manipulated or rewrote, or changed the text, its still under Gods protection and control. I'm just telling you that is what your going to come up against with that argument.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 7) While the Marcionite schools of Gnosticism is regarded as 'heresy' today, during the first two centuries CE, it was without doubt the most popular and widespread of any single sect of Christianity. The 7 'authentic' Pauline letters were written to churches that are all known to be centers of Marcionism by the middle of the 2nd century CE. This is very telling.


 Man, I'm getting typing cramp 
 Your now subscribin to your own faulty logic arguments. Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is _hades_ in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.


 Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself? You cant use words like Most Likely as we may disagree on what is likely or not.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.


 Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ? Personally I havent seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly? Again, we are taking a literal hard label of Christians instead of realizing that Christians as a whole disagree with each other probably more than with those not claiming Christianity.



     7sm


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

take it easy Mr. 7StarMantis.. 
if you get carpal tunnel from typing you can mantis-hook no more 
in fact, different things that happened to my hands due to using mouse/keyboard made doctors recommend i join some pilates or yoga class for stretching, and my choice was kung fu instead!


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 4, 2005)

kenposis said:
			
		

> In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
> Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.
> 
> ~Jessica


in the words of eric cartman, "that is so weak"

so because something is agreeable it is the truth.
its up to the non believers to disprove his existence.

lots of people believed in zeus at one time.......did he lose his official god status when everyone started believing in the one "true" god?
what about all of the other gods?


just because a bunch of people believe in something.....doesnt make it so.
that point has been hammered to death.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 4, 2005)

HHJH i highly recommend "the jesus mysteries".....excellent book.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical.



Heresies are Christian traditions as well, when you stop to consider it.  Arianism was a Christian movement, and quite popular.  It was dominant in the west until Athanasius gained political leverage against it.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your now subscribin to your own faulty logic arguments. Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.



Marcionism (as the defined heresy) didn't exist in the first century when Paul was alive.  Your suggestion that Paul's urgency is due to Marcionism is incorrect.  Marcion lived ca 115, well after Paul's death.  It would be rather difficult for Paul to be concerned with a movement whose founder had yet to be born, don't you think?

I think what he is suggesting...and he'll correct me if I'm wrong...is that those centers of Pauline thought became centers for the Marcionite movement...the ideas of the former giving rise to the latter.  

This might be supported by the fact that Marcion used the original ten Pauline letters to draft the Apostolicon (not Hebrews or the Pastorals).  Paul was clearly his favorite Apostle. 




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> You cant use words like Most Likely as we may disagree on what is likely or not.



He's perfectly justified in doing so if the weight of scholarship is on his side.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ?



When it comes to Augustine, he can indeed.  Augustine is considered (according to Wikipedia...I love Wiki...) the fountainhead of the Protestant Reformation and viewed as the pre-eminent Doctor of the Church by Roman Catholics.

Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo



Regards,



Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> there could be a good reason..
> the reason could be that God told you so!
> and here kicks in the job of prophets with miracles and proofs, as well as books such as the bible, the testament and the Quran.
> these books should have the necessary evidence to convince the good, the bad, and the ugly.
> ...



Ummm.... actually, I was referring to Thomas Aquinas' traditional proofs for God. I didn't say anything about the Bible.

But, for that matter, the Bible really doesn't 'prove' anything, either...

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ummm.... actually, I was referring to Thomas Aquinas' traditional proofs for God. I didn't say anything about the Bible.
> 
> But, for that matter, the Bible really doesn't 'prove' anything, either...
> 
> Laterz.


 yah, my bad.. didnt read that either..
 i know the bible doesnt provide satisfaction to the mind, and that's why i said dont judge all religions (maybe i wasnt directing my speech to you, i forgot) because the bible can't do it..
 i actually classified religion into 4 categories, i will not tell which religion belongs to which category so people do not get offended..
 1. way of life, which covers the matters of this life, and what happens after, and offers a whole system of life based on a set of beliefs. this should satisfy the mind, the heart, science and every aspect of human's intellect.
 2. religions that have been changed over time. those that were modified by people to suit their desires, either to get money, power, for political reasons, or whatever.. bottom line is they're changed!
 3. philosophies... u know what i mean!
 4. "false".. plain falsehoods. nothing makes sense, and everything contradicts!

 haha, stupid huh? but helped me judge a category, or a class but not the whole idea of religion, and religiousness...


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 4, 2005)

> Personally I havent seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly?


 
Well...


Mortal son of (a) God
Born of a Virgin
First miracle was turning water into wine
Was crucified
Rose from the dead


Yup -- Dionysus.

The only question is, can you place the date of origin of this story?  Did it come before christianity?  If so, would that be proof enough?


Heratic - I love reading this thread.  So many times I'm thinking of a response and the next post is you saying it better and more clearly than I could - Bravo!


A little note - I minored in history in college, and one of the classes I took was history of the ancient near east.  It was taught by an archeologist who was also a biblical scholar.  He was a fascinating man to listen to.  I remember one lecture when he was discussing a small town he had been excavating in modern day Jordan.  The town had been decimated and no one knew why.  My teacher realized that this town was depopulated right around the time pork became a "bad" thing to eat.  Turns out that pork was a dangerous meat to keep around - went bad easily, and this city was dependent upon it.  By studying the refuse of the village and other archeological evednce, he was able to determine that bad pork had caused several deaths and that the village just packed up and moved out because the religious (educated) leaders told them to. 

My teacher also went on to explain some of the social / economic realities of the time (he mentioned fish as well).


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

i have a stupid question
which probably shouldnt be asked here
but i'll ask anyway
what's hell in the christian belief?
and if everybody is going to be forgiven why does hell exist?
and if not everybody is going to be forgiven why did Jesus sacrifice himself for everybody to be forgiven?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> HHJH i highly recommend "the jesus mysteries".....excellent book.



I've heard of it.

They're expensive, but one can get the lectures by Bart D. Ehrman on "The Lost Christianities" and "The Historical Jesus" from The Teaching Company.  I'm listening to them now.  

One I read awhile back is "Gospel Fictions" by Randall Helms.  That too was pretty good.  Blasphemy, I suppose, but still interesting.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 4, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Heresies are Christian traditions as well, when you stop to consider it. Arianism was a Christian movement, and quite popular. It was dominant in the west until Athanasius gained political leverage against it.


 Once again, the evidence that the term "Christian" needs to be defined. Arianism also denied the devinity of Jesus Christ. Until we can agree on a deffinition this debate will continue to spin in tight circles.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I think what he is suggesting...and he'll correct me if I'm wrong...is that those centers of Pauline thought became centers for the Marcionite movement...the ideas of the former giving rise to the latter.
> 
> This might be supported by the fact that Marcion used the original ten Pauline letters to draft the Apostolicon (not Hebrews or the Pastorals). Paul was clearly his favorite Apostle.


 Oh no, I guess you won your debate  

 That fact matters little, in fact it only spreads the argument even thinner. The fact that Marcion used letters written by Paul proves what exactly? It proves as much as Jim Jones' use of koolaid links koolaid to the People's Temple. 

  I merely suggested an option that shows the faulty logic of said argument. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> He's perfectly justified in doing so if the weight of scholarship is on his side.


 Again an attempt to give authority to ones own beliefs or opinions. In the course of this discussion, using ones own opinions as truth is pretty trite.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When it comes to Augustine, he can indeed. Augustine is considered (according to Wikipedia...I love Wiki...) the fountainhead of the Protestant Reformation and viewed as the pre-eminent Doctor of the Church by Roman Catholics.
> 
> Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo


 OK, your saying proof is available and your posting of proof are two completely different things. One more time, the need for an agreed deffinition of "christian" proves itself needed.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Here's a little background for you...you might want to go over it before you go "mano a mano" with Heretic on this one:


 Whoa there big boy, just because I'm debating with your special friend doesn't mean you need to get all hostile. You obviously really respect heritics beliefs and opinions, dont let that cloud your judgement here. We are having a debate, not a fight.

  Oh, and I dont need things like Wikipedia to know background, especially on Roman Cotholic Saints. 

 Listen, if you can't address my points and debate honestly and factually, we can't have an honest discussion. You ignored valid points that could yield good debate to "nit pick" about me going "mano a mano" with someone you agree with. 

  Again, I express my desire for honest debate where each side could understand and adress each others opinions and posts.

  7sm


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 4, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> <snip> I remember one lecture when he was discussing a small town he had been excavating in modern day Jordan. The town had been decimated and no one knew why. My teacher realized that this town was depopulated right around the time pork became a "bad" thing to eat. Turns out that pork was a dangerous meat to keep around - went bad easily, and this city was dependent upon it. By studying the refuse of the village and other archeological evednce, he was able to determine that bad pork had caused several deaths and that the village just packed up and moved out because the religious (educated) leaders told them to. <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Once again, the evidence that the term "Christian" needs to be defined. Arianism also denied the devinity of Jesus Christ. Until we can agree on a deffinition this debate will continue to spin in tight circles.
> 
> Oh no, I guess you won your debate
> 
> ...


 a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Oh, and I dont need things like Wikipedia to know background, especially on Roman Cotholic Saints.
> 
> 7sm




Then you need to read your posts and start debating with some cogency.  You certainly didn't seem to know much about the influence of Augustine, now, did you?  Nor, apparently, did you know anything about the dating of the Marcion heresy to the second century.

You didn't miss my point with Marcion's use of Paul's letters...you dodged it...and are by all appearances covering for what seems to be a lack of familiarity with Ecclisiastical history.  Your response to this of course would be a call for a "deffinition" (sic) of the word Christian, without addressing what I said.

When I mentioned that Arianism was a Christian tradition (and it was indeed quite popular in the west), you threw in a red herring by stating that Arianism denied the divinity of Jesus.  Instead of addressing my point you steered away from it, and incorrectly.  Arianism didn't deny the divinity of Jesus, but rather the notion of his eternal unbegotten nature and co-equal status with God.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

You're very quick to point out what you deem "faulty logic," and yet don't ever seem to get around specifically to pointing out to us the fallacies you claim exist.  

Guessing from the penumbras and emanations of your posts (I borrowed that wonderful phrase...guess the source), I'm getting the sense you haven't quite the background in theology you've suggested.  Given your inability to stay focused on an issue and your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself, it's tempting to simply ignore your posts and carry on with someone who has read up on the topic a tad more.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 4, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?


  Thats exactly my point. Thank you.
 Yet in this debate it is accepted as reasonable to label things as "christian" or "christianity" and expect everyone to accept it as a standard.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Then you need to read your posts and start debating with some cogency. You certainly didn't seem to know much about the influence of Augustine, now, did you? Nor, apparently, did you know anything about the dating of the Marcion heresy to the second century.


 Um...am I missing something or are you? What did I not know about the influence of Augustine? I didn't claim to know anything about the dating of Marcion "heresy". In fact, I think I used words like "probably" and "could be". I assumed any rational person could see that as a suggestion. My point was not in what dates Marcion "heresy" existed, but that the connection of marcion "heresy" and "Christianity" proves very little...again however you ignore that point and go right to surface arguments.

 Again your clouding the discussion with semantic arguemnts and surface issues. The point is that the arguement about Maricion "Heresy" (as you put it) was thin at best. Your continual dragging of it and grasping at straws to keep it alive isn't giving it any more value. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You didn't miss my point with Marcion's use of Paul's letters...you dodged it...and are by all appearances covering for what seems to be a lack of familiarity with Ecclisiastical history. Your response to this of course would be a call for a "deffinition" (sic) of the word Christian, without addressing what I said.


 Haha, if you can't beat them, join them? Now your just simply repeating what I said about your post back to me. Original. 
 Your approval of my knowledge of history of any kind especially Ecclisiastical history is of no importance to me, or this discussion.

 Your response to my original posts would of course be to jump on semantics and surface issues, without adressing what I said....seems my view about tight circles is forthcoming. 




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When I mentioned that Arianism was a Christian tradition (and it was indeed quite popular in the west), you threw in a red herring by stating that Arianism denied the divinity of Jesus. Instead of addressing my point you steered away from it, and incorrectly. Arianism didn't deny the divinity of Jesus, but rather the notion of his eternal unbegotten nature and co-equal status with God.
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html
> 
> http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm


 Red Herring? You've got to be kidding? Use of terms doesn't make you any more correct. Do you understand what the word divinity means? Here, from your first link:


> According to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and not quite divine.


 :idunno: 
     Maybe the one needing background and research here isn't me? 
 I completely addressed your point, are you joking? You called Arianism a Christian "movement" which is incorrect. Your point falls apart when you falsly label your points. Again, the need for some basis of defining what we are refering to by "christian" is needed to have a honest debate here.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You're very quick to point out what you deem "faulty logic," and yet don't ever seem to get around specifically to pointing out to us the fallacies you claim exist.


 It seems that without proper ammunition against valid points, one must quickly move to personal attacks? I'm sorry, I didn't use the big words you like so much, that make you feel so good? How about Appeal to Authority
     That make you feel better?
 Listen, your getting pretty wound up about topical issues that overt all of the points of this thread, yours or mine. If valid points are to be left unanswered, this thread is boring. LEts discuss less about each others background and more about the topics nad points of this thread, eh?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Guessing from the penumbras and emanations of your posts (I borrowed that wonderful phrase...guess the source), I'm getting the sense you haven't quite the background in theology you've suggested. Given your inability to stay focused on an issue and your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself, it's tempting to simply ignore your posts and carry on with someone who has read up on the topic a tad more.


 Once again, attack the person who brings up points you can't argue logically. It seems you feel heritic and yourself are authorites here nad everyone else is pretty infintile in their understanding.....simply not the case. Again, your belief of my background means nothing to me, your oversion of my points however does prove some interesting things. Ignore my posts if you like, its obvious you can't agrue them. I've stayed very focused on many issues, one of which is the obvious repulsion to any hint of a set deffinition for the sake of this debate. Now your falling into "I know you are but what am I"? 





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself


 You just jumped on me for speaking of faults without defining them and yet you do the same thing? How can this be honest debate? 

 Ok look, you disagree with me, but so far have only shown your willingness to ignore logical debate in prefrence to personal attacks and topical issues. If you would like to address my points, we could still have some great discussion.

 Bottom line is you have diverted off topic. You are now arguing against my knowledge and not the topic at hand....somehow it allways seems to go that way when you are presented with points that have some "meat" to them.

  7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?


 The Mormons think they're Christian. Most mainstream Christians disagree.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?


Yes, please end all the hair-pulling, and tell us what a "True Christian" is. It's getting tiresome to read you arguing agaisnt all views on Christianity using this unstated ideal as your fulcrum. 

Reminds me of the "No true Scottsman..." fallacy. 



> Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself? You cant use words like Most Likely as we may disagree on what is likely or not.


The Hellinistic influence on Christianity's development is well supported in historical circles. It's also demonstrated within the Bible itself as the afterlife in the early books of the OT varies quite a bit. (When you die, you're just an uncomfortable spirit stuck under the earth, your relatives put out food etc to keep you from bugging them etc.) Not sure how this discredits the NT other than it points out that it wasn't clearly defined. Biblical scholars tend to agree that the vision of the afterlife has been a moving target over the years, and it has shifted considerably after being influenced by other cultures. 

Not to interrupt the argument you're having, but it is worth pointing out that these conclusions aren't just Heretic's opinions. There is a large body of work supporting, (and likely fueling) his claims.



> Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ? Personally I havent seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly? Again, we are taking a literal hard label of Christians instead of realizing that Christians as a whole disagree with each other probably more than with those not claiming Christianity.


It's largely accomplished through close reading of the texts, cross-comparison between contemporary, active myths and researching the historical contexts they arose in. When you have a concept speficially described one way in an early book, and then in a very different way in a later book, it's not just happening because God dictated a rewrite.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

here are some comparisons taken from various pages......i have neither the time nor patience to type in quoted text from books.
the entries from the sites will be in quotes with a link, if you so desire to read some of it yourself.

taken from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
_"Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun"_

_"He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles."_

_"Mithra was called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb."_

_"Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."_

_"The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ."_

_"In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts."_

osiris-dionysus-jesus: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm

_"Conception: God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). _
_A human woman, a virgin, was his mother. _

_Birth: He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals. One early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave. _
_His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens. _

_Ministry: At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine. _
_He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town. _
_His followers were born-again through baptism in water. _
_He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves. _
_He had 12 disciples. _
_He was accused of licentious behavior. _

_Execution, resurrection, etc: He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21. _
_He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1 _
_He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross. _
_After death, he descended into hell. _
_On the third day after his death, he returned to life. _
_The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers _
_He later ascended to heaven. _

_His titles: God made flesh. _
_Savior of the world. _
_Son of God. _

_Beliefs about the God-man: He is "God made man," and equal to the Father. _
_He will return in the last days. _
_He will judge the human race at that time. _
_Humans are separated from God by original sin. The god-man's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin. _


_All of the Pagan myths had been circulating for centuries before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). It is obvious that if any copying occurred, it was the followers of Jesus incorporating into his biography the myths and legends of Osiris-Dionysus, not vice-versa."_

for some early christians, this was looked upon as "diabolical mimicry".
satans attempts at discrediting jesus by making him look like a copycat saviour by planting stories through time that resembled or appeared outright as a copy of his "life"

im sure heretic has much more to add to this.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i have a stupid question
> which probably shouldnt be asked here
> but i'll ask anyway
> what's hell in the christian belief?


I think that, in this day and age, it'd be better to ask what's the common denominator between the myriad christian beliefs. There are many of them, they agree on most things yet disagree on a number of things, there's really no greater proof for any one over the others, and they each insist that theirs alone is absolutely right; all of this makes deciding a single correct one impossible.

If I had to venture a guess, the common factors are a belief in a singular higher power, a fallen state of humankind, and a sacrifice on the part of the creator to give mankind a chance at redemption. All other details such as whether Jesus was God's son, baptism's necessity, the trinity, etc., all make up the myriad clashing points. However, I'm sure numerous other posters will make much better calls on the common denominator than I could. 


> and if everybody is going to be forgiven why does hell exist?


The official stance is that hell is the spiritual condition of separation from God caused by not accepting forgiveness. Personally, I think hell's just a way to get the good churchgoers to pay their tithings every Sunday. 



> and if not everybody is going to be forgiven why did Jesus sacrifice himself for everybody to be forgiven?


Ask your local parisioner(sp). Actually, ask a few of them, from different denominations...the results may be cummulatively illuminating.


----------



## Ray (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The Mormons think they're Christian. Most mainstream Christians disagree.


I am a "Mormon" and I am a Christian.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

I don't really have time right now to do justice to all of 7starmantis's comments (nor Steve's subsequent defense of my positions), so that'll have to wait until I get out of class.

However, I did want to make a quick clarification before I head out:

Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysus (Bacchus) the Wine God are _not_ the same entity!! Don't confuse the two merely because their names are similar.

St. Dionysius is a canonized saint of the Roman Catholic Church, is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as a co-worker of Paul, and is credited for authoring a number of works influential to Christian mysticism such as The Letters and On The Divine Names. 

Incidentally, it is generally believed that the works attributed to Dionysius were actually the product of an anonymous 6th century neo-Platonist who used 'Dionysius the Areopagite' as a pseudonymn. Regardless of their origins, the works are held in high regard by the Church and were highly influential on all later Christian mysticism.

According to Adolf van Harnack, for Dionysius "the historical Chist is a symbol of the universal purifying and santifying activity of the Logos and little more". Dionysius urges his readers to have "a communion with Jesus who is transcendent Consciousness" (The Eccliastical Hierarchy).

Dionysius wrote there were two Christian gospels, the exoteric teaching many are familiar with and an esoteric teaching which is "symbolic and presupposes initiation" and "must never be divulged to the uninitiated" (On The Divine Names). He also speaks of the "divine enlightenment into which we have been initiated by the secret tradition of our inspired teachers". He also distinguished between an exoteric and esoteric interpretation of the Bible itself:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common mulititude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent" (The Letters).

Dionysius describes God as "the centre shared by all the radii" (On The Divine Names). He also writes, "If we want to truly understand God we have to go beyond all names and attributes. He is both God and not-God" (On Divine Names) and, "It is beyond every limitation and also beyond every denial" (The Mystical Theology). He also states that, "the pure, absolute, and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling darkness of the secret silence" and wants his readers to enter "the mysterious darkenss of unknowing" where they will "transcend consciousness by knowing nothing" (The Mystical Theology), ideas which had a clear influence on St. John of the Cross in later centuries.

It should also be noted that these general ideas were common among individuals like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Boethius, and even Augustine (to an extant) --- as well as later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Genoa, Jacob Boehme, and so on.

Dionyus, by contrast, was the Two-Faced God of Wine. 

Laterz.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

here's an interesting link.... http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/homemake/lewsdion.htm

and another..... http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

i encourage you to read these pages in their entirety. 
i find the 2nd one especially funny in the conclusion where the author states, "In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did."

it seems that even a literalist christian has his doubts by even making a statement such as this at the end of an article that damns the heretics for believing that christianity is based on pagan teachings. furthermore, the justification of his own belief by saying that it would be even more incredible had he not been real.
how does that make it more incredible?
incredible in the fact that people took inner mystery teachings as real history?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Dionyus, by contrast, was the Two-Faced God of Wine.




By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.

I think Arnisador and Ray's posts are telling in that it serves little purpose to try and define Christianity.  We could never come up with a consensus.  I would recognize Mormonism as a form of Christianity (and I suspect Arnisador would too), along with those earlier apocolyptic Jewish movements that recognized Jesus as the Messiah without necessarily recognizing him as divine. As I've said I consider the heresies of Marcionism and Arianism to be forms of Christianity...as well as other heresies.

Some years ago I had a debate with an Evangelical who stated that violence and anti-semitism were not traits of a "true" Christian.  He then went on later in the debate to use the works of some noted anti-semites.  I'll grant he didn't know of their anti-semitism.  Still, it illustrates that any time one attempts to define Christianity they skate on thin ice, and will quickly come to find someone, somewhere, who doesn't accept the definition.  


Regards,



Steve


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.


:rofl:


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, please end all the hair-pulling, and tell us what a "True Christian" is. It's getting tiresome to read you arguing agaisnt all views on Christianity using this unstated ideal as your fulcrum.
> 
> Reminds me of the "No true Scottsman..." fallacy.


 Once again the actual point was ignored for a much easier bend of the arguement. It would be much better for your argument to actually read my posts. I didn't say I or anyone else even has a deffinition of a "True Christian". Your implication is pretty obvious and incorrect. I'm not, nor have I ever, saying we need to definition "True Christian", as if implicating some intolerance or arrogance of beliefs. What I *am* saying (and its pretty obvious to most reasonable adults) is that you cannot argue or debate with differing premises. An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). The premis must be defined and accepted by both sides to hold merrit. In this debate the term "Christian" is being used very differently. As you can allready see we have a mormon on the thread who is a Christian, but there are millions of "christians" who would disagree with his/her being a Christian. How can we honestly debate with the wide margin the term is defined as? Unless of course this thread is less about true sound debate and just a place to inflate fallacious opinions.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> The Hellinistic influence on Christianity's development is well supported in historical circles. It's also demonstrated within the Bible itself as the afterlife in the early books of the OT varies quite a bit. (When you die, you're just an uncomfortable spirit stuck under the earth, your relatives put out food etc to keep you from bugging them etc.) Not sure how this discredits the NT other than it points out that it wasn't clearly defined. Biblical scholars tend to agree that the vision of the afterlife has been a moving target over the years, and it has shifted considerably after being influenced by other cultures.


 Would you mind outlining your belief of the afterlife's variance in OT books? Complete with scriptures refrencing this from more than one chapter of one book? Speaking of fallicies....





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Biblical scholars tend to agree


What scholars? How many scholars? Scholars from what religion, with what education? Again, your premis is incorrect....to say this particular scholar agrees is one thing, but to say scholars agree is not only ambiguous but quite unprovable. Again, we are using different premises to debate. Your saying its a moving target that has shifted considerably by influence from cultures. My deffinition of Christianity for this thread comes from the bible. I may be mistaken but I thought the name of this thread was The *Bible*, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight. So, taking the biblical deffinition of Christianity, the subject of hell is quite steadfast....at least within the confines of the bible. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Not to interrupt the argument you're having, but it is worth pointing out that these conclusions aren't just Heretic's opinions. There is a large body of work supporting, (and likely fueling) his claims.


 :idunno: I'm confused, what does this have to do with this debate? Wether his views are his own or shared by millions doesn't negate the points I've made that still go unanswered. It would be much more fruitfull to have my points actually proven wrong rather than my background or my alleged fallacies attacked.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It's largely accomplished through close reading of the texts, cross-comparison between contemporary, active myths and researching the historical contexts they arose in. When you have a concept speficially described one way in an early book, and then in a very different way in a later book, it's not just happening because God dictated a rewrite.


 Again, staying within the confines of this thread (the bible) your point is invalid. The bible defines itself as the authority and only true words of God....to refrence or compare with other texts, writings, or myths is simply out of the context of our debate. Again, a set definition for the sake of this one debate is needed. For Example: The mormons, the catholic issue, Jehova's Witness, 7th Day Adventist, etc. Are these all grouped under the term "Christian"? There are many "Christians" who would not agree. So imagine if you will that you define Christian as only baptists, I define it as anyone who believes in a higher power....how could we honestly hold a discussion?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I don't really have time right now to do justice to all of 7starmantis's comments (nor Steve's subsequent defense of my positions), so that'll have to wait until I get out of class.


 Your post is informative, but I'm missing your point. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> any time one attempts to define Christianity they skate on thin ice, and will quickly come to find someone, somewhere, who doesn't accept the definition.


 I'm not asking for an officially recognized set definition of "Christian" but a local agreement for the sake of this discussion. Without it this thread falls to nothing more than opinions and beliefs. Circular argument is not my idea of fun or debate.

     7sm


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.
> 
> 
> Steve


 
AT LAST!  A universal TRUTH!

:drinkbeer

    :rofl:


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm not asking for an officially recognized set definition of "Christian" but a local agreement for the sake of this discussion. Without it this thread falls to nothing more than opinions and beliefs. Circular argument is not my idea of fun or debate.
> 
> 7sm


If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of *"Christian"* is....



.... drumroll please....


*Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.*

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> If I may?
> 
> Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...
> 
> ...


i would debate the use of the word historical......i would have that in quotes


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> If I may?
> 
> Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...
> 
> ...





Ah...BUT...uh...er.  Okay.  That's a good one.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> If I may?
> 
> Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...
> 
> ...


 My bad, I thought I had stated my position. ACtually your deffinition would be more for "Christianity" than a "Christian". So allow me to elaborate my position. As I said, this thread is defined as "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight" - correct?
    So I would assume a more biblical deffinition would be used, just to keep in context with the thread.

 In which case something more along these lines: A person who believes that Jesus Christ was the one and only son of God, who died on the cross, rose again, and paid the punishment for mankinds sins. 

 I admit many other deffinitions are accepted and used around the world, but this particular thread was started about the Bible, not other religious texts or myths. In fact, my own deffinition of a Christian differs a bit, but for the sake of staying on topic, I would say this deffinition should be accepted.

    Now, let the flames begin! (No pun intended)

    7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

So Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I am a "Mormon" and I am a Christian.


I wasn't taking a position on the matter--just making an observation. We have Mormon friends who have this problem a lot. They were excluded from the local Christian homeschooling group, for example, on the grounds that their belief in a prophet after Jesus made them non-Christians in the same way as for Muslims.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> *Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.*


I'm more-or-less OK with this. I do agree that Christianity includes more than just the Catholic Church and its later offshoots, and I consider Mormons to be Christians (though I understand the other argument on that).


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Once again the actual point was ignored for a much easier bend of the arguement.



Nope. What I've seen so far is someone states something, then you break out the ol' "That's not Christianity as I would define it." chestnut. 



> What I *am* saying (and its pretty obvious to most reasonable adults) is that you cannot argue or debate with differing premises.



But here you are.



> Unless of course this thread is less about true sound debate and just a place to inflate fallacious opinions.



You wouldn't be mired in semantical dickering if you thought otherwise. 



> Would you mind outlining your belief of the afterlife's variance in OT books? Complete with scriptures refrencing this from more than one chapter of one book?



I offered an example of this variance already. If you can't read my posts, and ignore the meat in favor of easy dodges... 



> Speaking of fallicies....What scholars? How many scholars? Scholars from what religion, with what education?



*sigh*



> My deffinition of Christianity for this thread comes from the bible. I may be mistaken but I thought the name of this thread was The *Bible*, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight. So, taking the biblical deffinition of Christianity, the subject of hell is quite steadfast....at least within the confines of the bible.


Except that it's not. Takes a lot of willful ignorance to ignore the fact that the Bible wasn't even assembled until well after Christ's death, and that it was assembleed under various historical pressures, politics etc. 



> It would be much more fruitfull to have my points actually proven wrong rather than my background or my alleged fallacies attacked.



It's never fruitful to disprove nonarguments.



> Again, staying within the confines of this thread (the bible) your point is invalid. The bible defines itself as the authority and only true words of God....to refrence or compare with other texts, writings, or myths is simply out of the context of our debate.



Nope.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

i would like to point out that the title of the thread did include the words "other topics of casual delight"

i would take other to mean the myths and mythologies and related facts or debunking thereof.


----------



## mantis (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> If I may?
> 
> Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...
> 
> ...


 im not sure this is what 7starMantis is asking.. he's just complaining that people label things like this is "christian" this is "unchristian", this is "American", this is "unamerican" and so on... he asking who decides which acts are christians and which arent.
 my point when i said " a set definition of christian, are you kidding?!" was that churches tend to manipulate people's minds and tell them "hey, this is christian, and this is not" to basically tell people what to do, and what not to do leaving them no space to argue to disagree...


----------



## Ray (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I wasn't taking a position on the matter--just making an observation. We have Mormon friends who have this problem a lot. They were excluded from the local Christian homeschooling group, for example, on the grounds that their belief in a prophet after Jesus made them non-Christians in the same way as for Muslims.


I don't think that "traditional" Christians exclude Mormons from their definition {of Christians} because there were post-Jesus prophets [Joseph Smith, Brigham Young...Gordon B. Hinckley] since Agabus {for one, in Acts} was a post-Jesus prophet. 

The traditional Christians would say that because Mormons do not accept the belief of the trinity that Mormons are not Christian.  There are other doctrinal differences too.  Although most sects and denominations have differences, traditional Christianity will not bear a difference on the trinity.

I believe that Christianity was Helenized over the years; and that by the end of Constantine's life it was different than intended by Christ and the Apostles.  You might say I believe in a great and universal apostasy.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

On second thought the word "historical" might be best excised from tradrocket's definition of a Christian.  This would allow inclusion of a docetic Christ in our discussions, heretical though it be.  We could then discuss both the docetic and historical figure if we felt the need.

We can define Christianity, then, as the set of all Christians outlined by that definition above.  Those who accept the Nicene creed fit very easily into it, as do those anti-Nicene heresies.  

As for the Bible, the thread's title suggests one can freely discuss it in the context of its role in the development of Western secular and ecclisiastical thought; its development as a canon; its interpretation by scholars, theologians and minor luminaries; its various translations; Hellenistic influence on the New Testament as well as later post-exile literature...you name it.  

Ditto Hell.  We can discuss extra-biblical perceptions of Hell; Western and Eastern conceptions of the underworld that may have influenced Biblical development of Hell; post-canonical interpretations of Hell...and so on.

Anybody is free here to use any definition they please, of course...as long at they clearly state that as their definition and be prepared to have others reject it.  That includes, of course, the definition described above.  

Heretic, in starting this thread, placed no limitation on the parameters of discussion.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> So Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian?


 Wow...I dont know what else to say but wow. You can not be serious. I've never seen a more perfect example of someone pulling out twisted, misquoted views from a pretty straightforward statement. C'mon, at least come up with a new way to avoid the topics at hand.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. What I've seen so far is someone states something, then you break out the ol' "That's not Christianity as I would define it." chestnut.


 Well hey, your contributions to defining it for the sake of this thread have been very benficial!  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be mired in semantical dickering if you thought otherwise.


 Again, you can't seem to refuse the temptation to simply blurt back to me what I've accused others of doing. Lets stick to the topic of the thread, eh? This is like debating beauty without defining who is beautiful....many people disagree on what is beautiful. In the same way, many people disagree with what is "Christian". 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I offered an example of this variance already. If you can't read my posts, and ignore the meat in favor of easy dodges...


 Its interesting, I've found that across the board when asked for a serious layout of claimed views with evidentiary proof, regardless of the side, everyone just says..."I've allready done it...re-read my posts". But, that really helps further this discussion! 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> *sigh*


 My feeling exactly *sigh*. I guess its just too much work to offer proof of claims and views.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Except that it's not. Takes a lot of willful ignorance to ignore the fact that the Bible wasn't even assembled until well after Christ's death, and that it was assembleed under various historical pressures, politics etc.


 Man, you seem intent on arguing false points. No where did I say anything about ignoring that fact...in truth I adressed it allready. I gave the "Christian" or biblical explination for it as well....try reading through the entire thread.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It's never fruitful to disprove nonarguments.


 And so by your authority alone, we are to label my points as "nonarguments". You have brought an amazing shaft of light into my clouded view, thank you. 

 Oh, and as long as your going to counter my points with things like 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope


 its pretty useless to even read your posts.
 Focus man, focus....if you could just refute my points with fact or somehow show them as incorrect it would be much better for your arguemnt than simply attacking me personally.

    7sm


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> *Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the figure known popularly around the world as Christ.*


 
OK, good points made about the definition.  Historical is out.  As for excluding the definition based on one word in the tittle of this thread - The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight - forget it.  You wanted a definition, here it is.  Any variation from this definition should be prefaced as such so that the discussion can move ahead and not get stuck in small circles of semantics.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for the Bible, the thread's title suggests one can freely discuss it in the context of its role in the development of Western secular and ecclisiastical thought; its development as a canon; its interpretation by scholars, theologians and minor luminaries; its various translations; Hellenistic influence on the New Testament as well as later post-exile literature...you name it.





			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i would like to point out that the title of the thread did include the words "other topics of casual delight"
> 
> i would take other to mean the myths and mythologies and related facts or debunking thereof.


  Very good points, your both correct.
 However, discussion of extra-biblical cirricula being welcomed, it still does not address the issue of contradictions. We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.

 Let me make a statement here, it seems as though people are associating my argument as my own world view, that would be a mistake. I'm the type of person that doesn't really care what you believe as long as you know why you believe it. The bible is simply something I was forced to study and I know alot about, I just hate seeing faulty arguments passed off as truth when trying to disprove the bible. I could spend just as much time disproving the bible as I could proving it....including scriptures....I know the ones used to contradict each other and I know the "answers" to those "riddles" if you will, but my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect. In essence its being said, "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature, disproves the bible (Y) because they contradict". However, the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X). Thats circular arguments and quite dizzying.

  7sm


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect.


So, to rephrase then, the "heretical" movements are not Christian in the context of a "biblical christian definition".  Would that be a fair assessment?

And further, because we cannot refute biblical claims with evidence from a non-biblical source and remain within a biblical context, any argument contrary (if we are to accept your definition of Christian within a biblical context as being consistent and well defined) would then be invalid and moot.

Would that be a fair assessment?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Very good points, your both correct.
> However, discussion of extra-biblical cirricula being welcomed, it still does not address the issue of contradictions. We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge.
> 
> 1. *See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.*
> ...


1. there is a reason that the bible teaches this.......political and spiritual pressure. 
2. i think what i am doing is labeling christianity as a heretical movement that has nothing to do with the old testament.
3.see #1.

there are too many conflicts that take place in the bible from one book to the next......there is nothing that creates a cohesive doctrine. 
Is god benevolent or malevolent.

i dont think there is anything that gives any proof that this is an historical piece of work.

if a god really needed to create something in order to feel good about himself, to create an animal to worship him.....wouldnt this make him less than perfect, as he puts it in the bible?

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

how the heck does he know whats good?


----------



## The Kai (Oct 5, 2005)

_"how the heck does he know whats good_?"

Perhaps it refers to the idea that he was pleased with his results.  Like a painting that you finish-to you it's good, you're neighbor kindly calls it interesting and the critic? ouch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

Shall we then narrow our focus for the moment and all go to Hell?

What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined?  Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).

What, other than some marriages some of us have had, is Hell?



Regards,



Steve


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Shall we then narrow our focus for the moment and all go to Hell?
> 
> What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined? Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).
> 
> What, other than some marriages some of us have had, is Hell?


One of the most popular definitions I've heard is simply the abscence of God. Think of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable in the gospels (forget which ones). 

Sounds like a simple concept, but if God is truly God and truly in control, what would life be w/out that? Normal laws of nature would not apply, nor would God's mercy in any sense. Is it a firey pit? Some merit of that in the bible, but if I recall correctly, mostly for Satan, Antichrist and False prophet in Revelations.

MrH


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Is it a firey pit? Some merit of that in the bible, but if I recall correctly, mostly for Satan, Antichrist and False prophet in Revelations.
> 
> MrH



Refer to my post in the Gay marriage section.  Quite a few NT references cite Hell, "burning," the lake of fire, and "the outer darkness" for those who stray.  

This, as has been pointed out, gave rise to a number of rather horrid interpretations of Hell over the last two thousand years.  Recall Dante's vision of it, and Heironymous Bosch's artwork.

Current interpretations run the gamut from an absence from God, such as you've mentioned, to the infinite flames of torture.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> _"how the heck does he know whats good_?"
> 
> Perhaps it refers to the idea that he was pleased with his results. Like a painting that you finish-to you it's good, you're neighbor kindly calls it interesting and the critic? ouch


quite an astute observation........it was sarcasm.
what the hell does an omnipotent being care if something is good or not.
if he was entirely perfect......making the observation that something was merely good wouldnt be quite up to par.
what was he referencing the good comment to? all of the other screw ups?
did he ever make anything that wasnt written about that he looked at and thought.....hmmmm mediocre


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 5, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> quite an astute observation........it was sarcasm.
> 
> what the hell does an omnipotent being care if something is good or not.
> 
> ...


*scratches head*

I realize men are not perfect, but I have a decent idea of wrong or right. I realize its wrong to torture and kill someone. As a father (which I currently am not), I would try to instill what I believe to be the truth of right and wrong. I would want my offspring to understand the difference. Isn't that what a good parent is supposed to do?

Apply the logic to your statement. Why do I care if my son is good or evil? What reference do I use? Is he "ok" if he only kills 10 people if another kills 100? If he smokes a little pot he is ok, because everyone else is smoking crack?  A parent(God) has an ideal to which we are held.

make anything mediocre? whats your point?

MrH


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 5, 2005)

Which leads to the big question....

 Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Which leads to the big question....
> 
> Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?





Ah, but if he did, he would not be a generous God.  He would not be able to pass said joint to the angel next to him, for lo...the cherubim would not be big enough to be able to take a hit.

Getting back to Hell...is there, like, junk weed in Hell?  Does it have seeds and stems and all that crud?  

Here is a good link on Hell...sadly it doesn't clarify the issue of weed:


http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> So, to rephrase then, the "heretical" movements are not Christian in the context of a "biblical christian definition". Would that be a fair assessment?


 Yes, according to a biblical deffinition.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> And further, because we cannot refute biblical claims with evidence from a non-biblical source and remain within a biblical context, any argument contrary (if we are to accept your definition of Christian within a biblical context as being consistent and well defined) would then be invalid and moot.
> 
> Would that be a fair assessment?


 Eh...yes. However, I'm not saying thats the way it is, just that if you begin to refute of biblical claims from non-biblical source to a "Born Again Christian" they will tell you exactly what you said. I was simply trying to convey that disproving the bible to a "believer" with somethin other than the bible is moot in their eyes. It would be interesting to see biblical claims refuted with biblical sources. 



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> 1. there is a reason that the bible teaches this.......political and spiritual pressure.
> 2. i think what i am doing is labeling christianity as a heretical movement that has nothing to do with the old testament.
> 3.see #1.


 Your correct, but I wasn't offering any reasoning behind what the bible teaches, or trying to say what it teaches is true, just the fact that is what it teaches, and followers will be hard pressed to believe anything outside of that. 



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> there are too many conflicts that take place in the bible from one book to the next......there is nothing that creates a cohesive doctrine.
> Is god benevolent or malevolent.


 This is what I would love to see discussed. Biblical claims refuted by biblical means. Would you mind expounding on these and giving refrences? (uh oh) Is benevolent or malevolent the only two choices here?



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> if a god really needed to create something in order to feel good about himself, to create an animal to worship him.....wouldnt this make him less than perfect, as he puts it in the bible?


 This is what I was referign to when I spoke of half claims from not undestanding the source. The bible doesn't say God needed to create something to feel good, or to be worshiped. What it does say is that he wanted fellowship and chosen worship. See in the bible, all of heaven (excepted 3, or 2 now) has no choice in its duties, man on the other hand, does have a choice. Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> what was he referencing the good comment to? all of the other screw ups?
> did he ever make anything that wasnt written about that he looked at and thought.....hmmmm mediocre


 Well, if you want to get technical he did make man, then realize it wasn't good for him to be alone and made woman....of course this is after your comment on the time line.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined? Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).


 Well, accepting said deffinition it could be many things. Accepting a purely biblical def. it would be a lake of fire created for Satan (Lucifer) and his deamons (1/3 of the angels of heaven). But now opened for all those who do not trust in him.

   7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

This may be a bit late, but...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to misquote you, in fact I wasn't actually refering to you specifically, just using your words in my point. A bit of plagerism if you will.



Ok, just so we're clear on the context I voiced my arguments within. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your correct, it is subject to many interpretations...does that fact alone make all interpretations correct, or only one correct?



Nope.

This gets a little technical, but Paul actually outlines the different 'levels' of interpretation and understanding in some of his letters. Namely, a 'physical' (hylic or sarkic), a 'mental' or 'intellectual' (psychic), and a 'spiritual' (pneumatic). Likewise, he also differentiates between 'uninitiated' and 'initiated' Christians.

While this explanation clearly is dependent somewhat on Pythagoreanism and Platonism, it also has precedent in Judaic tradition. _Midrash_ is the Jewish tradition of interpreting scriptures and writings of prophets allegorically or symbolically, and carries with it pretty much the same 'levels' of interpretation (literal, moral, and spiritual).



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical. I'm actually kind of confused why you would refer to it as Christian tradition. Christological tendencies don't make it a Christian tradition.



Sorry, but my understanding of 'Christianity' is not limited to 'the guys that won'. Just because Constantine started wiping everybody else does not mean the interpretation he supported have the corner market here.

Part of the problem here is that the school you are declaring to be 'Christianity' here doesn't really seem to have really existed before the middle of the 2nd century. Even then, it had very little jurisdiction outside of Rome. For that matter, true Christian 'doctrine' as it exists today was hammered out in the Council of Nicea around 330 CE. We don't see anything exactly like it before this historic meeting.

By contrast, the 'docetic' schools of 'Christological' thought were very, very widespread by this time --- having roots in Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, and other places. It is literally an unwieldly thought to assume that all these 'modifications' or 'adaptations' to the original 'Christianity' took place _everywhere_ in the known world, consequently became the dominant 'Christian' school of thought in all these places, and the only place literalist 'Christian' school retained its 'purity' was Rome.

I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor on this one.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> In fact, I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?



Personally, I simply ignore this sectarian squabbling altogether.

Christianity, to me, is a historical phenomenon. Regardless of what opinion you may or may not have regarding any given denomination or sect's claim to the name, they all have a shared history. The history is what is important here, not some weird sense of ideological 'purity'.

Likewise with other religions. You could easily make the claim that Japan's Pure Land Buddhism deviates wildly from the supposed 'original teachings' of Siddhartha Gautama (assuming he actually existed). A heaven, hell, personal savior, and salvation through grace all seem to not exactly be your standard Buddhist fare. But, the point remains, the Pure Land sect _is_ a school of Buddhism --- not matter how 'heretical' you claim their position is.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> There is really no proof to support the belief that the bible (OT) was originally written completely in hebrew or any other language. Most of the earliest descovered portions are however.



Almost all of the Torah in its Hebrew form has been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is easily verified.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats a half statement. Greek works as their source material for New Testament biblical translation, I would agree.



I'm sorry if you're having issues with this, but the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches use the Septugaint for their 'Old Testament'. In the Synoptics, whenever Jesus cites the Torah, he is quoting from the Septugaint. The Septugaint is the background text the authors had in mind here.

Again, there are some exceptions to this --- like the Syrian Peshitta --- but these are the exception to the rule.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats the problem, we need a deffinition. There are way too many floating around. Personally according to the bible, a christian would be "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ". I dont see the problem with using that deffinition.



The problem is that the overwhelming majority of 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE are excluded by this literalist definition. Justin Martyr is the first 'Christian' we know of that would inequivocably fall into this categorization.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Since the bible is what is being debated here, shouldn't we seek to find its definition of Christian?



The Bible has many different interpretations of 'Christian', as Paul himself makes very clear. He distinguishes between 'uninitiated' vs 'initated' and 'psychic' vs 'pneumatic' Christians all the time.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> We can't make posts, one using a historical definition from the first few centuries, and one using a deffinition of current times. I think you need to look at the root of the word Christian, and its inception and creation (no pun intended). Its original usage had much more of a precise deffinition then it does now, in my opinion.



The problem here is that 'the Bible' as we have it is largely a post-Nicene work. None of the books we have inherited date before the 300's. 

Ergo, it is fallacious to claim it unqualifiably represents the 'original usage' of anything. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Very good point! Only your now defining christians as a whole as people who believe that "God" has personal opinions about life *and* that only they know them. I wouldn't call that belief Christian in the biblical deffinition of the word. In fact, any person who claims to know God's opinions would be called out as a false prophet in any group I grew up in.



I actually never attributed this to 'Christians' or to any group in particular, I was simply addressing some theological points that Ray brought up.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I agree with you there. I do think however that most "christians" hold faith in that God has control over current (past) events, including the manipulations of the gospel.



So, God's fine with forgery??

Furthermore, God's fine with later apologetics putting into Paul's mouth ideas that he most assuredly taught _against_ in his authentic letters (i.e., a literal 'physical' resurrection)??

Sorry, not buyin' it. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its pretty widely accepted that God did not physically write the scriptures himself, correct? In the eyes of most "christians" it wouldn't matter who manipulated or rewrote, or changed the text, its still under Gods protection and control. I'm just telling you that is what your going to come up against with that argument.



If that happens, I will say three simple words: Appeal To Authority.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.



Like Steve said, Marcionism wasn't even born yet so this claim is rather weak.

Furthermore, it is difficult to make such a claim in light of the fact that _only_ Gnostics like Marcion and Valentinus even _use_ Paul in the first few centuries CE. Paul is never mentioned by the likes of Justin Martyr. He is only mentioned by later literalist writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian when the anti-Gnostic 'Pastoral' letters 'magically' appeared in late 2nd and early 3rd centuries to refute docetism.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself?



No, I'm pointing out that it was _assumed_ that the reader already had some idea of what 'hell' was in the first place. Given the Hellenistic context of the New Testament as a whole, it would not be surprising to find a Hellenistic context for 'hell' (hades in the original Greek).

It would also be in keeping with the Platonic and Mithraic philosophy Paul expounds in his letters, too.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y?



People formulate doctrine and dogma, not books. Augustine was one of these people.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 5, 2005)

check this out..
this should help you guys out
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Which leads to the big question....
> 
> Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?


:idunno: hahahahahahahahahahahahah:rofl:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> *scratches head*
> 
> I realize men are not perfect, but I have a decent idea of wrong or right. I realize its wrong to torture and kill someone. As a father (which I currently am not), I would try to instill what I believe to be the truth of right and wrong. I would want my offspring to understand the difference. Isn't that what a good parent is supposed to do?
> 
> ...


how's this for logic.....you do have a son.....he's fighting in the military and his platoon is getting smoked......if he kills 10 guys, thats mediocre....if he kills 100 and saves the day he's probably going to get a MOH....
see what i mean?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> how's this for logic.....you do have a son.....he's fighting in the military and his platoon is getting smoked......if he kills 10 guys, thats mediocre....if he kills 100 and saves the day he's probably going to get a MOH....
> see what i mean?



Well, ahem.

I _think_ what BlackCatBonz is trying to say is that any given trait or quality we ascribe to something is ultimately dependent on its contextual relation with other somethings. Meaning, a quarter is a 'large' circle next to a dime but it becomes 'small' when you compare it to a hubcap. Therefore, all the judgments and evaluations we give to phenomena are ultimately conditional, relative, and interdependent with everything else.

As such, this begs the obvious question what would and would not be 'good' to an omnipresent, omniscient, transcendent Being --- what is 'God' comparing the world to to declare it to be 'good'??

The most parsimonious question is that 'God' likely didn't make this evaluation, that its sheer mythology. That, of course, is upsetting to Biblical literalists.

Laterz.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *1.This is what I would love to see discussed. Biblical claims refuted by biblical means. Would you mind expounding on these and giving refrences? (uh oh) Is benevolent or malevolent the only two choices here?*
> 
> *2.This is what I was referign to when I spoke of half claims from not undestanding the source. The bible doesn't say God needed to create something to feel good, or to be worshiped. What it does say is that he wanted fellowship and chosen worship. See in the bible, all of heaven (excepted 3, or 2 now) has no choice in its duties, man on the other hand, does have a choice. Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.*
> 
> ...


1. well we have 3 choices....ambivalent, benevolent, malevolent. god being the perfect omnipotent being that he is can never decide if he accepts humanity for all of their faults.

2. wanting fellowship and chosen worship is what everyone wants.....unless you are a complete anti-social maladroit.
what he did "create" was the biblical equivalent of lord of the flies.  
if he created us with freedom of thought......he should be accepting people for who they are no matter what they do (OT), instead we have the story of an omnipotent creator that wants us to give him our undivided attention and follow every order, lest we get turned into a pillar of salt.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, ahem.
> 
> I _think_ what BlackCatBonz is trying to say is that any given trait or quality we ascribe to something is ultimately dependent on its contextual relation with other somethings. Meaning, a quarter is a 'large' circle next to a dime but it becomes 'small' when you compare it to a hubcap. Therefore, all the judgments and evaluations we give to phenomena are ultimately conditional, relative, and interdependent with everything else.
> 
> ...


bingo:asian:


----------



## Ray (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I actually never attributed this to 'Christians' or to any group in particular, I was simply addressing some theological points that Ray brought up.


If someone claims to worship a deity then it follows in my mind that that person must know something of the deity's "will" or opinions, else how would they know the ideal life which pleases there deity? Although "orthodox" Christians do not claim to have a living prophet, many claim to receive guidence through the Holy Spirit (don't they?).

And some denominations have a heirarchical leader (like the pope). I would assume that the Pope is believed by Catholics as being responsible for making God's will known?

I believe that just as God selected worthy men in the OT as prophets and made his will known through them that Christians today should expect that God still would work through prophets. Otherwise Christianity would be split up into groups with differing opinions.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If that happens, I will say three simple words: Appeal To Authority.


I know that you are well versed in the use of Logic and the scientific method. And I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you have to understand (not necessarily accept) that Logic and Religion are different systems (I almost said "man made" systems) and people use different rules of evaluation within those systems. You can tell someone that "appeal to authority" is invalid, but they just won't get it {to your satisfaction} and visa versa.

I enjoyed your post and am pleased to see that we agree on quite a bit.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.


Only if you presume the Bible to be inerrant.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> If someone claims to worship a deity then it follows in my mind that that person must know something of the deity's "will" or opinions, else how would they know the ideal life which pleases there deity?



Just be aware of the instrinsic sociocentrism and narcissism underlying such thinking. It essentially boils down to Appeals to Authority and Tradition, and favors a type of ecclesiastical elitism.

Whatever else it may be, it most assuredly is not a product of post-conventional moral reasoning. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Otherwise Christianity would be split up into groups with differing opinions.



You're being ironic here, right??  :lookie: 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I know that you are well versed in the use of Logic and the scientific method.



Or so I would have you believe.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> And I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you have to understand (not necessarily accept) that Logic and Religion are different systems (I almost said "man made" systems) and people use different rules of evaluation within those systems. You can tell someone that "appeal to authority" is invalid, but they just won't get it {to your satisfaction} and visa versa.



Logic and Religion are not intrinsically different systems. But, Logic and Blind Faith are. 

There is nothing about religion that precludes logic or reason. In fact, many religions expect their practitioners to rely on them (such as the _Kalama Sutra_ quotation I cited earlier).



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I enjoyed your post and am pleased to see that we agree on quite a bit.



Happy to be of service. 

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see biblical claims refuted with biblical sources.



Its allready been done...hence the heresies and 2000 years of inter-Christian theological strife.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.



Poor analogy.  My wife loves me, but not because I threaten her with pain and death...nor would I were she to withdraw her affection or leave me for another man.  The nut-job who blows his wife and her lover away out of jealousy is far closer to the Old Testament accounts of God and his wrath.  

Extend the analogy further and we find the New Testament God killing his child in order in order to appease his own anger at the transgressions of the wife.  Now that the kid is dead, she has a new chance to come home to him and all will be well.  If she chooses not to, she then faces an eternity of punishment.

Is it love, or coercion?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> .
> We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.


I'm suprised that this one was virtually left alone.  You are using the very logical fallacies you warn us against.  PROVE the bible to be error free first before you use it's own claims as proof.  The "circular argument" (Petitio Princippi, in Latin) takes in this form the idea that the bible is truth, therefore everything in it must be true, including the statement that all others sources are false.  However, there is *NO REASON WHATSOEVER* to accept the bible as truth other than because "it said so".  It's this reasoning that's false, not the bridge we build when discussing it.  In fact, the bridge is the concrete means to defeat this false logic.

Do you see this?  If so, we no longer have to worry about your fears of circular logic, because everybody in *THIS* conversation has been made aware of it.  Others who may take exception are not participants, so we don't have to worry about them.




> Let me make a statement here, it seems as though people are associating my argument as my own world view, that would be a mistake. I'm the type of person that doesn't really care what you believe as long as you know why you believe it. The bible is simply something I was forced to study and I know alot about, I just hate seeing faulty arguments passed off as truth when trying to disprove the bible.


How about faulty arguments when trying to protect the bible?  Do those bother you too?



> I could spend just as much time disproving the bible as I could proving it....including scriptures....I know the ones used to contradict each other and I know the "answers" to those "riddles" if you will, but my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect.


However, as we have previously shown, using the bible as your factual basis is inherently fallacious.  STOP DOING IT!  Saying something is biblically incorrect is irrelevant in the search for truth, and truth is the ultimate goal here (you are welcome, Socrates...)



> In essence its being said, "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature, disproves the bible (Y) because they contradict". However, the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X). Thats circular arguments and quite dizzying.
> 
> 7sm


Not anymore, right?  The bible is no longer an unimpeachable source as demonstrated through the study of logical fallacies.  Therefore, the comment must now read :

"This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature and backed up by historical precedent, disproves the bible (Y) because they clearly contradict". ALSO, even though the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X), we must hold the bible(Y) and it's statements to the same standards of documentation and historical support, and to date it (Y) has been unable to effectively muster either."


Glad we got that cleared up...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Is it love, or coercion?



Personally, I'm gonna go with 'mythology' here.

Which, by the way, is not synonymous with 'lies'.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat,

Part of the problem, of course, is that there is hardly a clear-cut definition of what is or is not 'Christian' in the Bible. Not only is the Bible subject to a series of different levels of interpretation, but it is also internally contradictory as pertaining to positions taken from book to book.

This makes sense, of course, in that the individual 'books' that make up the New Testament were never intended to be taken altogether. They are generally believed to be a representative work from a particular pre-Nicene school of 'Christian' thought. As such, we see various different 'schools' or 'philosophies' of Christian thought alongside one another in a single literary anthology. Collapsing the context presented in one 'book' with that presented in another can lead to some pretty 'fuzzy' interpretations.

Take, for example, the famous Christian dictum from the Gospel of John: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Well, gosh golly. That's the end of it. Jesus Christ is the _only_ route to salvation --- anyone that says, believes, or does otherwise is basically screwed!!

But, wait!! Context!! That's right! Y'see... at the very beginning of said Gospel of John, the author makes it _very clear_ that 'Jesus Christ' is an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of the eternal Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was, yadda yadda, so on, etc". Well, now, that's a whole 'nudder bag of potato chips right there!

Y'see, the Logos is a very old Hellenistic philosophical concept, dating as far back as Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Most likely, the author of the Gospel of John was heavily influenced by the writing of Philo Judaeus, a Pythagorean Jew writing around 10 to 15 CE, who made extensive references to the eternal Logos as the 'Son of God' in his works. 

The funny thing is the Logos is supposed to be an eternal, universal, perennial philosophical principle --- it isn't exclusive property of any time, place, or person. Even if that 'person' is good ol' Jesus. Heraclitus describes the "Logos shared by all" and even the Gospel of John describes the Logos as "the light of all men that enter the world".

Well, now! That changes everything!! No longer is Mr. Maybe-Lived-And-Died-And-Resurrected-Two-Millenia-Ago the solitary route to 'salvation'. Rather, as the living incarnation of the Logos ("the Word made flesh"), that particular Gospel is telling is the Logos, the Word, the I AM is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" --- which, well frankly, is true.

But, the other funny thing.... Jesus never makes these 'I am' speeches in any other Gospel but John. Coincidentally --- okay, we know by now it ain't coincidence --- its also the only Gospel he is literally identified with the Logos. That means --- dun dun dun!! --- if you skew the context of Logos Jesus onto all those 'books' that don't even mention the Logos, you horridly warp the meaning.

So, yeah, internal context is important here.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm gonna go with 'mythology' here.
> 
> Which, by the way, is not synonymous with 'lies'.
> 
> Laterz.


But it is synonymous with _fiction_...is it not?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> But it is synonymous with _fiction_...is it not?



Nope. Well, actually, it depends on how you define 'fiction'.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Nope. Well, actually, it depends on how you define 'fiction'.
> 
> Laterz.


Fiction is not always false.  Sometimes it is an amalgamation of true things and exagerations.  Sometimes it is a bowl of falsehoods with a sprinkling of truth.  Sometimes it is the opposite.  Fiction is a story with characters, plot, and _meaning_.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 5, 2005)

My question to you all would be: 

What is the point of existence.

I know that I'm throwing out something that has yet to be discussed, but I think it worthy.  Among other would be:

1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong.  If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.

2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).


I would question whether some of you have looked at the bible in relation to the actual world around your, rather than a philosophical argument.  And here I'm not speaking historically, but conventionally.  For example:

1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex.  Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days.  What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.

2.  That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.  

I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer.  The bible is the only book that covers *everything *necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon.  And since this is a martial arts web site, I can add this: aren't the fundamentals essential to understanding a martial art.  Why not religion.

Just something I threw together as food for thought.  Gonna go home and drinka beer and watch a movie now.  

I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding.  It's the only way that we grow.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Fiction is not always false.  Sometimes it is an amalgamation of true things and exagerations.  Sometimes it is a bowl of falsehoods with a sprinkling of truth.  Sometimes it is the opposite.  Fiction is a story with characters, plot, and _meaning_.



Ah, so you mean 'fiction' in the sense it is used in literature, then??

If so, I would agree with that assessment.

Laterz.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> My question to you all would be:
> 
> 1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong.  If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.
> 
> 2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).



1 & 2: Social contract theory. 



> 1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex.  Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days.  What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.



It can be. There can also be diasasterous marriages. Not sure how society's improved by locking in a miserable pairing for life. 



> That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.



It takes God to come up with that one? 



> I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer.  The bible is the only book that covers *everything *necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon.



So... Any culture without the Bible in the mix is immoral? No other moral compillations exist the world over? 



> And since this is a martial arts web site, I can add this: aren't the fundamentals essential to understanding a martial art.  Why not religion.



'Cause extremists need to be struggled against. Globally. 



> I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding.  It's the only way that we grow.



Cool. You're going to actually consider what I wrote then?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 5, 2005)

Some of this stuff is off-topic, but what the hell (no pun intended)...



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> What is the point of existence.



That is the existential dilemma, now isn't it?? 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 1. Where do you get your sense of right and wrong.  If evertying I do is "evil", but I get everything that I want, how is that wrong.



Most people's sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is derived from their cultural upbringing. A few rare individuals can transcend the social norms and conventions they were imbedded within and reach a genuinlely post-conventional form of moral reasoning --- but this is typically the exception to the rule.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 2. Why is it that most people seem to have an innate sense of this right and wrong, regardless of upbringing (barring genetic anamolies and chemical imbalances).



The most parsimonious explanation would be a set of moral characteristics that our species has evolved over the course of its history which benefitted to our collective survival in the past. Of course, it could also be a direct result of our evolved intelligence, much like language.

Then again, it could be argued that humans _don't_ have an innate sense of morality independent of their upbringing --- we certainly don't see a terrible degree of commonality as far as specific moral beliefs across cultures. 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I would question whether some of you have looked at the bible in relation to the actual world around your, rather than a philosophical argument.  And here I'm not speaking historically, but conventionally.



Ah, I see. Another "x only disagrees with me because they haven't experienced/looked at/read y" argument.   



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 1. The bible says that one should not have pre-marital sex.  Haven't we got plenty of examples of how this activity has a tendency to cause problems in our society to this days. What one may call a universal truth, regardless of the historical times.
> 
> 2.  That "thou shall not steal" deals with property rights, and have very pragmatic applications to this date.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences Of A Belief 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I would suggest that one study the bible for what it has to offer.



Assuming everyone that disagrees with you hasn't studied "the bible for what it has to offer", eh?

Logical Fallacy: Questionable Cause 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> The bible is the only book that covers *everything *necessary for the proper functioning of society, at least fundamentally, which is a word that people have a tendency to look down upon.



Prove it.

Burden Of Proof 



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I would also suggest this, that for the sake of further understanding, that people "abandon" their egotistical arguments for an honest attempt at understanding.  It's the only way that we grow.



No offense, but your arguments absolute reek of sociocentrism (only a hop-skip away from from pure egotism). Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This gets a little technical, but Paul actually outlines the different 'levels' of interpretation and understanding in some of his letters. Namely, a 'physical' (hylic or sarkic), a 'mental' or 'intellectual' (psychic), and a 'spiritual' (pneumatic). Likewise, he also differentiates between 'uninitiated' and 'initiated' Christians.
> 
> While this explanation clearly is dependent somewhat on Pythagoreanism and Platonism, it also has precedent in Judaic tradition. _Midrash_ is the Jewish tradition of interpreting scriptures and writings of prophets allegorically or symbolically, and carries with it pretty much the same 'levels' of interpretation (literal, moral, and spiritual).


 Your asking us to accept your authority on what Paul actually outlines. I'm not saying your wrong (yet) but your not providing proof. If I was to take a clearly "born again christian" point of view, your extra-biblical accounts of Paul would be thin at best. Your misunderstanding Paul's writings, he's not speaking of two types of christians, "initiated" and "unititiated", but more "mature" and "immature". 

 Remeber that the bible also claims pure jewish tradition as false or "not enough". The fact that judaic traditions show precedents, hold no merrit with believers of the bible. Interpretation aside, there are hard statements in the bible and that is one of them. 

  Although your willingness to avoid making a hard statement yourself is interesting.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but my understanding of 'Christianity' is not limited to 'the guys that won'. Just because Constantine started wiping everybody else does not mean the interpretation he supported have the corner market here.
> 
> Part of the problem here is that the school you are declaring to be 'Christianity' here doesn't really seem to have really existed before the middle of the 2nd century. Even then, it had very little jurisdiction outside of Rome. For that matter, true Christian 'doctrine' as it exists today was hammered out in the Council of Nicea around 330 CE. We don't see anything exactly like it before this historic meeting.
> 
> ...


 OK, thats exactly my point. Your acceptance of what "Christianity" is and my acceptance of it are far apart. Constantine wouldn't be anyone I would accept as spreading "christianity". 
 The fact that there is a lack of history for Christians actually supports my deffinition of "Christian". Before Jesus Christ there was no "Christianity" or "Christian" according to the bible. In the bible it teaches that OT "salvation" if you will, was gained through works, not faith as in the NT. 
 My literal definition of "Christian" would actually be supported by your fact. Also, Rome isn't considered by most "born again christians" as a focal point of "Christianity". Many seperate "Christianity" from catholicism. Its not so unwieldly to think of "the entire known world" when your speaking to a "believer" who believes "God" created the whole world. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I simply ignore this sectarian squabbling altogether.


 Thats the problem. Your standing on the outside trying to group together a large group of people who would adamantly disagree with your label. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Christianity, to me, is a historical phenomenon. Regardless of what opinion you may or may not have regarding any given denomination or sect's claim to the name, they all have a shared history. The history is what is important here, not some weird sense of ideological 'purity'.


 The history is not what is important to a believer, thats why we are going in circles. Your basing your views on history, while believers base their views on the bible alone. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Likewise with other religions. You could easily make the claim that Japan's Pure Land Buddhism deviates wildly from the supposed 'original teachings' of Siddhartha Gautama (assuming he actually existed). A heaven, hell, personal savior, and salvation through grace all seem to not exactly be your standard Buddhist fare. But, the point remains, the Pure Land sect _is_ a school of Buddhism --- not matter how 'heretical' you claim their position is.


 The bible teaches that believers are not "of" this world, so the have the "worlds" label on christianity means nothing to them. Because you say so doesn't make everyone agree with you. I think it comes down to a simple disagreement. I disagree with your labeling and history of "Christianity" and I dont forsee anything changing that. You disagree with mine and I dont foresee anything changing that.....what are we to do?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Almost all of the Torah in its Hebrew form has been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is easily verified.


 Your point? 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if you're having issues with this, but the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches use the Septugaint for their 'Old Testament'. In the Synoptics, whenever Jesus cites the Torah, he is quoting from the Septugaint. The Septugaint is the background text the authors had in mind here.
> 
> Again, there are some exceptions to this --- like the Syrian Peshitta --- but these are the exception to the rule.


 Do you mean the Septuagint? If so, that would be considered "heresy" by the bible as "additional and variant material" would be considered a "jot and tittle" I believe. 

 How exactly would you knowwhat was in the minds of the writters? Because you said so? I know, there is a multitude of "historical evidence" to show this, yet nothing factual.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem is that the overwhelming majority of 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE are excluded by this literalist definition. Justin Martyr is the first 'Christian' we know of that would inequivocably fall into this categorization.


 Yes, your right, adn I understand that.....therein lies our difference of views on "Christianity". 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem here is that 'the Bible' as we have it is largely a post-Nicene work. None of the books we have inherited date before the 300's.
> 
> Ergo, it is fallacious to claim it unqualifiably represents the 'original usage' of anything.


 What does that prove exactly? Your basis of truth is rooted in history, but thats a pretty tight minded view. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, God's fine with forgery??
> 
> Furthermore, God's fine with later apologetics putting into Paul's mouth ideas that he most assuredly taught _against_ in his authentic letters (i.e., a literal 'physical' resurrection)??
> 
> Sorry, not buyin' it.


 I dont think "believers" would agree with your definition of forgery in this sense. 
  I would be interested to see what teachings you are refering to from Paul's letters against a "physical" resurrection. 



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> 1. well we have 3 choices....ambivalent, benevolent, malevolent. god being the perfect omnipotent being that he is can never decide if he accepts humanity for all of their faults.


 According to the bible ("Gods word") he does accept humanity for all their faults, he just doesn't allow them into his "house". 



			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> 2. wanting fellowship and chosen worship is what everyone wants.....unless you are a complete anti-social maladroit.
> what he did "create" was the biblical equivalent of lord of the flies.
> if he created us with freedom of thought......he should be accepting people for who they are no matter what they do (OT), instead we have the story of an omnipotent creator that wants us to give him our undivided attention and follow every order, lest we get turned into a pillar of salt.


 Then your post was incorrect according to you? huh? Your pulling things out of context to fabricate some ideal about who god is. Its not about doing what he says, but not doing what he says not to do...there is actually a difference, and no where has the bible threatened a pillar of salt for those who do not obey.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Only if you presume the Bible to be inerrant.


 Exactly, suppose for a moment I do....how would you convince we otherwise?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Its allready been done...hence the heresies and 2000 years of inter-Christian theological strife.


 C'mon, moer logical fallacies? Because of theological strife, we need not show biblical contraditions? I dont agree with most of them...so then the strife is moot to me. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Poor analogy. My wife loves me, but not because I threaten her with pain and death...nor would I were she to withdraw her affection or leave me for another man. The nut-job who blows his wife and her lover away out of jealousy is far closer to the Old Testament accounts of God and his wrath.
> 
> Extend the analogy further and we find the New Testament God killing his child in order in order to appease his own anger at the transgressions of the wife. Now that the kid is dead, she has a new chance to come home to him and all will be well. If she chooses not to, she then faces an eternity of punishment.
> 
> Is it love, or coercion?


 If you read the bible you will see that after creation, there was no threat of pain or death, that came later you see. 



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I'm suprised that this one was virtually left alone. You are using the very logical fallacies you warn us against. PROVE the bible to be error free first before you use it's own claims as proof. The "circular argument" (Petitio Princippi, in Latin) takes in this form the idea that the bible is truth, therefore everything in it must be true, including the statement that all others sources are false. However, there is *NO REASON WHATSOEVER* to accept the bible as truth other than because "it said so". It's this reasoning that's false, not the bridge we build when discussing it. In fact, the bridge is the concrete means to defeat this false logic.


 That would be a good point except that if you read my posts I was addressing the discussion from the view of a "born again believer" who would view the bible as truth. To claim logical falasy means nothing to someones "faith". 
  If the bible is not true, prove it. Who does the burden of proof fall upon? I guess people would disagree. 



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> How about faulty arguments when trying to protect the bible? Do those bother you too?


 Yup. Your implication is incorrect here, I'm not trying to protect anything. 



			
				tradrockrat said:
			
		

> Not anymore, right? The bible is no longer an unimpeachable source as demonstrated through the study of logical fallacies. Therefore, the comment must now read :
> 
> "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature and backed up by historical precedent, disproves the bible (Y) because they clearly contradict". ALSO, even though the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X), we must hold the bible(Y) and it's statements to the same standards of documentation and historical support, and to date it (Y) has been unable to effectively muster either."


 You believe the fallicy exists in accepting the bible as truth, others may not. You can't just say, "My side is right, so your using faulty logic". You must show proof that their laogic is faulted by showing proof that their acceptance of the bible as truth is invalid. 

  7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 5, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, of course, is that there is hardly a clear-cut definition of what is or is not 'Christian' in the Bible. Not only is the Bible subject to a series of different levels of interpretation, but it is also internally contradictory as pertaining to positions taken from book to book.


 Internal contradiction in the bible do not exist, your incorrect.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This makes sense, of course, in that the individual 'books' that make up the New Testament were never intended to be taken altogether. They are generally believed to be a representative work from a particular pre-Nicene school of 'Christian' thought. As such, we see various different 'schools' or 'philosophies' of Christian thought alongside one another in a single literary anthology. Collapsing the context presented in one 'book' with that presented in another can lead to some pretty 'fuzzy' interpretations.


 Intended by whom? "Generally believed" by whom? 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Take, for example, the famous Christian dictum from the Gospel of John: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Well, gosh golly. That's the end of it. Jesus Christ is the _only_ route to salvation --- anyone that says, believes, or does otherwise is basically screwed!!
> 
> But, wait!! Context!! That's right! Y'see... at the very beginning of said Gospel of John, the author makes it _very clear_ that 'Jesus Christ' is an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of the eternal Logos (Word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was, yadda yadda, so on, etc". Well, now, that's a whole 'nudder bag of potato chips right there!


 Context is right. Your now getting into debates on the trinity. Being an incarnation of the word and being 100% human, while also being 100% "God" is what the bible teaches.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'see, the Logos is a very old Hellenistic philosophical concept, dating as far back as Heraclitus in the 6th century BCE. Most likely, the author of the Gospel of John was heavily influenced by the writing of Philo Judaeus, a Pythagorean Jew writing around 10 to 15 CE, who made extensive references to the eternal Logos as the 'Son of God' in his works.
> 
> The funny thing is the Logos is supposed to be an eternal, universal, perennial philosophical principle --- it isn't exclusive property of any time, place, or person. Even if that 'person' is good ol' Jesus. Heraclitus describes the "Logos shared by all" and even the Gospel of John describes the Logos as "the light of all men that enter the world".


 The fact that the author used a recognized term such as "logos" doesn't immediately change what he/she meant by using it. Take just the greek word "logos" without the historical conitations...different altogether isn't it. "The Logos" was used quite heavily in the bible to refer to "God" himself. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, now! That changes everything!! No longer is Mr. Maybe-Lived-And-Died-And-Resurrected-Two-Millenia-Ago the solitary route to 'salvation'. Rather, as the living incarnation of the Logos ("the Word made flesh"), that particular Gospel is telling is the Logos, the Word, the I AM is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" --- which, well frankly, is true.


 Unless of course you believe in the trinity of the Godhead. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, the other funny thing.... Jesus never makes these 'I am' speeches in any other Gospel but John. Coincidentally --- okay, we know by now it ain't coincidence --- its also the only Gospel he is literally identified with the Logos. That means --- dun dun dun!! --- if you skew the context of Logos Jesus onto all those 'books' that don't even mention the Logos, you horridly warp the meaning.


  I'm guessing your refering to the english usage of the term "word" and not actual greek text using the word "logos"?

  Also, who understands the meaning enough to say anyone is horridly warping it?

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 6, 2005)

The Bible has no internal contradictions?


So...answer me the following:

How did Judas die?

What was Jesus given to drink on the cross?



We could go on with this for days, you know.  Start with those...and we'll take it a little further.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Marginal (Oct 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Exactly, suppose for a moment I do....how would you convince we otherwise?



I cannot as they then dive headfirst into an inane, "The Bible is inerrant! LALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" circular argument regardless of textual support, historical background, a time machine etc.


----------



## Ray (Oct 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Bible has no internal contradictions?
> 
> So...answer me the following: How did Judas die?


Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.

However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.
> 
> However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.




Show me where it says the rope broke.  


One account says he fell and his bowels burst asunder, another says he hanged himself.  Neither account mentions any detail of the other.  This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example of the lengths pop apologists (like Josh McDowell) go in order to harmonize difficult passages.  People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence...and they accept it because they've made up their mind not to question anything that is in scripture.  Marginal's description of Christian denial of the contradictions is accurate.  Inerrantists can not handle the cognitive dissonance brought on by such questions.

It shakes their faith.

We're left then with other questions.  Who witnessed the event?  Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles?  If so, how did the two accounts diverge?   Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning?  Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?  

So too with the robe.  Matthew says the robe was scarlet, John says the robe was purple.

One might say the blood from the scourging stained a purple robe red or a red robe purple...but neither account says that this was so.  We are also left with the question of why they would ruin what was no doubt an expensive garment. Purple dye was extraordinarily expensive in those times. Ever try to get blood out of clothes?   Whose robe was it?  Why did the robe's owner permit it to be sullied with the blood of a man who had just nearly been flayed alive?  

We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years.  The authors borrowed passages freely from other Gospels, but then took artistic license and changed the stories to best fit the versions their own Christian traditions needed--or to suit their literary tastes and theological inclinations.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 6, 2005)

We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years. The authors borrowed passages freely from other Gospels, but then took artistic license and changed the stories to best fit the versions their own Christian traditions needed--or to suit their literary tastes and theological inclinations.

Hardheadjarhead, of course nobody alive or there grandfather or his grandfather would have known Jesus we all no that, but your comment about what authors borowed from gospel and then translate that into there beliefs is accurate to me. I'm not christian base, I'm Jewish and I have my beliefs about religion I do not talk about it for it is a no win scenaio for me atleast.
But I did like this statement of yours that is why I posted.
Terry


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2005)

The Synoptics certainly contain contradictions. For the reasons mentioned by *terryl965*, it's no surprise and doesn't mean they're entirely unreliable.


----------



## Ray (Oct 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Show me where it says the rope broke.


It says it in my posting. (I know you want a biblical ref). But you know that Matthew 27:5 says he hung himself; and that Acts 1:18 says he fell headlong, he ripped open his abdomen and his guts burst out.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example...to harmonize difficult passages. People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence


I hope I didn't insult you too badly. Personally, I'm not an inerrantist. I know that there are difficult passages in the bible as well as other writings that I hold sacred. 

However, it is not the writings that have caused faith to grow within me. From 18 to 42 years old, I was something of an atheist myself; using reason and logic {probably not as well as heretic though} to make my way. The experiences that have happened to me since "getting religion" are either true or I've lost my mind. If they are true {reality, not imagined}, then it could be co-incidental or misinterpretation of a natural course of events. If I've indeed lost my mind, then all the reason in the world won't cure me (and as long as I'm no danger to others, it's okay).

I do recognize that when I give an account of an incident, whether an everyday occurance or an extraordinary occurance, that each time I repeat it it may be told slightly different. In my day to day conversation I do not speak with the intent that I will be held to a scientific scrutiny. Neither do I expect that some of my experience can be repeated on demand so that scientists can verify the truthfulness.

I also realize that the "reasoned" approach to analyzing actions and words doesn't always work, ask a kid why they did something and they may be likely to say "I dunno..." I've seen some of this type of reasoning used where it probably shouldn't be (e.g. one of the gospels mentions that Judas was misappropriating funds and a bible scholar says that the only reason the writer put that in the gospels was to make Judas seem worse...upon what logic that conclusion was drawn from I cannot fathom. I saw that on a TV program and can't quote the exact wording nor name the program).

Nevertheless, I agree that there are many difficult passages. And I respect the differing opinions of others. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It shakes their faith.


Yes, and there are those who loose their faith; still others who had no faith that find it.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We're left then with other questions. Who witnessed the event? Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles? If so, how did the two accounts diverge? Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning?


Tough questions. Too bad we must reconstruct history from the writings and unintentional clues given. There are other historical "facts" besides religion that I wonder about.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?


You'll have to ask Him. He does seem to put fallible people into positions of great responsiblity, doesn't he.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Ever try to get blood out of clothes?


Nope, but my wife seems to complain about it and spaghettit sauce.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We best apply reason and understand these accounts were drafted decades apart by men who never knew Jesus, likely didn't know anybody that ever knew Jesus, and were synthesized from oral accounts passed on through the years.


It can be difficult to reconstruct history. Here's a case in point: In 1989, I was promoted to black belt by my instructor at a tournament. I got the actual certificate in 1996 {before I moved away from the area, it was dated 1996 and it says "black belt" not 1st degree, not 1st dan}...that belt has three strips on it and hangs in my studio; I now wear a belt that I recently purchased, it has no stripes. Not that I'll ever be famous enough for anyone to want to reconstruct my history, but I'll bet the supportors and detractors would have a field day.


----------



## mantis (Oct 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Judas hung himself on a tree overlooking the potter's field, the rope broke and his bowels burst asunder as he hit the rocks.
> 
> However, I don't believe the Bible to be inherently inerrent.


 Judas was crossed


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 6, 2005)

The Judas question was kind of silly... from my understanding of the Hebrew is an idiom. Don't have my Hebrew books handy, but I was taught that one of them is an idiom.

for instance: Joe kicked the bucket. Joe offed himself. Joe committed suicide.

did he really kick a bucket? Does joe have an on/off button? They are all saying the same thing, and none of them are incorrect. The first two are idioms though.

If any Hebrew experts are in the house, please correct me if I'm wrong. This is something I learned quite a while ago.

MrH


----------



## Ray (Oct 6, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> Judas was crossed


So says some; just as unreliable evidence as the bible is said to be.


----------



## mantis (Oct 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> So says some; just as unreliable evidence as the bible is said to be.


 thank you, exactly my point
 anyone can say anything!
 well, if this problem is present in catholicism and christianity, does it exist in Judism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism?
 i mean the problem of unauthentic references, and unreliable documentation?


----------



## Ray (Oct 6, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> thank you, exactly my point
> anyone can say anything!


And even though I've made your point, and I am a "person of faith" I still think that historical, scientific and scholarly inquiry into religion should continue.  {Unless heretic agrees with that in which case I would just take a ridiculous and diametrically opposite position }


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> One account says he fell and his bowels burst asunder, another says he hanged himself. Neither account mentions any detail of the other. This explanation you've provided is a common one, and a typical example of the lengths pop apologists (like Josh McDowell) go in order to harmonize difficult passages. People accept it at face value even though it insults one's intelligence...and they accept it because they've made up their mind not to question anything that is in scripture. Marginal's description of Christian denial of the contradictions is accurate. Inerrantists can not handle the cognitive dissonance brought on by such questions.


 Good logical point. However, you are refering to ommisions and not contradictions. The two stories do not contradict each other. For example:
 When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleasn, I heard early reports of the flooding that occured because the storm surge went right over the levees and that was the reason for flooding. Then a bit later on from closer sources I heard that the levees were breaking and that was accounting for the flooding. One simply offers more information than the next. Is one incorrect? Water did flood New Orleans from coming over the levees, but most came from the breakage. One source simply had more firsthand experience and knowledge. I dont see the contradiction that one author had more information than the other.

    Ommisions, these passages contain, but contradictions are not present.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We're left then with other questions. Who witnessed the event? Was it God alone, and he later gave the information of Judas' suicide to the apostles? If so, how did the two accounts diverge? Did the apostles gather bits of data from others who found Judas' body and then apply some crude forensic reasoning? Why did an omniscient and omnipotent God allow two such contradictions to appear in what was to be a Holy work, knowing it would cause us to question it?


 We dont really know, thats true. However, questions of "Why" are a whole different discussion. Possibly, and I mean possibly, he expected us to be intellegent enough to understand that the books were written by different people who would have had different experiences and different views, angles, and understandings of events. However, questions of 'why" raise a whole other debate. 

 I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology. :wink:

 EDIT: I would however, love to see your points and views on the other contradiction you mentioned.

    7sm


----------



## mantis (Oct 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We dont really know, thats true. However, questions of "Why" are a whole different discussion. Possibly, and I mean possibly, he expected us to be intellegent enough to understand that the books were written by different people who would have had different experiences and different views, angles, and understandings of events. However, questions of 'why" raise a whole other debate.


 im missing something, who do you mean by "he" in "he expected us to be intellegent.."?


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 6, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> im missing something, who do you mean by "he" in "he expected us to be intellegent.."?


 "god" or "God". HHJH asked why would God allow that. I was offering a suggestion.


----------



## mantis (Oct 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> "god" or "God". HHJH asked why would God allow that. I was offering a suggestion.


 Oh, i see..
 i was just wondering but there's lots of thoughts and questions present in this thread, and im trying to keep up with you guys and understand what's going on.
 well.. how about God would send a prophet after this event that explains what happened in previous events?
 Sometimes in religion there is information that does not increase or decrease your faith, and it doesnt have any impact on your life or your religion, and i think Juda's death could be, to some people, from that kind of information..
 like for me, if im to believe or disbelieve in God this matter wouldnt at all depend on knowing what went with that particular event... please correct me if im not yet on the right track with this thread


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> It says it in my posting. (I know you want a biblical ref). But you know that Matthew 27:5 says he hung himself; and that Acts 1:18 says he fell headlong, he ripped open his abdomen and his guts burst out.
> I hope I didn't insult you too badly. Personally, I'm not an inerrantist. I know that there are difficult passages in the bible as well as other writings that I hold sacred.



Nah, you didn't insult me at all.  I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it.  When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.

7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions.  Where then, is the evidence of the omission?  There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative.  If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it.  So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Nah, you didn't insult me at all. I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it. When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.
> 
> 7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions. Where then, is the evidence of the omission? There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative. If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it. So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."
> 
> ...


 no.. if there are omissions then shame on the poeple who omitted parts of it. God is not the one who omitted. you say for allowing it? is it His fault that people commit all kinds of crimes? He has forbidden those crimes, but people still make them. Now, think if God is to stop each crime right when it happens or before it happens then what is the purpose of this life?!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 6, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> no.. if there are omissions then shame on the poeple who omitted parts of it. God is not the one who omitted. you say for allowing it? is it His fault that people commit all kinds of crimes? He has forbidden those crimes, but people still make them. Now, think if God is to stop each crime right when it happens or before it happens then what is the purpose of this life?!




If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness.  If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages.  Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  

If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error.  If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation.  Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.  

Here's another question:  Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples following his resurrection?

Question number two:  How long does God's anger last?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness. If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages. Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
> 
> If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation. Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.
> 
> ...


 i'll tell you what i personally believe what the bible is:
 I believe it was at some point the words of God sent to Jesus to reveal and explain to people. for political reasons, and due to the public ignorance, priests took advantage of people and changed some passages, and hid some other to suit their greed, and to develop more power over the common people, until this current Bible developed and became a mixtrue of true and untrue words and passages where the untrue parts are far more than the true ones.  I do not imagine the Bible to be Peter saying commentaries about Jesus, but I imagine the "real bible" to be words from God to people with laws and facts concerning their life, and what's after their death, and even what's between.
 as far as where did Jesus appear, I do not know about that. 
 and your last question is: how long does God's anger persist? until people are punished exactly for what they have done, fairly with no addition or subtraction. 
 that would be what I think..


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be ...


 Oh, i forgot to comment on that one!
 I do not believe that the bible is inerrant. the bible has much mistakes and contradictions as any book you can pick up at your local bookstore, if not more. I believe the Bible contradicts from the major creed issues to the finest little details
 I hope im not offending anybody. This is not my intention to do so, and if I do i apologize for that, and please feel free to point that out to me!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2005)

Anyone got an opinion on the Q hypothesis? I'm no expert, but the argument for Q plus Markan priority that I red was pretty convincing to me.


----------



## Raewyn (Oct 7, 2005)

Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?

I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!

I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Question number two: How long does God's anger last?





			
				mantis said:
			
		

> how long does God's anger persist? until people are punished exactly for what they have done, fairly with no addition or subtraction


i have to laugh when i read this.......it takes me wayyyyyyy back to the old testament and the book of job.
im not going to bother quoting the pertinent parts......i would rather people read it if they never have, or those that have, read it and refresh your memory of how the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god treats his most loyal servants.
im particularly fond of chapters 38-41, which i call "god's rant", in which he states how magnificent and all powerful he is, and how dare job question him for anything he does.

...the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, blessed be the lord - job 1:21


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 7, 2005)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? *Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in* or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?
> 
> I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!
> 
> I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!


DING DING DING!!!!


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 7, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> tradrockrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And that's a falacy. The rules of Kashrut as they related to foods are immensly more complex than that. But with regards to meat and fish, it's not just pork, but all animals that don't BOTH chew their cud and have split hooves. Pork is often singled out because it is a common farm animal, but it also excludes animals like rabbit and horse. Fish needs to have both fins and scales. While it excludes shellfish and catfish, it also excludes perfectly safe fish like shark. The health reasons are recent attempts to justify those Torah rules.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 7, 2005)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?
> 
> I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!
> 
> I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!


No offense taken, there is a reason there are so many splits in the church!

why is a verse interpreted in so many ways? There are a couple of reasons for that.

1) Understanding of the language and culture can cause problems. Things translated into English can cause difficulties, and the Western mind seems to emphasise things differently.

2) Out of context. You can't take isolated verses and try to build a strong case for doctrine. Try reading around the verse in question! What were they trying to say as a whole?

3) Someone has a purpose and tries to instill it. Someone has a problem with speaking in tongues, they will try to find verses that they think are against it and preach/teach those. Someone thinks speaking in tongues is great, they find verses to support that too. Sometimes its important, but more often than not, its not worth the heart ache. For instance, free will vs predetermination. Does it make a real difference in "application" of christianity? not really! But churches have split over the fine points of this doctrine. Kind of silly.

4) you make the point of perhaps not understanding some things because you are not a believer. For some things, thats going to be the case, I think... there is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. Just my opinion though 

I think two people who are clearly christians can disagree over things even when trying their best. Divisions in the church have been happening since Christ left. It does not look like it will change any time soon. I often wonder what Christ would think about the church these days... if he were to visit most of the churches these days, would he feel comfortable or think its done "right"?

Hope it was a little bit helpful...

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 7Star suggests that there are omissions, and not contradictions. Where then, is the evidence of the omission? There is none to be had in this case, and the omission is purely speculative. If there were an omission-and we have no reason to believe there is-then shame on God for allowing it. So too with Biblical errors, which are explained away by "translation problems."


 :idunno: I'm confused. Evidence of the omission? Um...the post you made about Judas' death. You posted what you belived to be a contradiction in two stories about his death, I simply stated that what you had shown was an ommision from one story to the next, not a contradiction. One author didn't have or write the full details...just like the example I gave about Katrina...you did actually read my whole post didn't you? 

 So now your proof of biblical error is your own "shame on God" opinion? Um...I'm really not sure how to address this....your now saying its wrong for God to have allowed the author of these books to write their stories in the way that their experience and background/personalities would allow? Would you expect a thesis written by a graduate student in Law to contain the same facts and completeness that the same thesis written by a high school dropout who learned the trade of, say fishing would contain? Its simply the same story told by different people who may have seen less or more than the other person. I must say, if these are your core basis for biblical contradiction, it seems your "grasping at straws".



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If the Bible is inerrant then there ought not be omissions that would be construed as errors and lead to such divisiveness. If it is a perfect and Holy text inspired by God and penned by his chosen apostles, kings and prophets, then there would be no omissions and no questionable passages. Everything would jibe and be perfectly clear, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


 Now your addressing the meaning of inerrant from your own opinions about what "ought" to be allowed. Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error. Now your saying for somethin to be correct it must be "perfectly clear"? Thats pretty subjective isn't it? I mean, clear to whom? Is physics clear to everyone? Is physics true?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation. Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.


 Well, for one your assuming and labeling authors experiences and writings as errors. Secondly, your assuming an "error" (by your definition) would turn millions away from him. Thirdly, your assuming God (if omniscient) would deal with something the way you think it should be dealt with.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Here's another question:  Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples following his resurrection?
> 
> Question number two: How long does God's anger last?


 Personally, I would much rather you just lay out your contradictions, then wait for answers from different people...it almost seems your trying to "trap" someone with something. Just my opinion though.

    7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 7, 2005)

7Star wrote:

*I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology.* 


The topic is the Bible.  We can use speculation freely to determine our confidence in the historical veracity of Biblical accounts.  As it is, I find it questionable that Roman guards would take a valuable (by Biblical accounts) robe and drape it on a man drenched in blood (as determined by speculation based on our historical knowledge of Roman traditions of flogging), thereby ruining the cloak.  

And it leaves us with the question, 7Star, if the Bible is inerrant and non-contradictory, WHY does it say in one account that the robe was purple and in the other red?

Speculation:  One author liked the image of the color purple because it is the Imperial Roman color of royalty.  Purple robes in Biblical times, as I've said, were very expensive.  To signify Jesus's descent from David, the author chose purple over other accounts of the robe being red.

Speculation:  By the time the author heard oral accounts of the story, it had been changed.

Speculation:  By the time the author read a now long lost account of the death of Jesus, the robe's color had been changed to purple.


We can take any one of these speculative hypotheses and run with them as far as we like.  Proving them is likely impossible.  However each of them stands a far better chance in the court of reason than saying something along the lines of "Well, the Bible is NEVER in error nor does it contain any contradictions, ergo there is an omission that would solve this non-dilemma."  

Only the credulous mind can accept the latter explanation.  The rational mind can not.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Ive just spent an hour reading through all these post's. Im just trying to figure out why one passage or verse or whatever from the bible can be interpreted in so many different ways??? Why can people read a verse from the bible and get so many different meanings from it??? Is it because we interperet it to suit our selves and what we believe in or is it because I dont have faith and am a non believer and I dont understand it?
> 
> I can now understand why religion is the cause of so many wars!
> 
> I dont mean this post to be offensive, Im just trying to understand things!


 well i think people have the tendency to get rid of the "burden" exposed by religious rules and regulations and since there is no solid ruling suggested by teh bible people do choose what they want, and they hear things the way they want. it's like going to home depot, you select what you like, and you leave what you dont! and afterall you still claim to be a man of faith, and still claim religiousness


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 7Star wrote:
> 
> *I dont think the questions of why a robe's owner would allow his robe to be used in such an event is really a major basis of biblical theology.*
> 
> ...


 You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And it leaves us with the question, 7Star, if the Bible is inerrant and non-contradictory, WHY does it say in one account that the robe was purple and in the other red?


 Would you have the passages that contradict each other in this instance?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We can take any one of these speculative hypotheses and run with them as far as we like. Proving them is likely impossible. However each of them stands a far better chance in the court of reason than saying something along the lines of "Well, the Bible is NEVER in error nor does it contain any contradictions, ergo there is an omission that would solve this non-dilemma."


 Ok, without basis of truth and reason, your correct...any speculation is viable. To say that because the topic is the bible your willing to accept speculation for truth is, in my opinion, a flaw in your willingness to seek truth.

 OK, for the last time, please stop misquoting me to fulfill your wisguided opinions about the bible, christians, or me. I'm simply offering truth and reason to a topic you are not willing to allow truth and reason to be considered. I did not say there was an ommision that explained anything....re-read my posts. What I _did_ say was that your supposed contradiction in the story of Judas' death was nothing more than one story having ommitted certain details that another provided. I didn't say there was some magical ommision floating in neverneverland that explained anything. You not willing to listen to anything that seperates my arguments from your box you have tried to put it in. You have what you think I'm saying, and refuse to listen to anything else.

 7sm


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed.
> 
> Would you have the passages that contradict each other in this instance?
> 
> ...


 just a friendly suggestion..
 it seems both of you guys are going in circles and not really giving ear to what the other is saying..
 although it seems to me that you guys agree more than disagree but you want to argue anyway!
 i think both of you are being logical in suggesting ideas, but being highly unreasonable in listening to the other's logic.
 why dont you guys start over using clear straight and concise phrases
 (or fight jk)
 OR.. you can just nevermind my suggestion


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 7, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm confused. Evidence of the omission?



One could cite extra-biblical texts that support evidence of an omission.  In this case, none exist.  

The two stories are SO different that your supposition of an omission simply doesn't carry water.  It is far easier to believe that the two stories are two totally different accounts circulating through Christian communities in the late 1st and early 2nd century.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error. Now your saying for somethin to be correct it must be "perfectly clear"?



When the future of billions of souls hang in the balance, one would think so.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Well, for one your assuming and labeling authors experiences and writings as errors. Secondly, your assuming an "error" (by your definition) would turn millions away from him. Thirdly, your assuming God (if omniscient) would deal with something the way you think it should be dealt with.



I'm assuming they're errors, yes.  A hare does not chew its cud, and a bat is not a bird (both Duteuronomy 14...see also Leviticus).  The value of _pi_  isn't 3 (1 Kings 7:23  and 2 Chronicles 4:2).  For this latter value I task the Bible with the accuracy my high school geometry teacher demanded...and I won't accept "rounding off."

I'm not assuming anything in regards to millions turning away from scripture.  Atheism rates in this country have doubled in the last twenty years or so.  Roughly 14% of the American population are non-believers.  I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10), or dragons and giants and talking donkeys (I'm not making that up...the Bible has a talking donkey...but no green trolls with Scots accents that I know of).  But I digress...as I'm moving from errors and contradictions to the realm of biblical absurdities.

And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves.  We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part.  We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women.  This is moral relativism at its worst.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Personally, I would much rather you just lay out your contradictions, then wait for answers from different people...it almost seems your trying to "trap" someone with something. Just my opinion though.



I'm trying to chunk it out by offering two at a time (with the exceptions above).  There are hundreds of these contradictions and errors.  

Am I chumming the waters?  Sure.  But if the Bible is inerrant, and there are no contradictions, then no trap can be laid.  You should have no difficulty here, nor should anybody else desiring to refute what I write.

For those here interested in a ready reference for these attributions, check Biblegateway.com or look up the Blue Letter Bible.  Both are handy resources if you don't have a Bible at hand.

Note too that different Bibles have different translations.  The NIV will not read the same as the NRSV or the King James.  At times the differences are significant...and that too makes for contradictions.

Further note:  My kid's future in-laws are coming in to town tomorrow.  If you don't hear from me for awhile, that'll be why.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 7, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> And that's a falacy. The rules of Kashrut as they related to foods are immensly more complex than that. But with regards to meat and fish, it's not just pork, but all animals that don't BOTH chew their cud and have split hooves. Pork is often singled out because it is a common farm animal, but it also excludes animals like rabbit and horse. Fish needs to have both fins and scales. While it excludes shellfish and catfish, it also excludes perfectly safe fish like shark. The health reasons are recent attempts to justify those Torah rules.


Perhaps the health reasons are recent attempts to justify the rules, perhaps not.  I singled out pork because that was mentioned in the post to which I was replying.  Personally, I don't keep kosher and I find it laughable when people say they do but will order in seafood or Chinese and eat it on paper plates in their kosher homes or they go out for dinner and order the same.  The same way that the rules seem to be adapted to modern life by attempting to justify not eating pig for health reasons, these people seem to have adapted them to suit their mood.  Just pointing it out.  I believe what I believe and do not try to impose it upon others.

Which brings me to Mantis.  If G-d gave the words of the Bible to Jesus, how do you explain the Old Testament?


----------



## Marginal (Oct 7, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You have got to be kidding me. Because the topic is the bible we are free to abandon reasonable truth and logical arguments and run rampant with speculations? It seems your mind is made up before starting. You have created an enclosed area for discussion of things you do not believe to be accurate, where truth and reason are no longer needed.


I think that was established with "The Bible is the only source I want people to discuss. Since the Bible discredits historical context, it cannot be used."

Demented way to play devil's advocate.


----------



## Ray (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Nah, you didn't insult me at all. I appreciate being able to refute the attempt to harmonize it. When I say it insults the intelligence, it does so in such a way that a thinking person isn't comfortable with that incredible leap of speculation...and hence rejects it.


You imply that because I am believer in God and His son Jesus Christ that I am not a thinking person?

I made no incredible leap of speculation, nor did I attempt to harmonize the writings.  I made the mistake of believing that you really wanted the answer to that question.

I don't believe that you rejected it for the reasons cited, you don't believe it because it doesn't fit in with your bias that there is no God and that anything or anyone who does is wrong.


----------



## Ray (Oct 7, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If the authors made mistakes, then the Bible is in error. If God permitted them to make mistakes, thereby turning millions who note the errors away from him, then He is responsible for their damnation.


Each of us is responsible for what we do with the knowledge that we have.  


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Further, if God is omniscient, he would have anticipated all these difficulties and dealt with it.


Why do you think that?  If he wanted us to all know that he existed, he would just appear to us all and prove that he is who he says he is.  Maybe he'd like us to walk by faith.

I have anticipated some difficulties that my own children would face as they grew up, I let them face their difficulties as part of the growing and learning process.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Question number two: How long does God's anger last?


"Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to."


----------



## Ray (Oct 7, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> I think that was established with "The Bible is the only source I want people to discuss. Since the Bible discredits historical context, it cannot be used."


Darned irritating when people don't want to use your particular system of belief.  You see that from those who believe deeply in Greek Logic as well as those who believe in religious systems.  Of course both kinds of people stammer and say "but it's true."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 8, 2005)

> I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10), or dragons and giants and talking donkeys (I'm not making that up...the Bible has a talking donkey...but no green trolls with Scots accents that I know of). But I digress...as I'm moving from errors and contradictions to the realm of biblical absurdities.


From Bible Gateway (NIV version): 

Numbers 23:22 -  God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox.

Numbers 24:8 - God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. They devour hostile nations and break their bones in pieces; with their arrows they pierce them

Psalms 92:10 - You have exalted my horn like that of a wild ox; fine oils have been poured upon me. 

Job 39: - Will the wild ox consent to serve you? Will he stay by your manger at night? 

I'm not sure where it says anything about unicorns.  No references given for dragons and talking donkeys, so I can't look them up.


And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves. We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part. We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women. This is moral relativism at its worst.

Going into this would require a lot of context and cross-referencing.  Let me say this (and I'm sure I'll get one of those "Logical Fallacy: Yada-Yada" responses): who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God. 




> Am I chumming the waters? Sure. But if the Bible is inerrant, and there are no contradictions, then no trap can be laid. You should have no difficulty here, nor should anybody else desiring to refute what I write.


One must understand, that when reading any book, the cultural and historical context must be taken into account.  This does not necessarily imply contradictions.

Also, in regards to the purple vs. red debate.  I would refer you to the fact that two people can see the same event and "see" different things.  Being a police officer, it is something that I routinely see.  However, neither is necessarily wrong, just different.


----------



## Ray (Oct 8, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where it says anything about unicorns. No references given for dragons and talking donkeys, so I can't look them up.


The quotes that you ref re the wild ox are translated as "unicorn" in the KJV. I figured that a one-horned animal might have been a rhino instead of a wild ox.

Yes, in the OT there is an account of an angel speaking through a donkey. I'll find it and post the ref to it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 8, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Why do you think that?  If he wanted us to all know that he existed, he would just appear to us all and prove that he is who he says he is.  Maybe he'd like us to walk by faith.



Fair enough, Ray...but that is not what many inerrantists claim.  In support of the Bible they state that it is historically and scientifically accurate.  They don't make an appeal to faith, but certitude.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> "Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to."



Its in the Bible Ray.  The answers are there and are very clearly stated.  That's why I asked the question.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> From Bible Gateway (NIV version):
> 
> Numbers 23:22 - God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox.



From Bible Gateway (King James version):

Numbers 23:22 -God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

And that Bible version is the one that exists in a majority of hotel rooms across the United States.  If you accept the NIV version, you're admitting to an error and absurdity in the KJV and exposing a contradiction.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God.



You're right...it would indeed invite a claim of it being a logical fallacy.  Argumentum ad vercundiam.  You're making an appeal to authority.  Further, you're doing it in the face of horrific and despicable acts, thus defending them.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> One must understand, that when reading any book, the cultural and historical context must be taken into account.



Again, this is moral relativism, and abandons any universal concept of good and bad.  



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> Also, in regards to the purple vs. red debate. I would refer you to the fact that two people can see the same event and "see" different things. Being a police officer, it is something that I routinely see. However, neither is necessarily wrong, just different.



On the contrary, one is clearly wrong.  If two witnesses have different accounts that contradict each other's, and later one of the accounts is verified by a video tape, then clearly one was mistaken...or lying.  The contradiction exists regardless, whether it is born of a perceptual error or a lie, it still exists.  The robe can not be purple and red at the same time.  

Let's look at Robert Ingersoll's view of how we might perceive a Holy book that would carry such import for humanity.  Ingersoll wrote that a book conceived by an omniscient and omnipotent and perfect Deity would most certainly meet the following criteria:

_It should be a book that no man--or number of men--could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, 
perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.  

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy, and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and supersition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It should be true._





Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 8, 2005)

This is a _long_ post, so be forewarned...

1) I should point out right now that what fundamentalists (i.e., "born again Christians") do and do not believe is of little consequence to this discussion. Self-confirming biases based on circular reasoning (i.e., "the Bible proclaims itself to be the inerrant Word of God and, therefore, it can never be wrong about anything" or "our tradition states Rome was not a focal point in Christian history and, therefore, it is not") is not an adequate logical defense to the issues we are bringing up. The lack of willingness on the part of some sectors of the population to honestly and critically approach these moral, historical, and theological issues is not of concern to me.

2) My account of Paul's epistemology is not, strictly speaking, 'extra-Biblical'. He explicitly distinguishes between different levels --- 'sarkic', 'psychic', and 'pneumatic' --- of Christian in his non-Pastoral letters:

"The _psychic_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _pneumatically_ discerned, but the _pneumatic_ discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)

"And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as _pneumatics_, but as to _sarkics_ --- as to those uninitiated in Christ. I fed you milk, not meat, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now. You are still _sarkic_. For where there is strife and envy among you, are you not _sarkic_? Are you not acting like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3) 

"Therefore let us leave behind the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to another level of initiation (_ten teleioteta_), not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's Word (_Logos_) and the powers of the coming age, to have fallen back to renew repentance again.  They re-crucify for themselves the Son of God." (Hebrews 6:1-6)

... On a side note, does anyone else find it _interesting_ that Paul refers to 'repentance', 'faith in God', 'instruction about baptisms', 'laying on of hands', 'resurrection of the dead, and 'eternal judgment' as 'elementary teachings' that are to be left behind?? And, furthermore, that those that do so he describes as 'enlightened'??

2) According to T. Freke and P. Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, "All Paul's terms for _mature_ or _perfect_ Christians are variations on the Greek _telete_ --- 'initiation'. 'Mature' is _teleion_, 'to the level of maturity' is _ten teleioteta_, 'the perfect man' is _andra teleoin_, 'the imperfect man' is _ateles_." 

3) Regardless of what was or was not expounded in Hellenistic Judaism, it should be remembered that the terminology Paul uses in Point 1 is explicitly Platonic and Pythagorean in origin. Plato famously expounded on the 'three classes' of mankind in The Republic. Philo (circa 15 CE) adopted this schema for his philosophy, classifying three orders of men --- Earth-born, Heaven-born, and God-born: "But the men of God [...] have risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible and dwell there registered as freemen of the commonwealth of Ideas (_ideon politeia_) which are imperishable and incorporeal" (On the Giants).

4) Once again, I do not subscribe to the theory that 'might makes right'. Ergo, the fact that the literalist school condemned and murdered their opponents is not, in my opinion, a solid ground for proclaiming who is or is not 'Christian'. This would be like saying that, at the next Republican National Convention, a faction of the Republicans arm themselves and murder everyone that disagrees with them --- and then go on to rewrite history 100 years later saying all those others were simply Republican 'heretics' or merely Repulicanological. It absolutely screams of self-confirming bias and historical revisionism.

Of course, you _could_ attempt to demonstrate the literalists are the earliest 'Christian' school, but there are no clear-cut literalists before Justin Martyr. That puts him in the same time-frame as Marcion and Valentinus (roughly the middle of the 2nd century), both of which claimed predecessors _outside_ of Rome (i.e., Theudas, a purported disciple of Paul).

Ergo, my position on the issue is quite simple: I refuse to take sides in the sectarian squabbling and dogmatic bickering. I'm not going to say the Catholics or Gnostics aren't 'Christian' any more than I'm going to say the Theravadins aren't 'Buddhist'. I look at it as a historical and cultural phenomenon, with a myriad of expressions and offshoots --- some, admittedly, more noble than others.

5) Regardless of what modern-day fundamentalists may like the believe about their transmitted history (a good deal of which is flat-out lies), Christian literalism (as represented by, say, Justin or Irenaeus) is virtually _non-existent_ outside of Rome prior to the 3rd century. Various 'gnostic' or 'docetic' schools, by contrast, are extremely prevalent throughout the Mediterranean.

According to E. Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  the Gnostic sects "covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces of the West". In addition, "For the most part they [the Gnostics] arose in the second century, flourished during the third, and were suppressed in the fourth or fifth centuries by the prevalence of more fashionable controversies". R. Doran in The Birth of a Worldview, states we must understand "how flexible the appellation Christian was in Rome in the second century".

In Jesus and the Lost Goddess, T. Freke and P. Gandy put it like this: "Christian Literalism was initially a minor school of Christianity which developed in Rome towards the end of the second century. By this time Christian Gnosticism was an international movement which had spread throughout much of the Mediterranean, flourishing in cosmopolitan cities such as Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome".

They continue: 

"In Egypt the first Christians we hear of are the Gnostics Valentinus, Basilides, Apelles, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes. There is no sign of any form of Christianity which resembles Roman Catholicism in Egypt until Bishop Demetrius at the end of the third century. In Antioch the Gnostics Saturninus, Cerdo and Menander had established schools at the beginning of the second century. The Literalist Justin Martyr regrets that in Edessa, eastern Syria, to be a Christian means to be a follower of Marcion. _The Chronicle of Edessa_ notes the birth of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani before it mentions Roman Christianity. Even Rome itself was full of different schools of Christian Gnosticism, such as the Marcellites, Marcionites, Archonites, Valentinians, Sethians, Barbeloites, Montanists, and Ophites.

Literalists complained that in Persia all Christians were members of the Marcionite school of Christian Gnosticism. Tertullian [circa 200 CE] bemoaned the fact that Marcion's followers filled 'the whole universe'. At the beginning of the third century the Christian Gnostic sage Bardesanes initiated into his school a Syrian ruler who made Christian Gnosticism the official state cult. The forged _Second Letter To Timothy_ has its phony Literalist Paul complain, 'All Asia has turned against me', which tells us that in the late second century 'all Asia' was dominated by Gnostic Christianity. _The Epistle Of Polycarp_ laments that 'the great majority' of Christians embrace the idea of Jesus not existing in the flesh."

Occam's Razor tell us the simplest explanation is usually strongest one. So, which is more parsimonious here: that the original, true 'Christianity' was so distorted and modified on such a _wide scale_ less than a generation after the deaths of its supposed founders --- or, that various forms of 'Christianity' existed almost from the beginning??

6) The origins of the term _christiani_ are a bit more interesting than presupposed:

"We are told in the Book of Acts that the name of the _Christiani_ was first given at Antioch; but so late as the year 200 A.D. no canonical New Testament was known at Antioch, the alleged birth-place of the Christian name. There was no special reason why 'the disciples' should have been named as Christians at Antioch, except that this was a great centre of the Gnostic Christians, who were previously identified with the teachings and works of the mage Simon of Samaria." (Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythic Christ)

7) Regardless of what modern-day Christian literalists may or may not wish to believe, whenever the 'Old Testament' is quoted by Jesus in the Gospels or Paul in his Letters, it is _always_ the Greek Septuagint.

8) I find it interesting that when one is dealing with historically-verifiable 'facts' and empirical truths, one is being "pretty tight minded". But, when one subscribes to the circular ideology of a fundamentalist faction which itself rests almost exclusively on Appeals To Authority, then one apparently sees "the truth".

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

9) As for Paul's position concerning a non-physical and non-historical 'resurrection', I think he makes his thoughts pretty clear:

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable". (1 Corinthians 15:50)

"This is it: the duly appointed time! This is it: the day of salvation." (2 Corinthians 6:2)

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions --- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-7)

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin --- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)

"I have become [the church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you God's Word (_Logos_) in its fullness --- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:25-27)

"But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11)

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:10-11)

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Galatians 2:20)

Interesting, no??

Mythologist Joseph Campbell interpreted such language this way: "It lies in the nature of the mystery cult that the _mystae_ undergo the same experience as their god, that, as St. Paul says, they die with him, are buried with him, are reborn with him, and are resurrected with him" (Occidental Mythology).

10) As for the claim that there are no internal contradictions in the Bible, in addition to the discrepancies Steve has already brought up, I always quite liked the glaring inconsistency of the authentic Paul of Galatians compared to the forged Paul of the Pastorals:

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them. (Titus 2:9)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing --- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.(1 Timothy 2:11-15)

Slaves and women are screwed, I guess, unless you read:

You are all sons of God though your faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

So, then, which is it?? Are we all one in Christ?? Or, are there special rules that women and slaves in Christian communities are supposed to submit to??

11) As for the whole Logos thing, Im gonna have to go with the scholar Max Muller on this one:

Whoever uses such words as _Logos_, the Word, _Monogones_, the Only-Begotten, _Protokos_, the First-Born, _Hyiostou theou_, the Son of God, has borrowed the very germs of his religious thought from Greek philosophy.

Besides, in all honesty, its pretty naive to think previous philosophical formulations didnt have a profound influence on the author of the Gospel of John. Heraclitus (6th century BCE) wrote that, Having hearkened not unto me, but unto the Logos, it is wise to confess that all things are One (C. H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus). Vitruvius (circa 25 BCE) wrote, Let no one think I have erred if I believe in the Logos (De Architectura). The Church father Clement of Alexandria commented that, It may be freely granted that the Greeks received some glimmers of the divine Logos. Clement supports this assertion by quoting the legendary Orpheus: Behold the Logos divine. Tread well the narrow path of life and gaze on Him, the worlds great ruler, our immortal king. Of course, the basic idea of the Logos is quite old, preceding Greek philosophy by centuries. In the Egyptian Pyramid Texts of Saqqara, the world is created by and through words. This is associated with the ancient Egyptian god Ptah, who is portrayed as creating existence through speaking (much like Elohim in Genesis).  

The association of the Logos as the Son of God is very well-established in Hellenistic literature. Book 1.5 of The Hermetica states: My calming Word is the Son of God. Later, Book 1.6 continues: The light-giving Word who comes from Mind is the Son of God. Heraclitus, again, wrote that: Father and the Son are the same. The early Christian Hippolytus (circa 210 CE) said of Heraclitus, Everyone knows he said that the Father and the Son are the same, supposedly as a prefigurement to later Christian doctrine. Clement of Alexandria admitted that Euripides (5th century BCE) had, divined as in a riddle that the Father and Son are one God. Plutarch (circa 100 CE), in Isis and Osiris, wrote that Osiris is the Logos itself, transcendent and impassible.

Even the great literalist, Augustine of Hippo, wrote of pagan philosophy:

I read there that God the Word was born not of flesh and blood, nor of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God (Confessions).

And this isnt even getting into Philo Judaeus (circa 15 CE), the Pythagorean Jew that probably had the most influence on the author of Johns Gospel.  According to W. R. Inges Christian Mysticism, Philo describes the Logos as the only and beloved Son of God and himself writes: And many names belong to the Logos, for he is called the Name of God, and the Man after his image.

So, in summation, the view that the Johannine Logos is somehow separate from or magically independent of Hellenistic religious philosophy is nothing short of complete hogwash --- in all likelihood, another manifestation of the self-confirming Appeal To Authority that so much of orthodox Christian history rests on. As such, an ignorance of such a historical, cultural, and philosophical context while reading and examining the Gospel of John lead to distortions and misperceptions of meaning.

12) An appeal to Trinitarian doctrine is cute when speaking about the Logos but, seriously, lets get real here. The first _glimmer_ of anything even resembling the Trinity is the Gnostic leader Valentinus around 160 CE. The actual formulation of the Trinity doctrine as we have it now was a product of the Council of Niceaea in 330 CE. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to sometime between 100 to 120 CE. So, while its amusing to retroactively project later dogma into literature that in no way had it in mind, it reeks of historical revisionism and self-confirming bias. Again.

Yeah, I think that about settles things. Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 8, 2005)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> who are we to understand a being as powerful and knowing as God


thats the same thing god said to Job.......lol


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 8, 2005)

I think we ought to use THIS for future reference, guys:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

This, in particular, is my favorite portion.  What do you think of this as a guide to traditional marrigae? :

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_on_marriage/1co07_01-02.html

GO PAUL!!!


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Marginal (Oct 8, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Darned irritating when people don't want to use your particular system of belief.  You see that from those who believe deeply in Greek Logic as well as those who believe in religious systems.  Of course both kinds of people stammer and say "but it's true."


Greek logic's a system of belief?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 9, 2005)

Let me echo that...Greek logic a belief?  

How about the foundation of Western thought and a guide to thinking clearly?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 9, 2005)

But it's still axiomatic, and one needn't accept Aristotelian logic. That would make science very difficult to do, in my opinion, but on the other hand, who hasn't seen contradictions in things--the classic notion that a rock is hard in one sense, yet soft because water can wear it down. Yes, Greek logic handles this through finer and finer propositions. But Oriental logic (slightly parodied here) would say that the thing is simultaneously both, and accept that.

I'm not advocating eitehr view, but yes, logic is something we accept as a fundamental way of doing business--a belief.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 9, 2005)

'Logic' is a belief in the same way that language is a belief, eyesight is a belief, hearing is a belief, or feeling is a belief.

It is, very simply, a way of acquiring and analyzing information about the world. This doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions gathered from said way are going to be accurate, mind you --- but, in this respect, it is no different from faculties like eyesight, smell, emotion, or language.

A _belief_ would be something very specific and connotative; like, say, it is rational to believe God exists or it is rational to believe all cats are mammals. Just to throw some examples out there.

But 'logic' in and of itself, however, is a very natural faculty to any well-adjusted adult that is capable of formal-operational thinking. It is nothing more than the ability to postulate third-person hypothetical scenarios ("if/then" statements).

This is not a 'Greek' or 'Western' thing, as we see examples of such thought throughout Eastern literature and philosophy. The excerpt from the _Kalama Sutra_ that I quoted earlier is one such example --- in which the author, believed to be Siddartha Gautama, very adamantly refutes Appeals to Authority, Tradition, and Popularity.

Likewise, neither is the 'non-dual' thinking present in Zen or Taoist literature a specifically 'Eastern' thing. If you doubt this, try reading up on a little Plotinus, Meister Eckhart, or John of the Cross sometime.

In my opinion, people often have a tendency to collapse specific cultural beliefs with the thinking or reasoning _underlying_ those beliefs. The former is culturally relative, the latter is not.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Which brings me to Mantis.  If G-d gave the words of the Bible to Jesus, how do you explain the Old Testament?


 Sir,
 the 'Torah'?
 it was also the words of God given to his prophet Moses
 there were more than one book given to more than one prophet. like Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as well.


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

i found this site
it looks pretty good
although it's not 100% accurate, but close enoough
maybe it helps you guys in the discussion
it has more than one comparison page:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_judaism.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_islam.htm


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i have to laugh when i read this.......it takes me wayyyyyyy back to the old testament and the book of job.
> im not going to bother quoting the pertinent parts......i would rather people read it if they never have, or those that have, read it and refresh your memory of how the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god treats his most loyal servants.
> im particularly fond of chapters 38-41, which i call "god's rant", in which he states how magnificent and all powerful he is, and how dare job question him for anything he does.
> 
> ...the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, blessed be the lord - job 1:21


 well..
 first of all in other religions this story is different.
 in other faiths Job did not complain, and did not object the will of God. and this whole deal of his sickness was just a test for him. so this is not "really" God's anger.
 second, i dont see a reason why you would "have to laugh"!
 thirdly, please do quote what you have. we're here to learn in the first place. 
 4th, God's anger involves wiping civilization leaving them ruins for us to see and consider. Small earthquakes, hurricanes and things like that are mere wake up calls.
 thanks


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 9, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> Sir,
> the 'Torah'?
> it was also the words of God given to his prophet Moses
> there were more than one book given to more than one prophet. like Abraham, David, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as well.


I don't recall ever reading where Abraham or David receiving *a book* of the Bible from G-d.  The _word_ of G-d, yes.  There are books in the "Jewish bible" which recount the stories of Abraham and David, among others.  And, by the by, it's Ma'am, not Sir. 

Herry - here's one for you.  The doctrine of Israel's messianic redemption is connected with the doctrine of resurrection:  "I will open your graves and bring you out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12) and "Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise;  awake and sing, you who lie in the dust"  (Isaiah 26:19)  Ezekiel's prediction pertains to the dead nation coming to life again.  He describes a vision where he is transported into a valley full of dry bones.  As he prophesies to them they come together into complete skeletons, which become covered with flesh.  Then the wind blows upon the inanimate bodies and they come to life, referring to the revival of the dead nation, of which the exiles seem to be the scattered remains.  During the Second Commonwealth, the belief in the resurrection of the body, in contradistinction to to the immortality of the soul, became a fundamental doctrine of the Pharisees -- they held that the soul and the body would, in a future world, be reunited, reconstituting the original persons, who would stand in judgment before G-d and receive reward or punishment according to his good or bad conduct during life.  According to talmudic-midrashic statements, the righteous buried in other lands will roll through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz (trans:  The Land, or Israel), where G-d will breathe a spirit of life into them and they will arise (Kethubboth 11a.)

So:
1)  Could it be that the belief in the resurrection of Christ was extrapolated from this concept?  It would seem so upon casual examination.
2)  If the righteous are rolling through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz, what, exactly, might one interpret those to be?  Hell?

I await your take on this.  KT


----------



## mantis (Oct 9, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever reading where Abraham or David receiving *a book* of the Bible from G-d.  The _word_ of G-d, yes.  There are books in the "Jewish bible" which recount the stories of Abraham and David, among others.  And, by the by, it's Ma'am, not Sir.


 i do apologize for that
 i stupidly thought that the chances of a "tiger" being a male is more than being a female. sorry ma'am.
 then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
 Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
 regards,


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 9, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> One could cite extra-biblical texts that support evidence of an omission. In this case, none exist.


 *sigh* Your still not reading my posts with any intent to understand them. Once again I didn't say there was an ommision that "fixed" the contradiction, what I said was the contradiction was not a contradiction but an ommision by one story. How hard is that to understand? I'm confused by why you can't grasp what I'm saying, or prefer not to grasp what I'm saying.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The two stories are SO different that your supposition of an omission simply doesn't carry water. It is far easier to believe that the two stories are two totally different accounts circulating through Christian communities in the late 1st and early 2nd century.


 Haha, you can't be serious, can you? Those two stories are SO different? I guess that all depends on your viewpoint. Plus, I offered no supposition of an ommision. How easy it is to believe something does not affect its truthfullness or factualness. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm assuming they're errors, yes. A hare does not chew its cud, and a bat is not a bird (both Duteuronomy 14...see also Leviticus). The value of _pi_ isn't 3 (1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2). For this latter value I task the Bible with the accuracy my high school geometry teacher demanded...and I won't accept "rounding off."


 Its obvious you have only read the english text of these scriptures. Thats a quick way to make yourself uncredable in this discussion. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And as far as assuming God ought to handle it the way we mortals would handle it--yes I do expect him to set an example and be precise, and clear, and fair in his dealings with the beings he supposedly loves. We should not be told to be moral, only to be confronted with examples of immoral behavior on His part. We should not be told to be compassionate, only to be confronted with a deity who is on record as having murdered (or ordered the murder) of thousands of children and the rape of young girls and women. This is moral relativism at its worst.


 Care to quote your "record"? I dont really expect you to, as I've asked this question at least three times allready with no true response. But if you would care to quote the "record" your talkingabout I'm sure we could shed some light on it. You keep misquoting things to make your point and refusing to post your sources.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Note too that different Bibles have different translations. The NIV will not read the same as the NRSV or the King James. At times the differences are significant...and that too makes for contradictions.


 Yes of course, because God come down and translated and princted all the bibles in circulation today 
  More is needed to make that point. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> From Bible Gateway (King James version):
> 
> Numbers 23:22 -God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
> 
> And that Bible version is the one that exists in a majority of hotel rooms across the United States. If you accept the NIV version, you're admitting to an error and absurdity in the KJV and exposing a contradiction.


 Yes and a "gay young man" meant the same thing 150 years ago as it does today 
 So now your having to fall to saying the contradictions are from translation to translation? God didn't claim control over translators.

  7sm


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 9, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
> Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
> regards,



Consider it checked. The Torah contains the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob amongst others, but the only book given was Torah to Moses at Sinai.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm confused by why you can't grasp what I'm saying, or prefer not to grasp what I'm saying.



7Star, I understand you perfectly.  You know that.  How many times have you pulled this tactic out in the last week or so?  You've danced and dodged around this issue--and others--a number of times now.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Haha, you can't be serious, can you? Those two stories are SO different? I guess that all depends on your viewpoint.



I'm quite serious. A fifth grader ought to be able to discern the difficulty in harmonizing the two versions with any cogency:

Matthew 27:5
"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

He not only killed himself with two different methods, he also disposed of the blood money in two separate ways.  




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Plus, I offered no supposition of an ommision.



You wrote in post #115: "Ommisions, these passages contain, but contradictions are not present."

You wrote in post #130: " I simply stated that what you had shown was an ommision from one story to the next, not a contradiction.

Again, in post #130: "Maybe you shouldn't construe an ommision as an error."




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its obvious you have only read the english text of these scriptures. Thats a quick way to make yourself uncredable in this discussion.



I have a difficult time believing you have any mastery of Latin and Greek.  You don't seem to have a passing familiarity of the Bible in any language. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Care to quote your "record"? I dont really expect you to, as I've asked this question at least three times allready with no true response. But if you would care to quote the "record" your talkingabout I'm sure we could shed some light on it. You keep misquoting things to make your point and refusing to post your sources.



The record to which I referred, 7Star, is called the Holy Bible.  

The incidents to which I referred are fairly easy to spot, regardless which language one reads them in.

And no, you have not asked me--until now--to cite "the record" to which I referred in this post (#135).  This was your first post since I wrote that.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes of course, because God come down and translated and princted all the bibles in circulation today



Sarcasm noted, indeed it drips in your posts, but it is a poor substitute for reasoned argument.  

The Bible is either inerrant, or it is not.  The Bible either contains contradictions, or it does not.  That would apply to all translations.  If God  can oversee their inspired authorship, he could see to the accuracy of their translations.  

Which of these following Bibles do you suggest is in error insofar as translation?  We have--among others--the King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the New International Version. 

You've suggested above that at least one of them is a flawed translation.  Which one?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i do apologize for that
> i stupidly thought that the chances of a "tiger" being a male is more than being a female. sorry ma'am.
> then perhaps you might wanna check with a jewish person, or a muslim person to tell you about those books (they're actually scriptures, to be precise)
> Stories are present in the jewish, christian, and muslim books regarding those prophets.
> regards,


Oy vey!  Now you're converting me.  See Canuck's post if you don't believe *me*. *Tiger sighs*

In the wisdom of all your 23 years on this Earth, I must give you points for persistence.  My younger son is your age and similarly convinced that he is correct on many levels.

[Why am I Kenpo Tiger?  In kenpo, which is a first cousin to kung fu, the tiger is the manifestation of corporeal strength, and represents the Earthly being in us all.  The dragon is the ethereal or cerebral state we all strive for in martial arts.  I choose to be recognized as the tiger since I am always learning, despite my time in in martial arts and my rank.]

So, you're stating that I should consult a Moslem about the Old Testament.  You are partially correct, since there are various anecdotal stories about Ishmael being a fallen Jew as well as Africans who believe that they are the Lost Thirteenth Tribe.  But why would I want to consult a Moslem?  True, their belief system seems to be similar to ours, but Jews don't believe in Allah as the manifestation of the Divine Being nor do we believe that there is an afterlife, as Moslems seem to.  Judaism is a religion for the living.  The Torah is our set of guidelines for life.  Indeed, when a Jew dies, the service is all about those who are still alive keeping the deceased alive:  "They still live on Earth in the acts of goodness they performed and in the hearts of those who cherish their memory.  May the G-d of peace send peace to all who mourn and comfort the bereaved among us.  Amen."  That is from the Mourners' Kaddish, the prayer said for the dead at every service I've attended in my half century on this earth.  It is said not only for one's relations who have passed on but also for the six million so that they are remembered.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 10, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 7Star, I understand you perfectly. You know that. How many times have you pulled this tactic out in the last week or so? You've danced and dodged around this issue--and others--a number of times now.


 Its funny, your serious and yet you keep refusing to actually cite what your talking about. Now I've been dancing and dodging, but you seem to have forgoten to cite what I danced or dodged around except your ambiguous use of the word "issues". What issues have I danced around? The "issue" we are tlking about is the use of the word ommission by me. You hardheadily (ironic) read one post of mine and immediately began telling me and everyone else what I meant, which was incorrect. Allow me for the last time to restate the obvious. You brought up an issue of a supposed contradiction...the fact of two differing stories of Judas' death. What I said was that there was no contradiction, but simply a fact of one person telling more of a story than another. You took that to mean that I was saying there was some ommission not in the bible that would clarify the so called contradiction. Thats not what I was saying, but that one author ommitted certain details that the next author included. The proof of the ommission is simply the very text you quoted. You seem to expect all authors of books contained in the bible to be identical in every way, not allowing for personal or educational, or experiential differences in human beings. Your bias for wanting to prove contradictions overshadows your willingness to argue in context of the christian belief system or biblical truth. You say, "Well they say god gave the word to the authors, so everyone must have used the same words". Thats not consistent with the belief system of those your arguing against. Basically your arguing against yourself. No one who believes the bible is Gods Holy word believs the way you are arguing against. No one believes the english translations to be exact verbatim transcripts of Gods words, yet you argue that point is incorrect. I agree. Your refusing to listen to my points because your so set on disproving what you _think_ is my point.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm quite serious. A fifth grader ought to be able to discern the difficulty in harmonizing the two versions with any cogency:
> 
> Matthew 27:5
> "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
> ...


 Now, I've made this point twice, both of which have been ignored, so I'll try it once again. Your attempting to disprove biblical relevence with differences in historical writings (according to the bible). I was actually expecting contradictions in Gods words (red letters) or in core principles of the teachings of the bible, not one story of a person lists more details than another. However, to address this you must look deeper than one scripture of passage. What do you know about who wrote the books of Acts? What about Matthew? Why would there be differences? 
    Ok for your 2 contradictions:
1.) Did Judas buy a field or did he throw the money in the temple?
 Ans: The first account is a detailed synopsis of what happened concerning Judas and how those things fullfilled earlier prophesies. In fact he quotes Zechariah which many think are fulfilling prophesies from Jerimiah. This story is detailed and contains very specific accounts. If you read it, after he threw the money what happened with it? They bough a field with the money and called it what?Aceldama. This means "The field of blood". 
 The second account is a "recap" of the first story, one that is widely known allready. He is speaking to believers here of a story they know well (as we can see by verse 19 saying, "Everyone had heard of this"). There is no need for extreme details, as everyone was well aware of the story he was speaking about. It would be the same as you or I saying something about 9/11 to New York Firemen, we wouldn't need to go into great detail.

2.) How did Judas Die?
 Ans: The two stories actually do not contradict, both accounts are true. The first again being very factual and precise presents the cause of death as hanging. Which is not contradicted by the later account. The Later account is being given to believers and the intent of the account of the story is to bring about a feeling of revulsion. According to tradition it would seem that Judas would have hung himself on the edge of the cliff, thus either having the rope break, be untied, or cut, causing him to fall to the rocks below. We do agree that he isn't still hanging there today, correct? Someone would have cut him down or left him there until the rope broke, yes? The story presented in Acts, never contradicts or refutes the death of Judas by hanging. So therefore, there is no contradiction.

 It seems your expecting a 5th graders understanding here. It takes more than surface knowledge in order to understand these points. Mere surface acceptance of the one passage or scripture is not a thorough study of the alleged contradiction. 
 


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have a difficult time believing you have any mastery of Latin and Greek. You don't seem to have a passing familiarity of the Bible in any language.


 I have no mastery of the Latin language, and Greek I dont know if I would claim mastery. I have studied greek for about 15 years of my life, but there are those (you may very well be one) who know it much better than I. 
 My familiarity of the bible comes from being forced to memerize (and quote on request) books of the bible in english, hebrew or greek. I'm talking about the book of Matthew, Romans, James, Proverbs, Genesis....the list goes on. If that is a passing familiarity, then I will gladly accept that as my familiarity.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The record to which I referred, 7Star, is called the Holy Bible.
> 
> The incidents to which I referred are fairly easy to spot, regardless which language one reads them in.


 And yet again, you refuse to clearly state your case. Post scriptures which show the allegations, not just simply posting, "They are easy to spot". That makes it seem as though you are not truly confident in yoru arguemnt.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Bible is either inerrant, or it is not. The Bible either contains contradictions, or it does not. That would apply to all translations. If God can oversee their inspired authorship, he could see to the accuracy of their translations.


 Again your arguing that because "god" could, he would. Thats a whole different discussion, one that I'm not interested in becoming involved in. Your holding "believers of the bible" to standards way out of reach for anyone. Because George believe in the bible, he must also believe that every translation of it by whomever is also 100% inerrant and completely accurate? Thats simply not the case, and holds no water in this discussion. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Which of these following Bibles do you suggest is in error insofar as translation? We have--among others--the King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, the New International Version.
> 
> You've suggested above that at least one of them is a flawed translation. Which one?


 I suggested nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that human translation of so many differin kinds lends a huge margin for human error. I personally study from a greek and hebrew text, but thats just me. The only english version I ever spend much time in is KJV, but I've been known to read NIV as well. Your mispointing the importance. Its not on what words are used, but what point is conveyed. Like I said before, in this fast paced world, words take on and loose meaning quite quickly.....gay for instance. How about the word "***" in the bible, means something a bit different now, no? A talking *** would be very believable in todays world! 

    7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The two stories actually do not contradict, both accounts are true. The first again being very factual and precise presents the cause of death as hanging. Which is not contradicted by the later account. The Later account is being given to believers and the intent of the account of the story is to bring about a feeling of revulsion. According to tradition it would seem that Judas would have hung himself on the edge of the cliff, thus either having the rope break, be untied, or cut, causing him to fall to the rocks below. We do agree that he isn't still hanging there today, correct? Someone would have cut him down or left him there until the rope broke, yes? The story presented in Acts, never contradicts or refutes the death of Judas by hanging. So therefore, there is no contradiction.



Without a supposition of his being cut down, or the rope having broken, that is an absurdity.  Without specific reference from Acts to the hanging mentioned in Matthew there is a very clear contradiction.  I find it far easier to accept that there were two--if not more--separate accounts of Judas' death circulating throughout the Roman world in the various Christian sects of that day.  These two managed to get into the Christian canon in spite of their discordance.

So you've stated there is an "ommission," and then backed off of the omission supposition, and are now back to it.  Round and round we go.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems your expecting a 5th graders understanding here. It takes more than surface knowledge in order to understand these points. Mere surface acceptance of the one passage or scripture is not a thorough study of the alleged contradiction.


 
You're suggesting that one must adopt the "understanding" of a believer and discount objective interpretations--and contrary subjective intepretations, are you not?  As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect.  A fifth grader indeed would be able to understand it if it were thus (and indeed, the child's soul hangs in the balance).  As is, we must first be credulous and secondly accept an interpretation--or intepretations--that many can not due to their lack of credulity.  We must believe in order to believe.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> And yet again, you refuse to clearly state your case. Post scriptures which show the allegations, not just simply posting, "They are easy to spot". That makes it seem as though you are not truly confident in yoru arguemnt.



I am truly confident that the Bible has accounts in the Old Testament that provide a record of God authorizing, or directly taking a hand in, the slaughter of children...which refers to the original statement I made concerning the "record."    Anyone who has actually read the Bible are aware of these atrocities, though you don't seem to be.  I challenge you to openly refute this statement:  God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your holding "believers of the bible" to standards way out of reach for anyone. Because George believe in the bible, he must also believe that every translation of it by whomever is also 100% inerrant and completely accurate? Thats simply not the case, and holds no water in this discussion.



I'm holding inerrantists to the claim that the Bible is inerrant.  If you think there is error in the translations, as you've clearly indicated above and below, then drop out of the discussion.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I suggested nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that human translation of so many differin kinds lends a huge margin for human error.



At which point in history did error begin to creep in?  God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations?  We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?  

You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English.  Forgive me, but I don't accept your level of scholarship over that of the modern translators.  

The Bible was translated for a reason, and if it is flawed and in error as you've stated...the responsibility lies with your Deity.  He is supposed to be, after all, the ultimate editor of this work.  One would think that if he's omnipotent he would set a higher standard for accuracy than the New York Times.  As you've shown, he has not.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Oct 10, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect.


Appeal to authority?


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We must believe in order to believe.


That is profound. 


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I challenge you to openly refute this statement: God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.


As I recall, you are correct. Was it in Deuteronomy and was it the Philistines?





			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> At which point in history did error begin to creep in?


I believe that error began to creep in as the apostle's died. That by 300 AD there was a great/universal apostacy from the truth. I believe that Platonic {and other Greek} concepts of the metaphysical found their way into the church, replacing/revising concepts of the Hebrew God. 


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations?


I don't speak for the Man, but I believe he anticipated the gospel being preached to eventually all inhabitants of the world.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?


Personally, I think translations into Native tongues is necessary. 


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

Something in particular piqued my interest here...



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I believe that error began to creep in as the apostle's died. That by 300 AD there was a great/universal apostacy from the truth. I believe that Platonic {and other Greek} concepts of the metaphysical found their way into the church, replacing/revising concepts of the Hebrew God.



This is quite similar to an accusation that Protestant groups have traditionally lobbed at the Roman Catholic Church: that in the first few centuries following Christ's death, several Pagan ideas were imported into the Church and subsequently 'distorted' or 'warped' the original, pure teachings of the Son of God.

This, of course, is complete and utter bovine feces.

Paul's non-Pastoral letters are littered with Platonic and Orphic metaphysics and philosophy, as well as overt references and allusions to the Mysteries. These all date to before 80 CE. The Gospel of John is explicitly dependent on the Hellenistic principle known as the _Logos_, and its very first verse is a modification of a line from the Vedas. This gospel is generally dated to before 120 CE.

For that matter, most of the moral philosophy espoused by Christ in the four gospels often relies on Hellenistic ideals. Forsaking one's family and material possessions to take up the Way was an injunction first put forth by Pythagoras when he established the West's first monastery. Taking up the life of a wandering preacher draws back on the philosophy of the Stoics and Cynics. Prizing a celibate lifestyle to follow the Way was preached by Pythagoreanism and Mithraism.

All of the above, by contrast, is generally at odds with traditional Jewish teachings --- in which honoring family and material support for the community is very highly honored. And, by whatever standards, celibacy is certainly not something very cherished in the Old Testament. Nor is monogamy.

Most significantly, the entire doctrine of the Death and Resurrection of Christ --- as well as the ritualistic consumption of Christ's blood and flesh to achieve immortal life --- are ancient ideas in the Pagan world, dating as far back as the cult of Osiris in ancient Egypt. When Paul wrote of becoming one in Christ through a ritual of death and resurrection, there is little doubt that he believed himself to be establishing a Jewish version of the Pagan Mystery cults.

Early Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria referred to Christianity as "perfected Platonism". Justin Martyr and Augustine didn't bother trying to refute the obvious parallels their faith had to the Pagan Mysteries (in fact, they acknowledged them), but instead tried to explain it away with the ridiculous accusation of "diabolical mimicry".

C'mon. Let's be serious here.

laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i found this site
> it looks pretty good
> although it's not 100% accurate, but close enoough



Well, it can't be too accurate, considering it presumes a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth' actually existed in the first place! 

Heh. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. 

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 10, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Oy vey!  Now you're converting me.  See Canuck's post if you don't believe *me*. *Tiger sighs*
> 
> In the wisdom of all your 23 years on this Earth, I must give you points for persistence. My younger son is your age and similarly convinced that he is correct on many levels.
> 
> ...


 jews and christians do believe in Allah as much as muslims. Allah is the arabic-term for God!!
 palestinian, egyptian, syrian, iraqi jews and christians do not use the word "God"
 I did say consult a muslim, but I also said consult a jew! (even though I think you are one now!) so why emphasize the muslim?! also, what is wrong with consulting a muslim?!
 I did not say consult with them about the old testament. I said consult with them about Abraham's and David's scriptures!
 Umm.. Actually muslim believe Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob were NOT jewish since Judaism came after them, when Moses came.

 well, this discussion is starting to go in a loop. You asked me what the old testament is? i say i believe it "was", at some point specificially at the point of revelation, the words of God as well.
 Last thing, could you please explain the "living" part of your answer. I did not understand the concept nor did i understand the quote. thank you


----------



## mantis (Oct 10, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, it can't be too accurate, considering it presumes a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth' actually existed in the first place!
> 
> Heh. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
> 
> Laterz.


 okay, not accurate. but is it good enough to expand the small boxes people imprison their minds within?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Herry - here's one for you.



Um, okay. 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Could it be that the belief in the resurrection of Christ was extrapolated from this concept?  It would seem so upon casual examination.



I wouldn't be so bold as to presume the Christian belief of resurrection came from any one source. Considering the relative popularity of Ezekiel and similar works during the intertestamental period, it seems quite probable this had a positive influence on Hellenistic Jewish communities such as the Essenes (situated in Qumran) and the Therapeutae (situated in Alexandria).

At the same time, however, it must be remembered that the mythology represented in Ezekiel and Isaiah has its own origins within the Persian religious complex, especially that of Zoroasterianism. Most likely, this profound influence took place during the so-called Babylonian Exile, when the Jewish people were strongly influenced by the astrology and philosophy of their foreign captors (re: 12 tribes correlated with 12 symbols of the Zodiac).

There are even some rather interesting Kabbalistic legends relating how Abraham actually _founded_ astrology during the Exile --- ludicrous, mind you, but the legends are there.

In spite of this, it is also quite evident the Christian belief of resurrection also has its origins in distinctively non-Jewish sources. This seems especially likely, given that in his non-Pastoral (re: 'authentic') letters, Paul directly connects the resurrection of Christ with the resurrection of the Christian and describes it primarily as a spiritual event ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God") that has already happened to himself ("I have rose up to heaven in Christ, enthroned in his glory" and "I live no longer, but Christ lives in me"). By connecting the Resurrection with the Eucharist especially, we see the Osirian-Dionysian overtones with the consumption of the godman's blood and flesh to unite with him and thus attain to eternal life.

So, I'd have to agree with Freke and Gandy's 'Jesus Mysteries Thesis' here: Christianity was originally a _Jewish_ adaptation of the _Pagan_ Mysteries. It wasn't just one or the other.



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> If the righteous are rolling through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz, what, exactly, might one interpret those to be?  Hell?



Perhaps. The mythology isn't very well-developed even within Judaism, though, so it obviously isn't prominent enough to warrant further elaboration in later works.

I think Paul explains the context of 'hell' or 'eternal condemnation' he has in mind fairly well, if you divorce his writings from the Gospel accounts that were really developed decades _after_ Paul had died. He repeatedly explains that his Christian brethren are "dead in sin" or their "bodies be dead". He isn't discussing this as if it is a future event, but as if it is a current condition they possess right now. Likewise with the resurrection, he explains it is a spiritual event that is happening right now.

This is obviously an echo of the Platonic doctrine that the physical body (or, rather, exclusive identification with a physical 'self') is the "tomb of the soul". In other words, you're in Hell right now. Congratulations. 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I await your take on this.  KT



I hope I satisfied your expectations, KT. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> jews and christians do believe in Allah as much as muslims. Allah is the arabic-term for God!!



Clarification time.

The Arabic _Allah_ is derived from the Aramaic _Alaha_, which is derived from the Hebrew _Elohim_, which is derived from the Old Canaanite _Alat_ or _Elat_. Ironically enough, _Alat_ was a goddess.

Please read The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus by Neil Douglas-Klotz for more details. 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> You asked me what the old testament is? i say i believe it "was", at some point specificially at the point of revelation, the words of God as well.



Here's my take.

The Torah is a collection of the mythology, ethical precepts, wisdom teachings, and occassional history of a loosely-organized network of nomadic Semitic peoples that wandered Middle Eastern desert some 3,000 or so years ago. During the Bablyonian Exile, many of the 'modern' forms of the Torah were galvanized into the forms we are familiar with today.

The 'Old Testament', by contrast, is a Greek translation of the Torah that dates to the intertestamental period (roughly 200 BCE or so) and was explicitly designed to allow for the importation of Greek philosophical concepts into Judaism. As one scholar put it, the Greek translation of YHVH as 'I am that I am' effectively "Platonizes the Lord himself".

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 10, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Clarification time.
> 
> The Arabic _Allah_ is derived from the Aramaic _Alaha_, which is derived from the Hebrew _Elohim_, which is derived from the Old Canaanite _Alat_ or _Elat_. Ironically enough, _Alat_ was a goddess.
> 
> ...


 first of all Arabic is older than Hebrew and the Hebrew word is derived from Arabic. Arabic was spoken before Ishmael got to the Makkah area. 
 second, i said it WAS at SOME POINT and i meant when it was revealed. 
 I dont know how much omission and changes happened to the Torah, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.
 thank you..


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> okay, not accurate. but is it good enough to expand the small boxes people imprison their minds within?



Ummm... if you want, sure.

Personally, I think that site is just parroting popular opinion about Jewish and Christian history and theology. But, that's just my perspective.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> first of all Arabic is older than Hebrew and the Hebrew word is derived from Arabic. Arabic was spoken before Ishmael got to the Makkah area.



Okay, let's step away from religious mythology for a minute here (we have no idea if 'Ishmael' even existed or not):

Wikipedia: Allah

Wikipedia: Elohim

Wikipedia: El

The authors of the above articles seem to attribute both 'Allah' and 'El' (whose plural form is 'Elohim') to proto-Semitic. I read nothing to indicate Arabic has precedence over Hebrew here. Rather, both languages seem to derive from proto-Semitic.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> second, i said it WAS at SOME POINT and i meant when it was revealed.



The only basis for such a position is to invoke a fallacious Appeal To Authority or Appeal To Tradition. I'd prefer to avoid arguments that rest on such circular reasoning.

The Torah as it currently exists is acknowledged by most scholars as being a product of post-Exile Jewish culture. Perhaps the most well-accepted explanation among academia is the so-called 'documentary hypothesis', in which the Torah is viewed as a sort of cut-and-paste amalgamation of five different, pre-existing sources rather than a single source and author. This helps to explain the different names and terms applied to 'God' in the books of the Torah.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> I dont know how much omission and changes happened to the Torah, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.



Yeah, that's the great thing about reading books. You can actually _learn_ new things. 

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 10, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Without a supposition of his being cut down, or the rope having broken, that is an absurdity. Without specific reference from Acts to the hanging mentioned in Matthew there is a very clear contradiction. I find it far easier to accept that there were two--if not more--separate accounts of Judas' death circulating throughout the Roman world in the various Christian sects of that day. These two managed to get into the Christian canon in spite of their discordance.


 C'mon, your simply arguing for the sake of arguing now. Are you suggesting that he is still hanging there? Now because you say it, it is so? This is yet another appeal to authority. If one story in the bible doesn't quote verbatim other stories in the bible, there are contradictions? I'm having a hard time even following your thought process here. 
 Because you find something easier to accept, doesn't mean its so. You accept what you like, but its clear your accepting what you like and then (after your accpetance) attempting to prove its relevence or truth.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So you've stated there is an "ommission," and then backed off of the omission supposition, and are now back to it. Round and round we go.


 Argumentative much? I never backed off anything, I simply explained to you that what you understood me as was wrong, and I clearified.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You're suggesting that one must adopt the "understanding" of a believer and discount objective interpretations--and contrary subjective intepretations, are you not? As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect. A fifth grader indeed would be able to understand it if it were thus (and indeed, the child's soul hangs in the balance). As is, we must first be credulous and secondly accept an interpretation--or intepretations--that many can not due to their lack of credulity. We must believe in order to believe.


 Again, a horrible misquote. I said nothing of the kind. I said your arguing against a "believer" outside of the context of "believers". Its painfully obvious. Your holding "believers" to your own skewed label of what a "believer" should do or believe. I'm not arguing that believers are inerrant, but that the bible is.
 The clearity of the bible to you is of no consequence in this discussion, sorry. Also, again you misquote the beliefs of "christians" or teachings of the bible. A soul doesn't not hang in the balance of understanding everything in the bible, thats precisely the problem we are having, you refuse to argue the bible from truth, but from yoru own beliefs on what the bible says or what believers should believe. The only thing the bible teaches that controls your soul is the belief that Jesus was the son of god and propitiation for your sins. Thats it. ARguing a point not shared by those debating you is pointless.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I am truly confident that the Bible has accounts in the Old Testament that provide a record of God authorizing, or directly taking a hand in, the slaughter of children...which refers to the original statement I made concerning the "record." Anyone who has actually read the Bible are aware of these atrocities, though you don't seem to be. I challenge you to openly refute this statement: God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.


 Ok, so: "I think the bible says this, anyone who reads the bible knows this, so you have to prove me wrong, because I said so". That drips of faulty logic and dodging issues. I've asked 3 times now and each time you refuse to state your case by saying its obvious, then you weaken your original statement (excluding the rape of women and children) and say anyone who reads the bible knows, and expect that to be taken seriously in a debate?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm holding inerrantists to the claim that the Bible is inerrant. If you think there is error in the translations, as you've clearly indicated above and below, then drop out of the discussion.


 I guess once again we must abide by your rules of what "The Bible" is defined as, right? Your holding standards so that you cannot be proven wrong. Differences from one version to the next are simply the education, experience, and knowldge of the translators, not the words of god. I can't believe your even trying to argue this point. What I'm saying is that without study of original texts, one must accept others own views on translation....that leave quite a bit of room for error. I didn't say there were errors per se, just room for many. You can't know if there are errors or not without studying the original texts anyway. 




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> At which point in history did error begin to creep in? God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations? We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?


 Argumentative, see above.




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English. Forgive me, but I don't accept your level of scholarship over that of the modern translators.


 Argumentative, misquoting.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Bible was translated for a reason, and if it is flawed and in error as you've stated...the responsibility lies with your Deity. He is supposed to be, after all, the ultimate editor of this work. One would think that if he's omnipotent he would set a higher standard for accuracy than the New York Times. As you've shown, he has not.


 So I guess your the authority on placing blame now too eh? Who said he's the editor? I've only said creator of the work, author, not editor. 
  What "one" thinks is also of no consequence in this debate. 

 This is going nowhere, you refuse to look at factual evidence that might hurt your points. I refuse to allow you to twist and change this environment to suit your needs....I guess we should just disagree and move on.

  7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

While I don't mean to interrupt you and Steve here, something caught my eye...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> The only thing the bible teaches that controls your soul is the belief that Jesus was the son of god and propitiation for your sins. Thats it.



I would be _very cautious_ when claiming the Bible only teaches X about _anything_. This is not only a sweeping absolutism about a work made up of several dozen different books and authors, but it can also be easily refuted (only one counter-example is needed to show an exception to the 'only X' hypothesis).

Also, as a matter of clarification, I personally don't subscribe to the position that this is the Bible's only position concerning the 'fate' of the soul. The non-Pastoral Paul by and large equates 'eternal salvation' with uniting with the Christ through a mystical experience of death and resurrection on the part of the individual. This paradigm is beyond the scope of merely believing any given metaphysical proposition.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

Arabic predates Hebrew? I need to see some more data on this.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Arabic predates Hebrew? I need to see some more data on this.



You and me both.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 10, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Appeal to authority?



Not at all.  It is a simple quote.  Nowhere did I list Ingersoll's qualifications regarding that statement.  Had I said "Ingersoll, the great (fill in the blank)" or something of that sort and used it as justification for support for the quote, it would have been appealing to Ingersoll's supposed (and presumably misplaced) authority.

It is not an appeal to authority to quote a person on the merits of the quotation alone--we call that simple attribution.  Nor is it an appeal to authority if the person is in fact an authority on the topic in hand--PROVIDED--it isn't phrased thus:  "So and so is an expert, thus he's correct."  One can find often find other experts to refute "so and so."

If I cite a scholar to back a point, it is technically an appeal to authority if I dont acknowledge that the topic is hotly debated and refuted by other scholars.  If I appear to do that, point it out and I will then acknowledge the other scholars whose opinion bears mentionprovided they truly  merit it.  That alone could spark a separate debate, I suppose.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> That is profound.



That is simple circular reasoning, and one were occasionally asked to adopt in order to properly interpret the scriptures.  When asked for proof, skeptics are often urged to open their hearts to Jesus.  This requires belief.  One has to believe in order to get evidence in order to believe.




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> As I recall, you are correct. Was it in Deuteronomy and was it the Philistines?



Thank you.   I appreciate that you've read the accounts.  Some here apparently have yet to do so.

Deuteronomy has some of the worst references to slaughters of childrenbut none regarding the Philistines.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Personally, I think translations into Native tongues is necessary.



I agree insofar as the translationsand would assume them to be adequate.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Responsibility for the actions of men and women lies with the men and women who acted. There are some accounts of darned good people in the Bible (like Abraham and Moses) but they are flawed and responsible for their actions.



I disagree, Ray.

Abraham marries Sarai (Sarah) his sister, in spite of God's later condemnation of incest.  Sarai is unable to conceive, so she encourages Abraham to have sex with her handmaid, Hagar.  He does so, and Hagar conceives (there go those traditional family values).  

Abraham was set to slaughter his son at God's command as a test of his loyalty.  Abraham lies to Abimelech, king of Gerar, and gives his wife over to the king out of fear for his own life.  Not a brave man, Abraham.

Moses murders an Egyptian.  He later is an accessory in God's slaying of the first born children of Egypt.  When Aaron betrays the Lord, Moses orders him to slaughter the 3,000 Israelites who followed Aaron's orders  (Moses doesn't punish Aaron for his role in the transgression). 

Moses oversees the slaughter of the Amorite men, women and children.  On Moses' orders his army kills all the men and male children as well as the married women of the Midianites.  The Israelites take the girls and women for themselves.  Moses leads his people to kill every last man, woman and child of Og and Heshbon...over three score cities were destroyed.

_"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain...."_





Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 10, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Okay, let's step away from religious mythology for a minute here (we have no idea if 'Ishmael' even existed or not):
> 
> Wikipedia: Allah
> 
> ...


 you know what. 
  I agree 
  you convinced me
 (note that wikipedia is only an encyclopedia that gathers its info from people. so you should not really count on it all the time. but i accept for the sake of this discussion)


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

I really like Wikipedia, but yes, one must be careful--it can be vandalized and get garbage info. in it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, so: "I think the bible says this, anyone who reads the bible knows this, so you have to prove me wrong, because I said so". That drips of faulty logic and dodging issues. I've asked 3 times now and each time you refuse to state your case by saying its obvious, then you weaken your original statement (excluding the rape of women and children) and say anyone who reads the bible knows, and expect that to be taken seriously in a debate?



This is silly.  Open a Bible and read it.  Start with the Pentateuch...no, skip Genesis and just move on to Exodus.  Take it from there...work up through Joshua, then quit.  Skip the Levitical laws, as that's always a kick, but not relevant.  Skip the description of the Sanctuary and its little carved cherubim.  Don't worry about family lines of descent.

Hell, if you need to just scan the damned thing and you'll come across the passages in question.  

Or...goodness...use a search engine and a key word or two.  That'll get you there.  That'll get anybody there.  

I gave some vague references above and in previous posts, 7Star...for the express purpose of watching you dance around this thing and scream for references.  I have to confess I'm getting the biggest kick out of your infamiliarity with these allusions.  it appears you don't know jack about the Old Testament accounts of the flight from Egypt, the 40 years in the wilderness, or the conquest of Canaan.  

Get with it and start reading the Bible, okay?  

Start with the books I mentioned above.  Any language will do.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that without study of original texts, one must accept others own views on translation....that leave quite a bit of room for error. I didn't say there were errors per se, just room for many. You can't know if there are errors or not without studying the original texts anyway.



My goodness.  YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXTS?

The world of Biblical archeology will reel.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would be _very cautious_ when claiming the Bible only teaches X about _anything_. This is not only a sweeping absolutism about a work made up of several dozen different books and authors, but it can also be easily refuted (only one counter-example is needed to show an exception to the 'only X' hypothesis).
> 
> Also, as a matter of clarification, I personally don't subscribe to the position that this is the Bible's only position concerning the 'fate' of the soul. The non-Pastoral Paul by and large equates 'eternal salvation' with uniting with the Christ through a mystical experience of death and resurrection on the part of the individual. This paradigm is beyond the scope of merely believing any given metaphysical proposition.
> 
> Laterz.


 Your right, however its the truth as far as "salvation" and "going to heaven" are concerned. Easily refuted is a subjective set of terms. Because it only takes one counter example doesn't mean its easy to make. 

 As far as the correctness of my statement, what your describing from Paul is right in line with what I said. You take Paul's writing on quite a bit of faith. Your making assumptions about what Paul is meaning, who influenced him, and the scope of what he is saying. Take his statements and validate them from scriptures around the rest of the bible. What he is speaking of ("mystical experience of death and resurrection") is his explination of "salvation". He is addressing a human being as a dual being, physical and spiritual. As well as "old" and "New". The death and resurection is in your will, not your physical body. This is easy enough to understand by searching other scriptures on the subject. To believe Paul is speaking of some kind of physical experience takes as much (if not more) faith on your part than it does believing he is speaking of a spiritual death and resurection. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Not at all. It is a simple quote. Nowhere did I list Ingersoll's qualifications regarding that statement. Had I said "Ingersoll, the great (fill in the blank)" or something of that sort and used it as justification for support for the quote, it would have been appealing to Ingersoll's supposed (and presumably misplaced) authority.
> 
> It is not an appeal to authority to quote a person on the merits of the quotation alone--we call that simple attribution. Nor is it an appeal to authority if the person is in fact an authority on the topic in hand--PROVIDED--it isn't phrased thus: "So and so is an expert, thus he's correct." One can find often find other experts to refute "so and so."
> 
> If I cite a scholar to back a point, it is technically an appeal to authority if I dont acknowledge that the topic is hotly debated and refuted by other scholars. If I appear to do that, point it out and I will then acknowledge the other scholars whose opinion bears mentionprovided they truly merit it. That alone could spark a separate debate, I suppose.


 All of that is argumentative. You listed his refrence as a point of authority. The semantics of how you listed it are trite, its still a refrence that is quite arguable at best, but I'm glad you agree with that. You did however hold his work as authority when you argued that the bible would have to meet his standards of clearity.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This is silly. Open a Bible and read it. Start with the Pentateuch...no, skip Genesis and just move on to Exodus. Take it from there...work up through Joshua, then quit. Skip the Levitical laws, as that's always a kick, but not relevant. Skip the description of the Sanctuary and its little carved cherubim. Don't worry about family lines of descent.
> 
> Hell, if you need to just scan the damned thing and you'll come across the passages in question.
> 
> ...


 Wow, so now I am to assume that the passages I think about or find in my reading are the same ones you are refering to? I'm pretty sure that I know at least a few of the things your refering to (aside from the rape claim you made earlier up) but I didn't think I should put words into your mouth. If its too much work to provide base for your claim, then let it go and move on to another point. 

 Haha, this is laughable! Now you gave vague refrences on purpose to watch me sqirm! Thats hillarious. Your making huge assumptions at my knowledge of the bible from a simple request for sources of your arguements and points. Providing source for your points is not my job. If you can't or wont provide source, foget it and move on to another point, its pretty obvious to anyone reading that you either dont have enough to make your case or just can't remember where they are. Either way, take your own advice and try reading or using a search engine. Your refusal to post sources only proves that your here just to argue without giving a second thought to honest debate. That is called audiatur et altera pars. Its a fallacy of logic where you debate from an assumtpion that has not been presented. 

 Take Care, this is not discussion or debate. Your belief system is based on your own beliefs....anything that might contradict those beliefs is labeled incorrect or unprovable before even seeing the points. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> My goodness.  YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXTS?
> 
> The world of Biblical archeology will reel.


 Here we go people, another classic example of argumentative behavior to take the focus off my point. Because he can't (or wont) address my points or facts, he will find something within my post to pull out and make a big deal about...sort of like the strawman approach. I didn't say I had the original text written by the apostles, but that I have an original text new testament, which is a greek text. So to smoke screen my points, he must pull out something (out of context) and make a big deal about it....its not honest arguement or debate.

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow, so now I am to assume that the passages I think about or find in my reading are the same ones you are refering to? I'm pretty sure that I know at least a few of the things your refering to (aside from the rape claim you made earlier up) but I didn't think I should put words into your mouth. If its too much work to provide base for your claim, then let it go and move on to another point.




Here, for review, are the Biblical references I've mentioned which have caused such a wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A talking donkey.
Giants.
Unicorns (which we've addressed and for which I've provided once reference).
The slaughter of children by Moses and God.
The timing of Jesus's appearance to the Apostles.
The color of the robe the Romans placed on Jesus following his flogging.
Hares that chew their cud.
Bats that are birds.



The first is the story of Balaam and his donkey, or "***".

Giants are mentioned frequently in the KJV and RSV, and not specifically as metaphors.  They're largely excluded from the NIV...no pun intended.

I've given accounts of the slaughter and rapes by Moses and his men of children and women in my post to Ray, without chapter and verse reference. A keyword search will yield them at Biblegateway or the Blue Letter Bible, links to which I've provided.  The same keyword search will yield results for giants. Ditto asses and/or donkeys.

Hares chewing their cud are found in the KJV in the Levitical laws, and in Deuteronomy.  These are easily found.

Bats are very specfically listed as birds in of Leviticus in the NIV and KJV...also easily accessed.

The color of the robe of Jesus and the timing of his appearance to the Gospels were posted as challenges requiring one to actually research the New Testament.  Key word searches there will also expedite the process, if one doesn't prefer to use an actual Bible.


This requires a little homework...not a lot, but a little.  One has to research a tad and find specific passages.  In discussing the Bible I think it best that such things aren't spoon fed to anyone.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Oct 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> That is simple circular reasoning...This requires belief. One has to believe in order to get evidence in order to believe.


Statistics may support your statement.  In my case, it was not like that.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I disagree, Ray.


I assume you disagree with my saying they were "good" people but still flawed.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Abraham marries Sarai (Sarah) his sister, in spite of God's later condemnation of incest.


My limited understanding was that Sarah was his "cousin."  However if marrying siblings was later comdemned, then I believe that it wasn't condemned at the time.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sarai is unable to conceive, so she encourages Abraham to have sex with her handmaid, Hagar. He does so, and Hagar conceives (there go those traditional family values).


The traditional family values of today's America (and other western nations).  Polygamy was, as a common practice during those times.  Or at least I am led to believe so because of the several accounts of multiple wives given in the OT.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Abraham was set to slaughter his son at God's command as a test of his loyalty.


You would have to agree that if there is a God and He commanded Abraham, then Abraham did rightly.  Conversely if there is no God, or God did not command Abraham then there are a myriad of possibilities (hallucenations, fabricated story, etc).


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Abraham lies to Abimelech, king of Gerar, and gives his wife over to the king out of fear for his own life. Not a brave man, Abraham.


I never said Abraham was brave.  I did say he was flawed.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> He later is an accessory in God's slaying of the first born children of Egypt.


If God slew the first born of Egypt as you say {which is in the Biblical account} then God is well within his rights; and Moses did rightly by being obedient.[/QUOTE]


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> My limited understanding was that Sarah was his "cousin."  However if marrying siblings was later comdemned, then I believe that it wasn't condemned at the time.



Genesis, chapter 20, KJV and NIV.  She was a half-sister, which doesn't mitigate the crime according to either current or Levitical laws.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> The traditional family values of today's America (and other western nations).  Polygamy was, as a common practice during those times.  Or at least I am led to believe so because of the several accounts of multiple wives given in the OT.



Yet this is moral relativism.    Moral relativism is, according to conservative leaders in this country, one of the banes of Western culture.  If we have a right standard of conduct today regarding children, then it applies to all people everywhere--at any time, past or present.  If we argue that that was a different era, then we must accept that THIS is a different era and that the laws of the past don't necessarily apply to us.  This leads to cherry picking.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> You would have to agree that if there is a God and He commanded Abraham, then Abraham did rightly.  Conversely if there is no God, or God did not command Abraham then there are a myriad of possibilities (hallucenations, fabricated story, etc).



The latter would be akin to an explanation by Heinrich Paulus, who argued against the supernatural history presented by the Bible.  As to God ordering Abraham to commit such a crime...and that being a justification...that's what many find so atrocious.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> If God slew the first born of Egypt as you say {which is in the Biblical account} then God is well within his ights; and Moses did rightly by being obedient.



Again, this makes my point.  God ordered, or directly participated in, the slaughter of children.  He either killed them, or he didn't.  It is either true, or it is myth.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> you know what.
> I agree
> you convinced me



Um, yay for me! 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> (note that wikipedia is only an encyclopedia that gathers its info from people. so you should not really count on it all the time. but i accept for the sake of this discussion)



I agree whole-heartedly.

However, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it is a _public_ resource that is subject to continual scrutiny, analysis, and a sort of light form of peer-review. In my experience, a good deal of the articles I have read there are pretty fair, unbiased, and often use direct quotations or paraphrases from primary sources.

In addition, a bibliographic list is cited after the articles, too. 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Oct 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Genesis, chapter 20, KJV and NIV. She was a half-sister, which doesn't mitigate the crime according to either current or Levitical laws.
> 
> Yet this is moral relativism. Moral relativism is, according to conservative leaders in this country, one of the banes of Western culture. If we have a right standard of conduct today regarding children, then it applies to all people everywhere--at any time, past or present. If we argue that that was a different era, then we must accept that THIS is a different era and that the laws of the past don't necessarily apply to us. This leads to cherry picking.


Moral relativism or ethnocentrism? As US law goes, when most new laws go into effect, the previous "legal" breaking of them is not a crime -- just infractions after the law is passed.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The latter would be akin to an explanation by Heinrich Paulus, who argued against the supernatural history presented by the Bible. As to God ordering Abraham to commit such a crime...and that being a justification...that's what many find so atrocious.


In the kingdom of Heaven, God is the king, judge and lawmaker. If God exists and He is who He says He is then not following his command is a "crime."


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Again, this makes my point. God ordered, or directly participated in, the slaughter of children. He either killed them, or he didn't. It is either true, or it is myth.


Everyone dies, therefore logically you should take the position that every death that occurs is a "crime" because God could have prevented it and/or because he allows us to be mortal.

If you do not believe that God exists then what's the big deal?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

A few more points to add to this discussion...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your right, however its the truth as far as "salvation" and "going to heaven" are concerned. Easily refuted is a subjective set of terms. Because it only takes one counter example doesn't mean its easy to make.



1) No, its not "the truth" as far as "salvation" and "going to heaven" are concerned. At least not from a Pauline viewpoint. The author(s) treat Christ entirely as a mystical phenomenon which is to be directly experienced by the adherent, not as an intellectual or emotional object of inquiry (which is in keeping with the literalist dogma of the Nicene Council). I cited several direct excerpts from the Pauline epistles in my last megapost to support this position.

2) Saying something is "a subjective set of terms" amounts to nothing more than an empty platitude devoid of any real significance. _Anything_ that cannot be quantifiably measured or examined is measured by "subjective" or qualitative standards, so it becomes an absolutely meaningless point.

3) As a matter of logic, statements that include key words like "never", "only", "always", and so on are typically premises that are preferably avoided --- since it only takes _one example_ to the contrary to shatter such absolutistic generalizations.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> As far as the correctness of my statement, what your describing from Paul is right in line with what I said. You take Paul's writing on quite a bit of faith. Your making assumptions about what Paul is meaning, who influenced him, and the scope of what he is saying. Take his statements and validate them from scriptures around the rest of the bible. What he is speaking of ("mystical experience of death and resurrection") is his explination of "salvation". He is addressing a human being as a dual being, physical and spiritual. As well as "old" and "New". The death and resurection is in your will, not your physical body. This is easy enough to understand by searching other scriptures on the subject. To believe Paul is speaking of some kind of physical experience takes as much (if not more) faith on your part than it does believing he is speaking of a spiritual death and resurection.



4) No, describing salvation as a mystical experience of death and resurrection in which the adherent is "transfigured into Christ's likeness" is _not_ the same as describing salvation as intellectually commiting to a metaphysical belief system. This is the difference between what Ken Wilber calls translative religion (which offers new ways to interpret the world) and transformative religion (which leads to an actual alteration of the self-system). To collapse these two into the same doctrine is to invoke fallacious self-confirming bias and historical revisionism.

5) I am, in fact, making very safe assumptions concerning Pauline philosophy based on actual terminology and phrases the authors themselves use. I cited many of these phrases and excerpts from my last megapost. I am not retroactively projecting later dogma onto the Pauline epistles and claiming Paul made such statements himself, which itself is the only position discussed here that requires any large degree of "faith".

6) I see absolutely no reason to validate the Pauline epistles from "scriptures around the rest of the bible". This is self-confirming bias. The four Gospels were written _decades_ after the Pauline epistles, with the youngest (the Gospel of John) generally dating to a full half-century later than the epistles. The Acts of the Apostles, the Pastoral Letters, and the Apostolic Letters were all written _a full century_ after the Pauline epistles --- appearing spontaneously as a collective in the hands of Irenaeus (circa 190 CE), most of them typically addressing doctrinal schisms within the late 2nd century Church (one of the Pastoral Letters even makes a direct reference to Marcion's [140 CE] _Anitheses_).

7) The doctrine of the dual nature of human beings is, in fact, Orphism. It is hardly a novelty of Pauline Christianity.

8) I, in fact, never claimed the Ressurection was a "physical event", as I made very clear in my last megapost. By contrast, it was _you_ who was expressing previous skepticism to the fact of Paul describing the Resurrection to be "non-physical" in nature. I would suggest actually re-reading my posts in closer detail before contructing more Strawmen Arguments.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I didn't say I had the original text written by the apostles, but that I have an original text new testament, which is a greek text.



9) "Original text" is something of a relative term here. All of the versions of the New Testament we have now date to _after_ the Council of Nicea (circa 330 CE) when official Church dogma was already decided upon. That the scriptures were wantonly edited and modified by pre-Nicene Christians is a fact well-attested by early Church fathers like Origen (circa 200 CE), a phenomenon he was less than thrilled about. Most of the New Testamental texts we have, in fact, date to centuries after the Nicene Council --- with the majority of older texts dating between the 400's and 600's CE.

10) None of the so-called "apostles" ever wrote any book of the New Testament, unless you count Paul. There are, however, many forgeries that have been written in their names.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Here, for review, are the Biblical references I've mentioned which have caused such a wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> A talking donkey.
> Giants.
> ...


 OK, your listing of something is not a "refrence" or source. I was simply asking for the biblical source for which you base your belief of a contradiction. Your refusal to give any is simply an acknowledgment of your not being interested in honest debate. Your arguing your beliefs here, I am not. I'm simply interested in some good old fashion debate, but that requires honest posts, and your refusal to offer sources is not exactly honest or debate.

    Oh, and you left out your claim of rape by Moses and God.
 Listen, all I asked was for some specific sources for one claim....is that too much to ask? I didn't want to assume I knew what scriptures you were using as your base. Why the attitude? You also dont seem content to stay on one topic at a time, why not? 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I've given accounts of the slaughter and rapes by Moses and his men of children and women in my post to Ray, without chapter and verse reference. A keyword search will yield them at Biblegateway or the Blue Letter Bible, links to which I've provided. The same keyword search will yield results for giants. Ditto asses and/or donkeys.


 Yet without specific sources, its just "He said she said". I dont agree that the bible commanded Moses and his men to rape anyone, for you to support your claim, you must offer proof. If you can do so, we can discuss it, if you can't you must forget it and move on.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The color of the robe of Jesus and the timing of his appearance to the Gospels were posted as challenges requiring one to actually research the New Testament. Key word searches there will also expedite the process, if one doesn't prefer to use an actual Bible.


 Tell you what, lets attempt a discussion of the robe's color. What if any is the significance of the color? Is it just that two different colors are mentioned? Is that the importance of this point or am I missing something your saying? If so please elaborate.

    If not, allow me to retort 
 Red or Purple is the question, no? On a color wheel how far is red from purple? Its not too terribly different, also have we researched what greek word was used for red or purple? Having a knowledge of the greek language can sometimes show that there was an "error" in translation. One may understand the word to mean more of a red color while yet another takes it to be more of a purple color. I haven't really looked at it, and I'm not at home, so I'll have to do it later.
 My main question is what is the significance? I mean, is Mauve purple or red? The color of the robe holds very little importance in the story. 

 Are we done with the discussion on Judas' death? You seem to have ignored my last few posts on it and gone on to something else.

   7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 11, 2005)

Forgeries is a bit strong, isn't it? One view is that the books of Matthew etc. were intended as a tribute to, or in the style of, the alleged authors. It's not clear that deception was the intent. Or did you mean other writings?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Forgeries is a bit strong, isn't it? One view is that the books of Matthew etc. were intended as a tribute to, or in the style of, the alleged authors. It's not clear that deception was the intent.



I was specifically referring to the Apostolic Letters and the Pastoral Letters with that comment, which were very much intended to 'deceive' late 2nd century 'heretics' into submitting to orthodoxy.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Oct 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Here, for review, are the Biblical references I've mentioned which have caused such a wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> A talking donkey.
> Giants.
> ...


I will take the easy one..."bats being listed as birds"   The classification of plants and animals is a human endeavor; it is done via similarities.  Today it is done more logically and scientifically than some cultures did in the past.  In the past Hebrew classification system "animals with wings that flew" were called "birds."

This would also be the explanation for the apparent difference between Jonah being swallowed by a whale or a great fish.  Animals with fins, that lived in water were called "fish."  A whale was a big "fish."  

It's not so much that the animals were incorrectly classified, it's that the classification system used was different.

I think I mentioned before that unicorns were probably Rhino's; if you were unfamiliar with a four-footed one-horned animal, but were familiar with horses, you might decide that they look like horses.  Doesn't unicorn mean "one horned" literally?  Would you disagree with that?


----------



## Ray (Oct 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Tell you what, lets attempt a discussion of the robe's color. What if any is the significance of the color? Is it just that two different colors are mentioned? Is that the importance of this point or am I missing something your saying? If so please elaborate.
> 
> My main question is what is the significance? I mean, is Mauve purple or red? The color of the robe holds very little importance in the story.


You have to understand that to logical people details are evidences that help establish the truth or falsity of a story.

Take, for example, the witness who says he remembers clearly the day of the crime. If the defense attorney asks "what was the weather like at the time?" and the witness replies "It was swelteringly hot, around 100 degrees" then the attorney might pull out a newspaper of the day and city of the crime that shows that the weather was 55 degrees and raining. That would tend to make the rest of his testimony suspect. On the other hand, if a newspaper record showed that it was around 100 degrees, then his testimony would be thought to be more correct.

The scriptures are testimonies of those who wrote them. If the peripheral items are not in agreement then there is a normal tendancy to discount the testimony. 

If the purpose is to prove that the bible is inerrent, it is futile. If the purpose is to convert people by arguing, it will not happen. 

But I do so much like to read all the posts.


----------



## mantis (Oct 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> If the purpose is to prove that the bible is inerrent, it is futile. If the purpose is to convert people by arguing, it will not happen.
> 
> But I do so much like to read all the posts.


 a lot of people, including myself, believe the Bible is errant and contradictory, or believe any combo of those two 'attributes' of the bible. and so far no one I have talked to from churches denied it
 if 7starmantis has an argument to defend the bible then let's hear him out.
 the contradictions i talk about are not really detail-related. although I believe if there is 1 contradictory or conflicting detail is present then it should void the validity of the whole book (im talking about only religious books)
 but the contradictions happen at a higher levels where the minister goes "you just have to believe"
 things like the concept of trinity doesnt work well with the 10 commandments for instance!


----------



## Ray (Oct 11, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> if 7starmantis has an argument to defend the bible then let's hear him out.
> 
> the contradictions i talk about are not really detail-related. although I believe if there is 1 contradictory or conflicting detail is present then it should void the validity of the whole book (im talking about only religious books)


I agree if you are saying: If a person holds that the religious book is without error of any kind then an error should cause that person to re-examine his belief


			
				mantis said:
			
		

> things like the concept of trinity doesnt work well with the 10 commandments for instance!


I believe the concept of the trinity to be not found in the OT nor the NT; I believe it to be the erronious invention of some "church fathers."


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Take, for example, the witness who says he remembers clearly the day of the crime. If the defense attorney asks "what was the weather like at the time?" and the witness replies "It was swelteringly hot, around 100 degrees" then the attorney might pull out a newspaper of the day and city of the crime that shows that the weather was 55 degrees and raining. That would tend to make the rest of his testimony suspect. On the other hand, if a newspaper record showed that it was around 100 degrees, then his testimony would be thought to be more correct.


 And if the newspaper said it was 98 degrees and somewhat hot, what then?

 7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) No, its not "the truth" as far as "salvation" and "going to heaven" are concerned. At least not from a Pauline viewpoint. The author(s) treat Christ entirely as a mystical phenomenon which is to be directly experienced by the adherent, not as an intellectual or emotional object of inquiry (which is in keeping with the literalist dogma of the Nicene Council). I cited several direct excerpts from the Pauline epistles in my last megapost to support this position.


 According to the bible it is. Actually exactly from a Pauline standpoint. The bible does not teach an intellectual or emotional "salvation". I'll continue this point further down on #4. I dont really think your excerpts really prove much in and of themselves. The use of the words "mystical phenomenon" are not neccessarily false, just misguiding. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) Saying something is "a subjective set of terms" amounts to nothing more than an empty platitude devoid of any real significance. _Anything_ that cannot be quantifiably measured or examined is measured by "subjective" or qualitative standards, so it becomes an absolutely meaningless point.


 Semantis play little part in this debate. The fact that anything not measured is subjective subtracts little from the point that your use of words was in fact subjective. Actually, this has little to do with our discussion, I say we move on.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) As a matter of logic, statements that include key words like "never", "only", "always", and so on are typically premises that are preferably avoided --- since it only takes _one example_ to the contrary to shatter such absolutistic generalizations.


 Key words here are "typically" and "preferably". The fact that it only takes one example to shatter such an absolutistic generalization in no way takes away from the absolutisitc generalizations merrit. The fact that its shattered by one example doesn't mean the example is present. If its so easy to shatter, why hasn't this proverbial example been listed?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4) No, describing salvation as a mystical experience of death and resurrection in which the adherent is "transfigured into Christ's likeness" is _not_ the same as describing salvation as intellectually commiting to a metaphysical belief system. This is the difference between what Ken Wilber calls translative religion (which offers new ways to interpret the world) and transformative religion (which leads to an actual alteration of the self-system). To collapse these two into the same doctrine is to invoke fallacious self-confirming bias and historical revisionism.


 Salvation is not taught as a intellectual committment or any type of committment for that matter, but a simple belief and acceptance of Jesus' Death and Resurection. Anything past that is not affecting "salvation" or "going to heaven". Your assuming an "All or nothing" teaching which is not what the bible teaches, although that is a fact heavily argued among many. Collapsing these into the same doctrine is fallacious and biased to whom? In my opinion its quite correct (according to what the bible teaches). Why would combining these two "sects" into one doctrine be historical revisionism? Why is it these two cannot co-exist in one doctrine? I dont see a contradiction or fallacious self-confirming bias or historical revisionism. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 5) I am, in fact, making very safe assumptions concerning Pauline philosophy based on actual terminology and phrases the authors themselves use. I cited many of these phrases and excerpts from my last megapost. I am not retroactively projecting later dogma onto the Pauline epistles and claiming Paul made such statements himself, which itself is the only position discussed here that requires any large degree of "faith".


 First, it would be nice to see your proof of multiple authors. Second, it seems to me you are retroactively projecting (not neccessarily later, but dogma nonetheless) dogma into these epistles. To choose to believe the Pauline epistles were not writtne by one person and thus cannot be addressed as a whole but rather in small parts only lends itself to one belief system. Your implying that I am claiming Paul made statements himself of later dogma, but your misinterpreting what I'm saying Paul has stated. The fact that later dogma grew which parralelled Pauling statements in no way holds Paul to a lesser amount of truth. Because a sect or "group" emerged and became "famous" or known after Paul's writtings does not mean the ideology did not exist before hand.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 6) I see absolutely no reason to validate the Pauline epistles from "scriptures around the rest of the bible". This is self-confirming bias. The four Gospels were written _decades_ after the Pauline epistles, with the youngest (the Gospel of John) generally dating to a full half-century later than the epistles. The Acts of the Apostles, the Pastoral Letters, and the Apostolic Letters were all written _a full century_ after the Pauline epistles --- appearing spontaneously as a collective in the hands of Irenaeus (circa 190 CE), most of them typically addressing doctrinal schisms within the late 2nd century Church (one of the Pastoral Letters even makes a direct reference to Marcion's [140 CE] _Anitheses_).


 Self confirming would be to authenticate it with other Pauline writtings, but as you have so addamantly poasted, the bible was written by many people who lived centuries apart from each other. To show coorelation or even agreement between these types of writing would certainly not be self confirming. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 7) The doctrine of the dual nature of human beings is, in fact, Orphism. It is hardly a novelty of Pauline Christianity.


 The fact of what we know this as today, or its novelty status to Paul really proves nothing. No one claimd Paul was the only one who believed this way, only that he did believe this way.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 8) I, in fact, never claimed the Ressurection was a "physical event", as I made very clear in my last megapost. By contrast, it was _you_ who was expressing previous skepticism to the fact of Paul describing the Resurrection to be "non-physical" in nature. I would suggest actually re-reading my posts in closer detail before contructing more Strawmen Arguments.


 Actually I was not "constructing" the strawman arguemtn at you at all. Maybe you should re-read a bit yourself. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 9) "Original text" is something of a relative term here. All of the versions of the New Testament we have now date to _after_ the Council of Nicea (circa 330 CE) when official Church dogma was already decided upon. That the scriptures were wantonly edited and modified by pre-Nicene Christians is a fact well-attested by early Church fathers like Origen (circa 200 CE), a phenomenon he was less than thrilled about. Most of the New Testamental texts we have, in fact, date to centuries after the Nicene Council --- with the majority of older texts dating between the 400's and 600's CE.


 Your right. By "original text" I simply meant to most widely accepted "version" (greek) of the accepted text. However, I would be interested in seeing your sources for the dating of the new testament.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 10) None of the so-called "apostles" ever wrote any book of the New Testament, unless you count Paul. There are, however, many forgeries that have been written in their names.


 Again, it would be interesting to see your source for this claim as well.

    7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, it would be interesting to see your source for this claim as well.




How about scholar Craig Blomberg, as quoted in Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ?"  He states very clearly they're anonymous.

Some more evidence for anonymity...a focus on the Gospel of John.

Scholar Bart Ehrman points out in his textbook _The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press, New York 2000_ that Acts 4:13 listed John (and Peter) as being uneducated.  He was essentially illiterate, and likely didn't write anything, much less a Gospel.   In Ehrman's lecture _The Historical Jesus_ (The Teaching Company) he mentions this and points out that the language used in the Gospel of John is a style of Greek that dates to the 2nd century.

James Bentley points out that the earliest fragment of John dates to the 1st part of the 2nd century.  The handwriting style on the fragment points to a date of around 110-140 CE. (Bentley, James, Secrets of Mount Sinai, Orbis, London 1985: p159)

John in chapter 9 makes reference to Christians being systemically excluded from the synagogues of the Jews.  This expulsion took place in 90 A.D., sixty or so years after Jesus's death. (Wells, G.A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Prometheus, Buffalo, 1988: p130).  One might think that the Jews did this prior to 90 A.D., but Luke 24:53 states that Christians and Jews worshipped together.  

Early church fathers such as Papias (c60-130), Ignatius (d. c110) and Polycarp (c69-c155)- make no mention of the Gospel of John.  

(Cadoux, C.J., The Life of Jesus, Penguin, London 1948: p15. Martin, Ralph, New Testament Foundations, Volume I, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1975: p282.  Wells, G.A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Prometheus, Buffalo, 1988: p127)

Nowhere in the gospel is the author's name given as John. The tradition of identifying the author with John the son of Zebedee is very late. It was first stated by Ireneaus around 180 A.D., who reported that the author of this gospel was John the son of Zebedee.


Udo Schnell, Professor of New Testament at Halle, Germany, writes: 

"The different way in which the life of Jesus is portrayed, the independent theology, the numerous special traditions and the thought world explicitly oriented to the post-Easter perspective point to the conclusion that _the Fourth Gospel was not composed by an eyewitness of the life of Jesus._ He was a theologian of the later period who, on the basis of comprehensive tradtions, rethought the meaning of Jesus' life, and interpreted and presented it in his own way."  (Schnell, Udo,The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, Fortress, Minneapolis 1998: p474)

This statement by Schnell is supported by the conflicting accounts of the last supper as the Passover supper in Mark and the crucifixion of Jesus _before_ the Passover supper in John.  Ehrman mention this in the aforementioned lecture.  

This..and other reasons...is why most scholars date John to the second century, which casts doubt on John Zebedee being the author.





Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I think I mentioned before that unicorns were probably Rhino's; if you were unfamiliar with a four-footed one-horned animal, but were familiar with horses, you might decide that they look like horses.  Doesn't unicorn mean "one horned" literally?  Would you disagree with that?




Yes.  

Rhinos don't look like a horse...they weigh several tons, are woefully near sighted, squat, hairless, and have a tail that lacks the bushiness of a horse's tail.  The African variety has two horns, and sometimes a smaller third one in the case of the black rhino.  The Asian rhino doesn't have a range that extends anywhere near Mesopotamia.

As for any other zoological classification, keep in mind this portion of the Bible quotes God directly.  Surely he'd know a bat was a mammal and a bird was not...and take the time to teach his Chosen People the difference.  Were he omniscient one would think he'd spot future difficulties people would have with this and other passages, and thus rectify the problems prior to having them committed to paper.

I find it much more likely the passage concerning bats and birds is a myth written by semi-barbaric Jews of the early first millenium B.C.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 11, 2005)

Okay, let's see here...

1) I always like how I'm expected to provide exact citations and excerpts to support my position (which I have), but these just-so platitudes about "what the Bible teaches" and "what Paul teaches" are presented as if they are sufficient in and of themselves. Sorry, I ain't buyin' it.

2) A "simple belief and acceptance of Jesus' Death and Resurection" is indeed what I would describe to be an intellectual and emotional commitment to a set of metaphysical beliefs. It is also at odds with the Pauline injunction to experience a mystical death and resurrection themselves, go beyond "elementary teachings", and become transfigured "in Christ's likeness". The fundamental difference is that the paradigm you are positing is entirely intellectual in nature, requiring a simple modification of one's beliefs and opinions about the world (in other words, translative religion). The Pauline epistles themselves refer to his as a "psychic" level of understanding (connoting to an understanding involving the _psyche_ or mind). The genuine Pauline injunction, by contrast, is mystical and experiential in nature, requring an actual transformation on the part of the individual self-system (in other words, transformative religion). The Pauline epistles refer to this as a "pneumatic" level of understanding (connoting to an understanding involving the _pneuma_ or spirit).

3) While you may not like actual excerpts from the source material and prefer fallacious Appeals To Belief, you'll just have to indulge me momentarily:

"The _psychic_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _pneumatically_ discerned, but the _pneumatic_ discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)

"And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as _pneumatics_, but as to _sarkics_ --- as to those uninitiated in Christ. I fed you milk, not meat, for you were not yet ready for it. Nor are you now. You are still _sarkic_. For where there is strife and envy among you, are you not _sarkic_? Are you not acting like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3) 

"Therefore let us leave behind the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to another level of initiation (_ten teleioteta_), not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

For it is impossible for those who have been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's Word (_Logos_) and the powers of the coming age, to have fallen back to renew repentance again.  They re-crucify for themselves the Son of God." (Hebrews 6:1-6)

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable". (1 Corinthians 15:50)

"This is it: the duly appointed time! This is it: the day of salvation." (2 Corinthians 6:2)

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions --- it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2:4-7)

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin --- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)

"I have become [the church's] servant by the commission God gave me to present to you God's Word (_Logos_) in its fullness --- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:25-27)

"But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (Romans 8:10-11)

"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3:10-11)

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." (Galatians 2:20)

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transfigured into his likeness, from splendor to splendor, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

"For the _logos_ (word) of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing _psyche_ (mind) and _pneuma_ (spirit), joints and marrow; it judges the heart and attitudes of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

I read the Pauline authors talking about knowing "the fullness of God's Word" which is "Christ in you", going beyond "elementary teachings" to a "new level of initiaton", "dividing mind and spirit", becoming transfigured into Christ's likeness "splendor to splendor",  being raised "up with Christ" and seated "with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus", and being "crucified with Christ" so that "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me".

I am reading nothing, however, in all of that of Paul saying "simply believing what I'm saying is good enough!". In fact, he very explicitly distinguishes between different levels --- sarkic, psychic, pneumatic --- of understanding.

Sorry, I'm not buyin' it.

4) The problem here is that the only Christians to use the Pauline epistles as an authority prior to Irenaeus are heretics like Marcion and Valentinus. Justin Martyr is completely ignorant of Paul and never quotes him. Furthermore, literalists like Irenaeus only use the Pauline epistles alongside the forged Pastoral Letters (which Irenaeus himself may have very well written), never beforehand. 

5) As for evidence, I would suggest (among others) G. Ludemann's _Heretics_, which states: "Scholars generally agree that of the thirteen extant letters, seven are authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), whereas the rest have been composed by later disciples in the apostle's name." In his _Did Jesus Exist?_, G. A. Wells refers to Schimthal's evidence that all the principal Pauline letters, apart from Galatians, are likewise composite works. E. Pagels, in _The Gnostic Paul_, also provides evidence that early Church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian were not above tampering with Paul's letters to make a theological point to their readers (in one of the examples she gives, the fathers quote from Galatians but omit the word 'not' from a key passage).

6) G. Ludemann writes of the Pastorals: "The consensus among scholars today is that the historical Paul cannot be the author of the Pastorals, either directly or indirectly." He also writes: "In terms of the history of the canon, [the Pastoral Letters] are attested only relatively late, but always as a unity. Irenaeus (190 CE) is the first to know and use them. Indeed the very title of his work against heretics, _Unmasking and Refutation of the Gnosis, Falsely So-Called_, leans explicitly on 1 Timothy 6:20." The Pastoral Letters and the Acts of the Apostles are both unknown to Justin Martyr, Valentinus, and Marcion --- all of whom lived a mere generation earlier than Irenaeus.

7) The Apostolic Letters attributed to Peter, James, and John are not very well-supported by modern scholarship, either. A. Gaus, in _The Unvarnished New Testament_, writes of 2 Peter: "It refers to the apostles as 'our ancestors' as if they were dead and buried." I. Wilson, in _Jesus: The Evidence_, provides evidence that 1 and 2 Peter were forged in Peter's name in the third century to give an appearance of amity between Peter and Paul, even though they are described as at odds in the Pauline epistles, writing of "our brother Paul [...] so dear to us" (2 Peter 3:15). The Church historian Eusebius (circa 300 CE) regarded the epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John as disputed books. Didymus in 398 CE declared 2 Peter to be a forgery. G. A. Wells demonstrated that all these Apostolic Letters took a very long time to become part of the established canon of the New Testament.

Laterz.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 11, 2005)

Herry, "...I was stunned and amazed..."    Your elucidation of my muddled musings was on target.  As to our friend Mantis, I do believe he was referring to Aramaic which does, in fact, predate Hebrew and is the language upon which [classical] Hebrew is heavily based.  There is a huge difference between classical Hebrew, or the Hebrew used in writing the Torah, and modern Hebrew, which is what is spoken today.  Mantis will have to take my word on that one, along with my word that I am a Jew.

As to my references to the living, Arabs believe in death after life, the whole deal with the virgins awaiting them in heaven, etc.  We don't believe in any life other than the one at hand.  And yes, we are very much a family-oriented culture, with education and responsibility to our community right up there.

We DO NOT believe in Allah.  Period.  Allah is the Moslem concept of G-d, not ours.  As was pointed out, there's enough confusion with the plethora of names for our G-d, but we all agree on one thing, and that is that there is only one G-d as far as we Jews are concerned.  Oh yes.  We don't say some of those names out loud because they are too holy.  (Okay -- body armor donned.):samurai: 

And if you wish to point out the contradiction between the Ten Commandments and the concept of the Holy Trinity...  well, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses way before Jesus was born, so...

It's quite amusing trying to follow HHJH and 7*.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 11, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for any other zoological classification, keep in mind this portion of the Bible quotes God directly. Surely he'd know a bat was a mammal and a bird was not...and take the time to teach his Chosen People the difference. Were he omniscient one would think he'd spot future difficulties people would have with this and other passages, and thus rectify the problems prior to having them committed to paper.


 Um...lets look back at who named the animals....was it God himself? Now, lets look back and who created nomenclature of the animla kingdom, was it God himself? If your answer is no to any of these questions, your point is moot. ONce again, your argument rests on what "one would think". Not the base for intellegent discussion or debate. Future generation's misunderstanding is now "god's" responsibility? He must have looked down the path of time and seen every persons struggle with the bible and rectified it before its being written? Thats just absurd. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I find it much more likely the passage concerning bats and birds is a myth written by semi-barbaric Jews of the early first millenium B.C.


 Again, what you find likely is really of no importance in this debate. IN fact, points of likely or unlikely truly have no place here either. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) While you may not like actual excerpts from the source material and prefer fallacious Appeals To Belief, you'll just have to indulge me momentarily:
> 
> "The _psychic_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _pneumatically_ discerned, but the _pneumatic_ discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)


 Your interjection of (your own) words into Paul's writtings doesn't really make a case. The fact that you are choosing to define certain words in his writing as the way you believe is fine, but not really based in reality. In fact, your leaving off quite a bit of verse 15 to make your point. Would you like me to take a crack at the same scripture?

    "The _unbeliever_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _spiritually (as in being given by the holy ghost or christian conscience)_ discerned. But the _believer_ discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)

 Your misunderstanding or refusal to accept the fact of biblical teachings concerning both a spiritual "realm" (angels, deamons) and "natural realm" (our known world, physical) is the basis for your belif system. However, its not logical based on the whole bible, only parts of it. You slip in words to his text that support your view, but its clearly not in context or agreement with the rest of his teachings or the bible itself. I assume you are refuting those who cannonized the passages in the modern bible as well? 

 The truth is there are many different levels of understanding, none of which contradict the fact of what "salvation" is presented as. Because Paul teaches there are different levels of understanding doesn't really prove anything. There are in fact differing levels of understanding, none of which affect your admitance into "heaven". 

 The rest of your post is pretty much an appeal to authority. Because "a number of scholars agree" or "the consensus among scholars is" doesn't prove much of anything. I'm sure a consensus among "scholars" would vary greatly if we each chose to perform one. 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> It's quite amusing trying to follow HHJH and 7*.


 Heh, glad I can offer some entertainment! :ultracool

  7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> And if the newspaper said it was 98 degrees and somewhat hot, what then?
> 
> 7sm


Of if he said a crazy guy they hung out with overturned a change booth on one day, while another claimed it happened months later, would the court be expected to believe both were right?


----------



## Ray (Oct 12, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Of if he said a crazy guy they hung out with overturned a change booth on one day, while another claimed it happened months later, would the court be expected to believe both were right?


The Judge and/or Jury would have to evaluate the statements, as well as other evidence to try to determine the facts.  Physical evidence is real good to have, testimony is also used.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 12, 2005)

Insofar as the Levitical laws goes, God himself lists a bat as a bird.  This is not a name but a classification.  Nowhere else in the Bible does it indicate that Adam called it a bird, though he supposedly gave it the name "bat" in the second chapter of Genesis.  

Given that a bat has teeth, fur in lieu of feathers, nurses the young it gives live birth to...it is clearly not a bird.  God would know that.  A primitive barbarian making up a creation myth might not notice it.  I find it easier to accept the myth explanation over the notion that of an all-powerful deity coming up with nonsense that doesn't survive analysis.  




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, what you find likely is really of no importance in this debate. IN fact, points of likely or unlikely truly have no place here either.



Let us keep that in mind when it comes to your attempts to harmonize the more difficult passages of the Bible.  Given they're my posts, and this is a public forum, I don't need anyone's permission to state what I find "likely."  I guess that's why the term "freethinker" is so appealing to me...and I'll be darned if I'm going to dull Occam's razor.

You're having a tad bit of difficulty accepting that an omnipotent being would--or ought to-- write a perfect text.  So be it.  I'll keep hammering that point though, if not for you than for some anonymous lurker here who might take time to consider it. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm sure a consensus among "scholars" would vary greatly if we each chose to perform one.




A safe thing to say, given the logistical improbability of that task.  It might be easier if you found a reputable scholar who disagreed with the "most scholars state" line and then post it.  As is, no matter how many references we post from scholars (as I did above) you'll be able to refute it by falsely claiming an argument from exclusion.  As it is, in my readings I have NEVER found a claim by any reputable scholar that the Gospels were anything but anonymous.

(This is where you condescendingly chortle over the "my readings line.")




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I have NEVER found a claim by any reputable scholar that the Gospels were anything but anonymous.


 I guess reputable in your opinion right?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Given they're my posts, and this is a public forum, I don't need anyone's permission to state what I find &quot;likely.&quot; I guess that's why the term "freethinker" is so appealing to me...and I'll be darned if I'm going to dull Occam's razor.


 This never ceases to amaze me. Again you take what I post and run with in in a direction opposite from its context and meaning. I didn't say your not welcome to, or need permission to post your feelings or beliefs. My point (which I think was pretty obvious) is that in a debate like this, feelings, opinions, and terms such as "likely" or "One would think" hold little merrit. In fact, while being criticized for using terms like "always" or "never" its interesting that terms such as "likely" or 'one would think" are so widely accepted.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> (This is where you condescendingly chortle over the "my readings line."


  You really shouldn't take our disagreements so personal. 

       7sm


----------



## Ray (Oct 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Insofar as the Levitical laws goes, God himself lists a bat as a bird. This is not a name but a classification. Nowhere else in the Bible does it indicate that Adam called it a bird, though he supposedly gave it the name "bat" in the second chapter of Genesis.
> 
> Given that a bat has teeth, fur in lieu of feathers, nurses the young it gives live birth to...it is clearly not a bird. God would know that. A primitive barbarian making up a creation myth might not notice it. I find it easier to accept the myth explanation over the notion that of an all-powerful deity coming up with nonsense that doesn't survive analysis.


 "....the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being _'owph_, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.  The category of _'owph_ includes birds, bats, and certain insects."  -http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

Can anyone verify this?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 12, 2005)

Last I checked into the verse in question in Leviticus there was a sidenote that said that the meaning, or the correct translation, of some words was uncertain.  Meaning that the word 'bat' for example was just a best guess by the transators at the time.  Sometimes a wrod is used, like unicorn, based on both the translators uncertainty of the word coupled with incomplete zoological informtion.  Not really much to get worked up about.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 12, 2005)

In reference to my claim of reputable religious scholars stating the anonymity of the Gospels, 7Star wrote below:



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I guess reputable in your opinion right?




Oh, gee...let's look at just one of them:

Bart Ehrman is chair of the department of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill.   He graduated with a B.A. from Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), in 1978. He earned his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), in 1985.  

He's written or edited thirteen books on the subject, including one college level text.  He's spoken as a guest lecturer at nineteen universities, including Cornell, Yale, University of Birmingham, Duke, and Union Theological Seminary.

He served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, he was book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature.  In addition he was editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.  I mentioned as well he's done a series of lectures for The Teaching Company.

He won the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> This never ceases to amaze me. Again you take what I post and run with in in a direction opposite from its context and meaning.



Perhaps you need to write more clearly.  May I suggest less time with the Greek, more time with English?


Regards,



Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

Let's get a few things straight here....

1) Claiming that I'm interjecting my own words into the Pauline epistles is *extremely disingenous* in this context. _Psyche_ and _pneuma_ are the terms used in the original Greek, I didn't make them up. Explain to me how _psyche_ (and related words) translates to "unbeliever". Also, explain to me how translating _pneuma_ as pertaining to "being given by the holy ghost or christian conscience" or, alternatively, as "believer" is in any way an *honest* translation of what is actually written. I'm not the one interjecting here. 

That isn't a direct translation of what's actually said, but merely an interpretation based on Appeals To Belief. 

2) This, of course, all just falls back to a point Tim Freke and Pete Gandy make in their works. Namely, that the common interpretation of Pauline epistles rests on inadequate (some would say intentionally deceptive) translations of ancient Greek into popular language. This is done to reinfoce the circular belief paradigm as well as to simultaneously mask the authors' reliance on Gnostic and Orphic terminology.

Why else would we interpret _sarkic_ to mean "sinful", _psychic_ to mean "unbelieving", _pneumatic_ to mean "believing", _teleioi_ to mean "mature" or "perfected", or even _archones_ to mean "powers and principalities"??

This is why I take pretty much all "popular" translations of the New Testament with a very hefty grain of salt. They're so full of self-confirming bias and intentional revisionism.

3) It is a laughable Strawman Argument to claim I don't understand the idea of the twofold nature of man as expounded in Platonism, Orphism, Mithraism, Pythagoreanism, Buddhism, or any other major world religion. This is hardly a novelty of Christianity, although it is expounded in greater detail by later Christian mystics --- such as St. Bartholomeu's hierarchy of the eye of flesh, the eye of reason, and the eye of spirit.

4) The Pauline authors' descriptions of different levels of understanding are very important, because it undermines the ridiculous literalist explanations that are being expounded as just-so statements on this thread.

5) I see we are still relying on retroactive historical projectionism to validate the circular Appeal To Belief, eh? Paul must have meant X because Y was said 100 years later, huh?? Sure.

6) I like how when I'm asked for evidence to support my claims, I provide direct quotations from my sources in response, and now I'm "appealing to authority". Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

7) I see my megapost is still being ignored, as are the majority of Pauline excerpts in my last post. Gee, imagine my surprise.

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> In reference to my claim of reputable religious scholars stating the anonymity of the Gospels, 7Star wrote below:


 *sigh* Here we go...
 OK, I was not referign to anyone in particular but to your generic statement of "reputable" scholars. I wasn't doubting any of your sources or your heroed "scholars". Man, can we forget about your dislike of me and just have some honest debate over this topic?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Perhaps you need to write more clearly. May I suggest less time with the Greek, more time with English?


 Before it was I didn't have a passing familiarity with the greek language or the bible and now I need to spend less time with the ancient (dead) greeks? 
   C'mon, if you dont have a rebuttle to a point I make, just forget it and move on, and lay off the personal attacks eh? 

 It seems you are all too eager to ignore points contrary to your beliefs system and post about semantics or personal attacks. I'm still waiting on a source of your claim of rape commanded by god, but I doubt I'll get one....it seems I need to spend less time with the greeks but more time with greek writings. :idunno:

   7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

Okay, I realize the tail-end of my last post may have been a bit too snappy. I apologize if I upset or offended anyone, but its a little frustrating to see my actual arguments being summarily ignored merely because they disagree with conventional Church dogma (which is my perception of what's going on here).

I am, however, willing to listen to counter-arguments that rely on the source materials being used or contemporary sources that draw upon said materials. For example, how does one explain that only 'heretics' like Valentinus and Marcion draw upon Paul as an authority before the 190's CE, when the Pastoral Letters and Acts of the Apostles had become available?? This is an interesting line of research worth discussing, in my opinion.

Again, my apologies if I offended anyone.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *sigh* Here we go...
> OK, I was not referign to anyone in particular but to your generic statement of "reputable" scholars. I wasn't doubting any of your sources or your heroed "scholars". Man, can we forget about your dislike of me and just have some honest debate over this topic?




You wrote:

"Again, it would be interesting to see your source for this claim as well."

I responded with several authors.  You then wrote:

"I guess reputable in your opinion right?"

I responded properly by documenting the curriculum vitae of a Biblical author I cited earlier.  When you write something like that, it would be appropriate to post the credentials of the person cited.  You got what you asked for.




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting on a source of your claim of rape commanded by god, but I doubt I'll get one....



I referenced this in my response to Ray, with directions on how to find it three posts later.  I'll narrow your search: Look in Deuteronomy.  

Now get your Bible out.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I referenced this in my response to Ray, with directions on how to find it three posts later. I'll narrow your search: Look in Deuteronomy.
> 
> Now get your Bible out.


 Whoa! Thats some nice footwork! I almost lost sight of you all together.


 7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Whoa! Thats some nice footwork! I almost lost sight of you all together.
> 
> 
> 7sm




Anyone else want to show me they've actually READ the Old Testament accounts in question before I post the references?   So far 7Star has gotten an "F" in Bible study.  He obviously can't find it, and clearly hasn't read it.

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  

Once again, the topic is rape, as ordered by God and Moses.

Second hint:  The book of Numbers.  That and the portion of Deuteronomy I alluded to support each other.  

Third hint and definition:  rape n. 1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.  2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.

tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes: To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on. 2. To seize and carry off by force. 3. To plunder or pillage.

Middle English, from rapen, to rape, from Old French raper, to abduct, from Latin rapere, to seize. 




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Anyone else want to show me they've actually READ the Old Testament accounts in question before I post the references? So far 7Star has gotten an "F" in Bible study. He obviously can't find it, and clearly hasn't read it.


 Wow, your funnier than I thought. I've read the entire old testament (as well as the new) many, many times and committed many books of the old testament to memory....oh wait, now you have backpeddled and defined "rape" as abduction. 

  Your bravado is embarrasing as well as your backpeddling.

  Anyone else interested in honest debate? Ah hah, heritic...we can at least hold an honest discussion.

  7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) Claiming that I'm interjecting my own words into the Pauline epistles is *extremely disingenous* in this context. _Psyche_ and _pneuma_ are the terms used in the original Greek, I didn't make them up. Explain to me how _psyche_ (and related words) translates to "unbeliever". Also, explain to me how translating _pneuma_ as pertaining to "being given by the holy ghost or christian conscience" or, alternatively, as "believer" is in any way an *honest* translation of what is actually written. I'm not the one interjecting here.


 Its not disingenuous at all. You are simply isolating soletary words and translating them without regard to their usage. This is probably the most occuring mistake in translation of especially ancient greek. This is basically the equivalent to "sound biting" or sound bite politics". This is where someone takes a sound bite (or quote) and pulls out specific keywords without regard to context and creates a completely different message from actual words of the speaker. It is easy to do that and make almost anyone say anything you like. This is the same thing, although I wouldn't say as intentional. Your taking one word and assigning a complete ideological movement or meaning to each words, thus making one statement or writing contradict its very self. To translate correctly, one must take each word as a part of a whole. You cannot translate one word at a time without regard to the usage. 

     Now to address your quoting of 1 Cor 2:14-15. I assume your first term "_psychic"_ you are taking from yucikovß - which would be psuchikos. Is this correct? This word literally translated means natural as in sensual. Pertaining to having breath or characteristics of animals. This is precisely seperated from phusikos which would be more physical or instinctive. It is also seperated from pneumatikos which is non-carnal or supernatural.

 Your defining it as a seperate "entity" if you will, from other "types" of man listed is simply not accurate. It is not refering to differing types of people but people of differing intent, or driven by something different. Tkae for example Kung Fu. My sidai (younger kung fu siblings) have a very different understanding of kung fu than I do as does my sifu from me. Is only one of us truley doing kung fu? No, we all are, just we understand at different levels. My sifu sees much more of the picture than I do. Same kind of thing here. 

  I'm off to bed, I'll address the rest of this scripture tomorrow.....

  nighty night kids

     7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

Just a few tidbits to add.

On the non-historicity of what scholarship generally holds to be the earliest canonical gospel, the Gospel of Mark:

"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way to Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was in fact no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying, 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10 v 12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce." 

(Ian Wilson, _Jesus: The Evidence_, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984)


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

On the moral stature of the God of the Old Testament:

"Although fanatically concerned about a supposed decline in moral values, Fundamentalists hold up the barbarous Old Testament as a divinely inspired account of the works of the one and only god Jehovah. Let's just have quick look at the sort of god they are worshipping. In _The Book of Genesis_ Jehovah destroys all living things on the Earth by flood (_Genesis_ 7), but somehow managed to also find the time to specifically execute one individual man for letting his semen spill when having sex (_Genesis_ 38:9). In _The Book of Exodus_ he inflicts hideous plagues on Egypt for not letting the Israelites leave, despite the fact that it was he himself who 'hardened Pharaoh's heart' (_Exodus_ 7-11). He also kills all the firstborn Egyptian children (_Exodus_ 12), assists the Israelites in slaughtering an entire tribe of Amalekites (_Exodus_ 17:8-16), makes it allowable to beat a slave to death (_Exous_ 21:20-21) and, after rumors that Israelites have worshipped a rival god, orders faithful Israelites to kill their friends and relatives, leading to the death of 3,000 people (_Exodus_ 32:27-29).

Not content with this, in _The First Book of Samuel_ Jehovah takes vengeance on the people of Gath by giving all the men a fatal dose of haemorrhoids (_1 Samuel_ 5:8-9). In _The Book of Leviticus_ he condones human sacrifice (_Leviticus_ 27:28). In _The Book of Deuteronomy_ he orders the Israelites to utterly destroy the people of the cities that he bequeaths to them as their 'inheritance', commanding them 'not to leave anything that breathes alive' (_Deuteronomy_ 7:2, 20:16). In _The Book of Numbers_ he orders a man to be stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire on the Sabbath (_Numbers_ 15:32-36), and sends a plague which kills 14,700 people (_Numbers_ 16:49). He also gives the Israelites power to utterly destroy the Canaanites (_Numbers_ 21:3,6) and exterminate the people of Og (_Numbers_ 21:35), advising with regard to captured women and children:

'Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourself all the young girls who have not known a man intimately' (_Numbers_ 31:9,17-18).

You can see why the Christian Gnostic Marcion nicknamed Jehovah 'the exterminator'. And when it's not being gruesome, the Old Testament is so culturally foreign and outdated it is just plain daft. _The Book of Leviticus_ tells us that we must have no contact at all with a menstruating woman (_Leviticus_ 15:19-24), but it's fine to buy slaves from neighboring states (_Leviticus_ 25:44). Eating shellfish is out, however. That's apparently an 'abomination' (_Leviticus_ 10:10). _The Book of Exodus_ insists that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, which I guess means most of us deserve to die (_Exodus_ 35:2). _The Book of Deuteronomy_ decrees that a son who will not obey his parents is to be stoned to death by the whole town outside the city gates, so if you're male, and your dad's a Fundamentalist, and you're reading this, you're in big trouble (_Deuteronomy_ 21:18-20)!

If you do literally believe that God wrote or personally inspired infallible books, as Fundamentalists do, then this is the sort of ridiculous mess you end up in. You can see why Paul regarded the Old Testament as so 'rickety' that it wouldn't 'be around much longer' (_Hebrews_ 8:13)! It's a shame he was so completely wrong."

(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians_, Harmony Books, 2001)


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 12, 2005)

On the Synoptic gospels as originally being scripts for Hellenistic mystery plays:

"For the moment we can leave aside the alleged biography and the teaching contained in the gospels. We must turn to the crucifixion story to see whether this description of the sacrifice of a god-man bears the characteristic marks of a dramatic performance, in light of what we already know of such rituals. The mere possibility that we may be reading the transcript of a play, the basic plot of which is very ancient, meets with instinctive resistance. Yet it is a fact that mystery plays, so far from being uncommon, were a striking feature of the popular religions of Greece and Egypt. There is nothing instrinsically unlikely in the hypothesis that such a drama was in vogue among the Christians.

The sufferings and death of Osiris, for example, were enacted in a sacred drama once a year. Again, Adonis and Attis were represented by effigy in a dramatic ritual. The same is true of Mithra and Dionysus. A performance of the myth of Demeter and Persephone was the central attraction to the Eleusinian mysteries.

There is nothing surprising or unusual in acting our a religious myth. In fact one would expect Christians to imitate paganism and dramatize the Nativity, the Holy Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. There is a hint of such drama in the epistle to the Galatians, 'before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified.' And again: 'I bear in my body the marks of Lord Jesus.' There are other expressions in the epistles describing the devotee as mystically crucified and as having become one with the crucifed Lord. They strongly suggest that in the early stages of the cult it dramatically adopted the teaching of the Egyptian Book of the Dead where in the saved and Osirified soul declares: 'I clasp the sycamore tree; I myself am joined into the sycamore tree and its arms are opened unto me graciously.' Further, 'I have become a divine being by the side of the birthchamber of Osiris; I am brought forth with him, I renew my youth.'

The parallels are clear, but we have yet to establish how the drama of Christ's Supper, Passion, Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion actually _originated_. The proof, I submit, lies before men's eyes in the actual gospel narrative. It has always lain there, but pre-possessions set up by age-long belief have prevented believers and unbelievers alike from seeing it.

Let the reader carefully peruse the series of episodes given in their least sophisticated form in Matthew and Mark. From Matt. xxvi, 17 or 20, the narrative is simply the presentation of a dramatic action and dialogue. The events are huddled one upon the other exactly as happens in all drama that is not framed with a special concern for plausibility. In many plays of Shakespeare and even in the work of Ibsen, the chief master of modern drama -- in _Hedda Gabler_, for example -- there is a compression of incidents in time to minimize change of scene and develop the action rapidly. To realize fully the theatrical character of the gospel story it is necessary to keep in view this characteristic compression of the action in time, as well as the purely dramatic content. The compression of events not merely proves the narrative to be pure fiction; the reason for the compression is that they are presented in dramatic form."

(J. M. Roberston, _Pagan Christs_, Dorset Press, 1966)


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> _The Book of Deuteronomy_ decrees that a son who will not obey his parents is to be stoned to death by the whole town outside the city gates, ... (_Deuteronomy_ 21:18-20)!


My 4 sons will tell you that I agree with this (3 of them have made it to adulthood without any stonings, but #3 is really trying my patience)


----------



## arnisador (Oct 13, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> My 4 sons will tell you that I agree with this (3 of them have made it to adulthood without any stonings, but #3 is really trying my patience)


From _Back to School_:
Lou: "I'm tough, but fair. I'll give you an example. You know my two boys? I put one of them through college, and the other one through a wall. Tough, but fair."


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Wow, your funnier than I thought. I've read the entire old testament (as well as the new) many, many times and committed many books of the old testament to memory....oh wait, now you have backpeddled and defined "rape" as abduction.
> 
> Your bravado is embarrasing as well as your backpeddling.




Hey, I'm not at all embarrassed.  Are you embarrassed?  For quite awhile here I've thrown out little hints to let you try and find Biblical accounts that are dramatic and controversial.  You claim to have read the Bible, yet can't easily reference the accounts.  

As far as defining rape, I used a dictionary.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

DRUMROLL PLEASE!!!!!

7star apparently didn't know where it was...so here we go!

Okay.  Deuteronomy, chapter 20:

_10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby._

Later, in chapter 21, we find the disposition of the female captives:

_10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. _

Numbers 31
Vengeance on the Midianites 
    1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." 
    3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling. 
    7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Rebathe five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a] 
    13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armythe commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredswho returned from the battle. 
    15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. 

Dividing the Spoils 
    25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 
    32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man. 
    36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 
       337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675; 
    38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72; 
    39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61; 
    40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32. 


I think I can anticipate your response to this one...this isn't rape, right?  The forced slavery of a girl following the execution of her all the males and child bearing women of her family isn't-technically-rape...but perhaps you'll suggest that the Israelites were NICE guys who gave her a choice as to whether she'd have sex or not (women back then must have found their conquerors terribly sexy, particularly the ones that wiped out their families)...or perhaps you'll suggest she's taken only as a house servant, and her subsequent betrothel to her captor is consensual.

Which leads us to wonder why the non-virgin females and boys were slaughtered, when they'd be perfectly good house slaves.  

On the other hand, some would suggest that rape or not, it isn't a crime if God orders it.  That might be another way to dance around this rather sticky issue.


Heretic gets a gold star, by the way.  7Star gets a note home to his parents for failure to participate in class.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 13, 2005)

Let's not forget Psalm 137:
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.  
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Let's not forget Psalm 137:
> O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
> Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.




Yeah...and I always hated how they put that in a song that starts off so beautifully.

"By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
       when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars
       we hung our harps..." 


We haven't even mentioned Joshua.  Here an entire family is put to death for the transgressions of the father:

7:19 And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me.	
7:20 And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:	
7:21 When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.	
7:22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.	
7:23 And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.	
7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.	
7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.


The sins of the father, and all that.  


Heck of a thing...urge a man to confess for the Glory of God and then kill him, his entire family, and even his livestock.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 13, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Yeah...and I always hated how they put that in a song that starts off so beautifully.
> 
> "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
> when we remembered Zion.
> ...


Isn't this the one that Don McLean made into a song?

In a *Clint Eastwood* voice:


> Heck of a thing...urge a man to confess for the Glory of God and then kill him, his entire family, and even his livestock.


Worse yet is what they did to the livestock first...**shudder**.

Yes, I think of these things when people condemn the Koran as violent ar at least as endorsing violence. I wonder, Have these people ever read the Bible?

Admittedly, things aren't as bleak in the New Testament.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 13, 2005)

It seems I have addressed Judas' death and the color of the robe sufficiently as these points have now been ignored and people have moved on to other "points". 


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm off to bed, I'll address the rest of this scripture tomorrow.....


 The complete ignoring of my clearification of the greek used in 1 Cor 2, is not surprising btu disappointing. Since I did say I would finish the verses, I'll do that before moving on to the myriad of "new" points brought up (which are riddled with incorrect and misunderstood "points").

   1 Cor. 2:14-15 (KJV)
_But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

_Now Heritic's version:



> "The _psychic_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _pneumatically_ discerned, but the _pneumatic_ discerns all things." (1 Corinthians 2:14-15)


 Now, we can see which words he was isolating. I address his use of "psychic" which is the greek word psuchikos (psoo-khee-kos). This is basically the term for what we share with the animals, natural or sensual. Being driven or subject to appetite or passion. This word is used refering to the person who is governed and driven by their passions or natural desires. 

   The second word used was "pneumatically". The greek word used here is pneumatikos which is from the root word pneuma meaning the spirit, the power by which the human being thinks, and decides. The Soul. Interestingly this word is also used specifically forthe third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son. What he is saying here is that "these things" are discerned by the "holy spirit" or the soul. Here we can see that a person driven by their passion or natural drives does not seek out or understand the things of the spiritual "realm" or things of the soul.

   Finally the third word we saw used was "_pneumatic". _I'm a bit confused by Heritic's use of this word here. These two usages and words are different. Here the greek word from the passage is basically pneumatikos again, but its a different form whic his actually pneumatikovß. This is litterally  belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God, or belonging to the Divine Spirit. 

   So we see the whole passage coorelating. We can see now that what I posted earlier still holds true of the whole passage...



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your defining it as a seperate "entity" if you will, from other "types" of man listed is simply not accurate. It is not refering to differing types of people but people of differing intent, or driven by something different. Take for example Kung Fu. My sidai (younger kung fu siblings) have a very different understanding of kung fu than I do as does my sifu from me. Is only one of us truley doing kung fu? No, we all are, just we understand at different levels. My sifu sees much more of the picture than I do. Same kind of thing here.


 Now, looking at the greek used, I dont see what your point was (from your megapost). Your trying to make these different words create a distinction of people and saying that is what Paul was saying. Thats not true, furthermore, I dont see how any of this passage disproves the validity of the bible as a whole.

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems I have addressed Judas' death and the color of the robe sufficiently as these points have now been ignored and people have moved on to other "points".




Your comments were debunked, yes.  Refuted, certainly.  Logically dissected, without a doubt...but they just couldn't be ignored.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 13, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Your comments were debunked, yes. Refuted, certainly. Logically dissected, without a doubt...but they just couldn't be ignored.


 :bs:
 Look man, you can attack me all you want, but your refusal to address my posts and ignore my points is obvious. You offered no debunking, refuting, or dissection of my points on either, but simply resorted to personal attacks and name calling. You twist around my posts and attack me with everyone of yours. I asked for a refrence to what you were refering and you didn't give one for several pages, finally offering that I didn't know what I was talking about because I asked for your refrence without giving you one to use.

   Tell you what, skip those past few examples and debunk, refute, and dissect my current post of the 1 Cor 2:14-15 passage. 

   You shouldnt strike out so much against people who disagree with you, just because we disagree doesnt mean I hate you man.

   7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2005)

Ok, fellas. Let's all just simmer down for a minute.

7starmantis, I did not ignore your "clearification" of the Greek used in the aforementioned passages. I simply did not have enough time last night to respond in a satisfactory manner, so I decided to put if off until today.

Now, for the sake of argument, let us compare a few different translations of the same passages (1 Corinthians 2:14-15).

"The _unbeliever_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _spiritually_ discerned. But the _believer_ discerns all things." 
(your translation) 

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know _them_, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 
(_The Holy Bible: Red Letter Edition_, Authorized King James Version, World Bible Publishers)

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment." 
(_The Holy Bible: New International Version_, Zondervan Publishing House)

"The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?_, Three Rivers Press)

"_Psychics_ don't grasp things which concern the consciousness of God. They seem like foolishness to them, because they are _pneumatically_ discerned. _Pneumatics_, however, understand everything."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians_, Harmony Books)

Now, it seems to me that every one of these translations have subtle little differences that variegate the meaning of the text. Even Freke and Gandy's two translations vary somewhat from one another (although, admittedly, not as much as the other translations do). 

Which, then, should we interpret _psuchikos_ to mean? 'Unbeliever'? 'Natural man'? 'Man without the Spirit'? While similar in a vague sense, these three translations are hardly mutually inclusive of one another. Or, perhaps we should look to some other meaning not yet mentioned?? 

Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English _psyche_ is derived from the Greek _psuche_), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what _psuche_ and _psuchikos_, as well as _pneuma_ and _pneumatikos_, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.

Interestingly enough, _psuche_ is usually translated as 'soul' or 'life' throughout the Bible. It is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew word _nephesh_. By contrast, _pneuma_ is never translated as 'soul' (as 7starmantis intimated in a previous post), but instead translates to 'spirit', 'breath', or 'wind'. The Hebrew equivalent to this word is _ru'ach_.

Freke and Gandy (in _Jesus and the Lost Goddess_) felt it best to transliterate _psuche_ into the English _psyche_ (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:

"[_Psyche_] is traditionally translated as 'soul', although, as the ancient word 'psyche' has come into common usage since the advent of psychology, it is probably less misleading to leave the term untranslated. In relationship to the outer body, we experience the psyche/soul as our 'inner self'. For the Gnostics, it is a deeper level of our identity than the body."

Ironically enough, the Hebrew and Aramaic terminology (_nephesh_ and _naphsha_, respectively) also have a similar meaning as to what Freke and Gandy have described. Neil Douglas-Klotz (in _The Hidden Gospel_) writes:

"[...] I mentioned the Semitic notion of the subconscious self, called _naphsha_ in Aramaic and _nephesh_ in Hebrew. In fact, these terms point to a range of ideas and images having to do with difference faces of what we usually call the soul or the individual self."

Also:

"This subject has been made more confusing than necessary by the fact that the usual New Testament translations do not translate the word _naphsha_ (or its Greek equivalent) consistently. In one case, we find it translated 'soul', in another 'self', and in still another 'life'. All told, _naphsha_ is used more than two hundred times in the Gospels."

Back to Freke and Gandy's explanation:

"But when [the Gnostics] talk on a deeper level about how things _are_ subjectively, the psyche or soul is conceived of as an ongoing _event_ witnessed by Consciousness. It is the totality of our experience, which includes the experience of the body. This turns inside-out the notion that the psyche somehow inhabits the body. As Plotinus teaches, 'The psyche is not in the body, rather the body is in the psyche.'"

Douglas-Klotz is in agreement concerning the Semitic equivalents:

"In an ancient Semitic sense, one does not 'have' or 'possess' a soul: one _is_ a soul. Further, [...] the soul has different aspects. [...], the soul-self is really a continuum that connects the 'heavenly' or vibrational aspect of being with the 'earthly' or particular aspect."

The ancient philosopher Plato (who had a substantial influence on the Pauline authors) is even more elaborate here:

"Whereas God made the psyche in origin and excellence prior to and older than the body, to be ruler and mistress, of whom the body was to be the subject." (_Timaeus_, 34b-c)

"[...] psyche is prior to body, body secondary and derivative, psyche governing in the real order of things and body being subject to governance." (_Laws_, 896c-e)

"Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two together, and united them centre to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the centre to the cirumference of heaven, of which also she is the external development, herself turning in herself, began a divine beginning of never ceasing and rational life enduring throughout all time. The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and being made by the best of intellectual and everlasting natures, is the best of things created." (_Timaeus_, 36e)

I think we've established a fairly pervasive string of ideas in the Hellenistic world concerning _psuche_, _nephesh_, _naphsha_, _psyche_, or 'soul'. Let's move on to _pneuma_. Freke and Gandy write:

"At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called _pneuma_ or _nous_. _Pneuma_ is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. _Nous_ is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas _nous_ is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes _nous_ as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of _being_ in every human being. It is who we _are_. A more appropriate modern translation for both _pneuma_ and _nous_ is 'Consciousness'."

They continue:

"There is nothing more obvious than the fact that we are conscious of experiences. Our essential identity is the experiencer, _nous_, spirit, Consciousness. The flow of experience which Consciousness witnesses is the psyche or soul. For the Gnostics, therefore, our fundamental condition could be described as Consciousness aware of experience, _nous_ aware of _psyche_, spirit aware of soul."

Also:

"From the point of view of the centre, we are Consciousness experiencing psyche, which, at the circumference, includes the body in the form of sensations. The psyche-body is what we _appear_ to be. Consciousness is what we _are_."

Plato speaks of this Consciousness himself:

"The region of which I speak is the abode of that reality with which true knowledge is concerned. A reality without colour or shape, but utterly real, apprehensible only by Consciousness, which is the pilot of the psyche." (_Phaedrus_, 247c-d)

The Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus, who had a direct influence on many of the New Testamental authors, also speaks of this Consciousness in relation to why Adam assigned names to all of God's creatures but couldn't name himself:

"The mind (_nous_) which is in each of us is capable of apprehending other objects, but is incapable of knowing itself [...] It is likely then, that Adam, that is the Mind (_nous_), though he names and apprehends other things, gives no name to himself, since he is ignorant of himself and his own nature."

Now, to turn to the Semitic equivalents again, Douglas-Klotz writes:

"In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the same word -- _ruha_ in Aramaic, _ruach_ in Hebrew -- must stand for several English words: spirit, wind, air, and breath."

He continues:

"From the perspective of Sacred Unity, my breath is connected to the air we all breathe. It participates in the wind and in the atmosphere that surrounds the whole planet. This atmosphere then connects to the ineffable spirit-breath that pervades the seen and unseen worlds."

This ties directly with the conception of God described in John 4:24 (NIV): "God is spirit."

The following article at Wikipedia also summarizes the conception of _logos_, _pneuma_, and _nous_ developed by Philo Judaeus.

In summation, _psuche_ does not correspond exclusively with "natural or sensual" qualities (although it may include them), nor does _pneuma_ correspond with the "soul" (at least not how most would recognize the term).

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> :bs:
> Look man, you can attack me all you want, but your refusal to address my posts and ignore my points is obvious.




7Star, you get what you give.

In dealing with me the tone of your posts have been snippy, sarcastic, and surly.  

My first post in response to you in this thread was #32.  I didn't write anything confrontational.  You responded sarcastically and condescendingly in post #38.  It was all downhill from there.  I invite people to go back and look at those.

I don't know what kind of a Christian you are, but as an Evangelical I think you'd fall short if this thread is any indication of the tone you'd take with potential converts.  That "do unto others" line seems to have eluded you.


I delayed posting the OT references to give you a chance to show your familiarity with the Bible.  I was clear in my intentions, gave you hints and resources.  You were found wanting.  

Now when confronted with the Numbers/Deuteronomy passage you're asking to skip that section--which you so ardently called for--and requested we move on to another part of the Bible entirely.  


Once more into the breach, dear friends.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

7Star, how does this read?  Would you say its more, or less poetic than the KJV version?

You recognize the author, of course.



Regards,



Steve


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Oct 13, 2005)

*Moderator Note:* 


Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-MJ :asian: 
-MT Moderator-


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 13, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 7Star, you get what you give.
> 
> In dealing with me the tone of your posts have been snippy, sarcastic, and surly.
> 
> My first post in response to you in this thread was #32. I didn't write anything confrontational. You responded sarcastically and condescendingly in post #38. It was all downhill from there. I invite people to go back and look at those.


 Thats the problem with debating via this medium. I in no way intended to be "snippy" or "surly". I said several times that I wasn't upset or holding you in any disregard.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I don't know what kind of a Christian you are, but as an Evangelical I think you'd fall short if this thread is any indication of the tone you'd take with potential converts. That "do unto others" line seems to have eluded you.


 Actually you dont know if I am a Christian. Tone is a subjective term on an internet discussion board. However, lets lay off the attacks and just stick to topic, cool? I'm cool with you, I have no malice for you in any way, so lets just stick to discussion, yes?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I delayed posting the OT references to give you a chance to show your familiarity with the Bible. I was clear in my intentions, gave you hints and resources. You were found wanting.


 Again, your opinions of me "wanting" are simply that, opinions. Your tone in this post would come across as pretty harsh, am I reading it wrong? You can't make such huge assumptions about someone because they dont "play along" with you. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now when confronted with the Numbers/Deuteronomy passage you're asking to skip that section--which you so ardently called for--and requested we move on to another part of the Bible entirely.


 Once again, lets actually read post and not just skim them. I didn't ask to skip anything. I didn't ask to move on either, I simply finished an answer I started from a post pages back. Re-read my friend.

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 13, 2005)

The Gospel of John, the miracle of changing water into wine...a fiction?

The author of John borrows imagery from Moses when the latter changes water into blood.  John writes of the signs Jesus brought in John 20: 30-31.  Exodus 4:8-9 writes of the water to blood conversion as the third sign.  The same word is used in the Greek for "signs".

John als borrows from 1 Kings 17, using Jesus as an allegorical figure for Elijah (as he did for Moses).  Elijah performs the miracle for providing food where there is none, and a line from Elijah is taken and interjected into John.  

The woman in 1 Kings 17 says to Elijah, "What have I to do with thee, Oh man of God?"  At Cana, Jesus-the man of God-says to his mother, "What have I to do with thee, woman?"   Jesus's remark to his mother isn't a historical report so much as it is an anti-type of Elijah.  

In both stories the prophets direct that empty barrels/jars have the needed provision taken from them.

Why did John use wine instead of Elijah's use of flour?  

In the Greek cult of Dionysus there was a tradition that on the eve of the festival three empty pitchers would be put into the temple at Elis...they would be found the next day full of wine.  The waters at the temple springs at Andros and Teos would also turn to wine the day of the festival.

The miracle at Cana had some historical precedent, it seems.  By the time the Gospel of John was written in the late 1st/early 2nd century Christianity had become fully Hellenized.  Greek traditions and myth had worked their way deeply into the faith.




Regards,

Steve


----------



## Ray (Oct 14, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> ...in the late 1st/early 2nd century Christianity had become fully Hellenized. Greek traditions and myth had worked their way deeply into the faith.


I too believe that certainly by 300 AD Christianity had become fully Hellenized; not for the reasons you describe though.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 14, 2005)

You're close, guys, but not quite there. 

Christianity has, from its apparent inception, been a thorougly Hellenized religious movement. The most basic theological formula in the Pauline epistles, the earliest Christian writings we know of, is that of a mystical communion with the god-man through participation in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This essentially is just a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults devoted to the _pantheus_ ('all-god') of Osiris-Dionysus that were ubiquitious throughout the Mediterranean. Its certainly not a historical novelty, nor does it fall back on what most would consider traditional Judaism.

On top of this theological formula, the Pauline epistles use language and terminology that demonstrate an indebtedness to Platonism, Orphism, the Mysteries, and Hellenized Jewish communities like the Essenes and Therapeutae. This tradition continues on into the canonical Gospels themselves, which invoke a number of metaphysical motifs taken from Hellenistic philosophers (such as Heraclitus' _logos_), a moral philosophy dependent on Cynicism and Stoicism (such as abandoning one's family and possessions to take up the Way or prizing a celibate lifestyle), and even mythos from various Pagan myths (such as the wine-to-water legends that Steve cited in his last post).

Of course, its not really fair to blame all this Hellenization on the Christians. The Hellenization is actually pre-Christian. The 4th century Church historian Eusebius mistakenly believed Philo's Therapeutae (circa 15 CE), centered near Alexandria, were the world's "first Christians". They were a Jewish Pythagorean community of celibate monastics that were described by Philo as being like "initiates of Dionysus", indicating the preliminary existence of a sort of proto-Christianity (i.e., an early attempt to create a Jewish Mystery school).

There are allusions to Egypt as the birthplace of Christianity in the canonical Gospels (i.e., "he came up out of Egypt"). Egypt was the first nation to develop the ubquitious Mystery formula of Death and Resurrection (i.e., Osiris). Egypt was the home of a number of notable early Christians, as well as many early Christian writings (both canonical and heretical). The library of Alexandria would have contained all the information the authors would need to develop the Jesus Christ myth in full (including mythos from a number of disparate cultures --- Greece, Egypt, India, Rome, and so on). Alexandria was the home of the Therapeutae, whose similarities to later Christianity are so profound that Church historians had them confused.

More than one scholar has concluded Alexandria to be the actual birthplace of Christianity, and for good reason. The religion was, from its very beginnings, a form of Jewish Hellenism.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> More than one scholar has concluded Alexandria to be the actual birthplace of Christianity, and for good reason. The religion was, from its very beginnings, a form of Jewish Hellenism.




A strong argument.  The key here is "Jewish Hellenism."

We see the Jews as being Hellenized following the conquests of Alexander.  Greek culture inexorably seeped into Jewish life, in spite of reactionary responses noted by Josephus and the authors of Maccabees.  

That said, the Jewish influence on Christianity must be noted.  If there was a drawing of the faith from Egyptian roots, as you've suggested, there was ready support for the Egyptian connection in the Pentateuch and writings of the prophets.  Drawing from such sources made perfect sense, of course, as it had great appeal for its Jewish audience...Paul included.

Jeus's healing miracle (the second "sign") in John 4: 46 parallels that of a well known Rabbinic healing miracle that was well known in John's time.  Both stories involve healing from a distance.  Both use fever as the illness, and both use similar terminology when the miracle-worker exhorts supplicants to go check on the ill person.  The Johannine, rabbinical and synoptic miracles all connect closely to the stories about Elijah.

It should be noted that such miracle stories were pretty common in the first century, and could be attributed to a number of rabbis, not just Jesus.  I'm sure, Heretic, you could point out pagan miracle workers of that era, such as Apollonius of Tyana.

The evolution of this religion shows a great deal of cross-pollination.  It draws from a variety of sources, both Jewish and pagan.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Now, for the sake of argument, let us compare a few different translations of the same passages (1 Corinthians 2:14-15).
> 
> "The _unbeliever_ does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are _spiritually_ discerned. But the _believer_ discerns all things."
> (your translation)
> ...


 OK, first lets define the word "translation". A translation of the bible comes straight from the greek (or hebrew) text (completely), not from another translation. What you listed as "my translation" is not a translation at all, but more of a paraphrase as are the last few you mentioned as well. Paraphrases can get you in trouble because they show personal bias all too well. Thats why in honest research we must stick with either "original" texts or actual translations, although many translation prove heavily biased as well. 

 I dont however see your "subtle differences that variegate the meaning of the text". The only way to find differences is to take each word literally and out of context with the rest of the passage. Lets take your quoted KJV & NIV versions for example. 


			
				KJV said:
			
		

> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:





			
				NIV said:
			
		

> The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God


 OK, there is no variation of meaning here. Your taking the different usage of words and interjecting a differing meaning. Lets review my post about the greek words used: 


			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I address his use of "psychic" which is the greek word psuchikos (psoo-khee-kos). This is basically the term for what we share with the animals, natural or sensual. Being driven or subject to appetite or passion. This word is used refering to the person who is governed and driven by their passions or natural desires.


 OK, so why would we get two different words ("natural", "without the spirit") from this one greek word? The answer is simple, they are congruent. psuchikos means literally driven by appetite or desires which would be a person without "god" or the "spirit". You allready quoted the scriptures talking about being "crucified with christ". The idea here is that you let your "old self" or "natural will" be "buried with christ" or you let it die. Then you accept "god" or the "spirit" and allow him to govern your life, thus making you no longer driven by natural desires, but spiritual desires. So you can see how easily we could define psuchikos as "natural man" or "man without the spirit". According to the bible, without god you are unable to understand the things of god...makes sense to me. But having accepted god you now have the "holy spirit" with its discernment and are able to understand spiritual things. I dont see why this is hard to understand, or why you keep interjecting different meanings to these words. I think the different translations are what is throwing people off, but the greek text remains the same, it is static in its message which is now plainly seen.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Which, then, should we interpret _psuchikos_ to mean? 'Unbeliever'? 'Natural man'? 'Man without the Spirit'? While similar in a vague sense, these three translations are hardly mutually inclusive of one another. Or, perhaps we should look to some other meaning not yet mentioned??


 You dont interpret from a translation backwards, you take the original greek and move towards an english translation. There is no vagueness in the similarity here, you must look at the greek text. The english words are a bit tricky, but if you understand the greek passage its very straightforward. These "translations" are in fact mutually exclusive _if_ you allow the context to be considered. If not, sure they appear to be quite different, but studying other usage of this word in the bible and other passages about this, we can see that the "different" english translations simply explain the same idea with different english words....the meaning does not change.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English _psyche_ is derived from the Greek _psuche_), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what _psuche_ and _psuchikos_, as well as _pneuma_ and _pneumatikos_, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.


 No, actually you applying your idea of a hellenistic context to this passage. Dont apply a context of anything except whats given in the passage itself. First, the word yuchv (Psuche) is actually not used in this scripture. Not at all. So we see a problem here, no? You are using a word not even contained in this scripture to apply meaning to this scripture. How can you use words in "your translation" that aren't even contained within the text of this passage? That is the interjection I'm refering to. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, _psuche_ is usually translated as 'soul' or 'life' throughout the Bible. It is roughly equivalent to the Hebrew word _nephesh_. By contrast, _pneuma_ is never translated as 'soul' (as 7starmantis intimated in a previous post), but instead translates to 'spirit', 'breath', or 'wind'. The Hebrew equivalent to this word is _ru'ach_.


 The word pneu'ma is translated as "spirit", "breath" and "wind" but in context of humanity it is translated as "the human soul". Its the first one you listed, "spirit", its also translates to "soul". However, becaus ethere is another word that translates to "soul" doesn't mean you can just plug it in to this scripture to make a specific meaning. That is still reverse translation. 
 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Freke and Gandy (in _Jesus and the Lost Goddess_) felt it best to transliterate _psuche_ into the English _psyche_ (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:


 Again, this word is *not* used in this passage. They can translate it into whatever they want, but they can't interject the word into a passage that doesn't contain it. Thats changing the text to suit your needs and is not honest in any way. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "This subject has been made more confusing than necessary by the fact that the usual New Testament translations do not translate the word _naphsha_ (or its Greek equivalent) consistently. In one case, we find it translated 'soul', in another 'self', and in still another 'life'. All told, _naphsha_ is used more than two hundred times in the Gospels."


 OK, assuming from your post that your speaking of the greek word psuche, it is not contained in this scripture, therefore its discussion is quite irrelevant to this topic. In the greek language usage plays a large part, thats probably the reason for their misunderstanding the translations as being inconsistent. However, once again we see this is irrelevant because the word is not present in this scripture.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I think we've established a fairly pervasive string of ideas in the Hellenistic world concerning _psuche_, _nephesh_, _naphsha_, _psyche_, or 'soul'. Let's move on to _pneuma_. Freke and Gandy write:


 We have most deffinitely established that the word doesn't belong in this discussion as it is simply not present in the passage. Yes, lets move on to pneuma.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called _pneuma_ or _nous_. _Pneuma_ is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. _Nous_ is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas _nous_ is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes _nous_ as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of _being_ in every human being. It is who we _are_. A more appropriate modern translation for both _pneuma_ and _nous_ is 'Consciousness'."


 I feel like I'm debating with a book! :ultracool
   OK, lets address this. First, the words pneu'ma and nou'ß have nothing to do with one another. They quote it saying "pneuma or nous" but that is an incorect premise. These two words are different. In fact, you can see this as nou'ß is used in the next verse (1 Cor 2:16) _


			
				KJV said:
			
		


			For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
		
Click to expand...

_ The word "mind" in this passage is the word nou'ß or nous. We see a distinct difference and seperation from one word to the next. This is the type of incorrect inclusive transliterating that causes people without a knowledge of greek or the bible to fall prey to misinformation. Freke and Gandy's last quoted passage deals *only* with nous which we now see has nothing to do with the scripture at hand.

 So, we can see that this misinterpretation, intential or not, is completely false and thus the point of heritic's "translation" (which we now see is Freke and Gandy's: 





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
> (Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?_, Three Rivers Press)


 Is simply incorrect usage of isolated greek words that have nothing to do with the scripture at hand, but have been inserted with such bravado that the unsuspecting, or unknowledgeable do not question it. If you take the actual text, we see their point fall to pieces.

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2005)

Another link with John and Elijah is the meeting with the Samaritan woman a the well, found in John 4.  Contrast this with Elijah's interaction with the widow of Sarepta.  

Both stories have the protagonists (Elijah and Jesus) leaving their homes for a foreign land; Both heroes are thirsty and ask a woman for a drink; both lack a drinking utensil and ask to use her vessel to drink from; both women are unmarried.  

In both narratives however; it is the woman who needs something from the hero.  In the account with Elijah, the woman receives abundant bread, in the account with Jesus the woman receives abundant life.  Both women certify the heroes as prophets.

While there isn't any indication that John had Greek sources for the story of Elijah, he seems to have been familiar with the oral traditions surrounding his Jewish predecessor.  The parallels are striking, and we can see strong evidence that he borrowed from the account in 1 Kings in drafting this, and other stories.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The author of John borrows imagery from Moses when the latter changes water into blood. John writes of the signs Jesus brought in John 20: 30-31. Exodus 4:8-9 writes of the water to blood conversion as the third sign. The same word is used in the Greek for "signs".


 Its really nothing more than opinion whether John borrowed imagry from Moses. See, in the story your refering to about Moses, it does not say Moses turned the water into blood, it says God did. Moses was simply the reluctant messenger. 
       As far as the word "signs", we are talking about hebrew and greek here, not both greek. The greek word used in John is shmei'on while the hebrew word used in Exodus is twa. While these both can be translated to the word "signs" they are a bit different in meaning. However, what would be the relevance of the same word being used? 




			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> John als borrows from 1 Kings 17, using Jesus as an allegorical figure for Elijah (as he did for Moses). Elijah performs the miracle for providing food where there is none, and a line from Elijah is taken and interjected into John.
> 
> The woman in 1 Kings 17 says to Elijah, "What have I to do with thee, Oh man of God?" At Cana, Jesus-the man of God-says to his mother, "What have I to do with thee, woman?" Jesus's remark to his mother isn't a historical report so much as it is an anti-type of Elijah.


 Again, its speculative at best to say he borowed these lines, but even so, what does that prove exactly? Jesus is not used as an allegorical figure at all, this is seen from the precise words used in the greek when talking about him. They are heavily non-allegorical. Also, you said "jesus - the man of god". Jesus is considered to be god, not the man of god. Jesus as a human was considered to be god's son and as inhuman as god himself. No where in the bible does it refer to jesus as _a_ or _the_ man of god. 
 Its really stretching to use these two lines as quoting one another. First, you would have to prove John's familiartity with the womans exact words. Next you would have to prove coorelation more than speculative points, that these two stories are related (which is obviously not so with studying the text). Then having proved both of those, what would you have proved? That the story has Jesus using the same words as a women did to Elijah? Thats allready understood and believed by most "christians" or biblical scholars. I dont understand the point unless we apply incorrect context to it and say that proves some type of inacuracy of the later writing, which it truly does not.

 Similarities between stories without verifiable proof show nothing more than speculations. Speculations show nothing more than personal biases, and personal biases do not promote discussion.

       Hope I haven't offended you Steve, we just disagree thats all, we can still have good discussion.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Christianity has, from its apparent inception, been a thorougly Hellenized religious movement. The most basic theological formula in the Pauline epistles, the earliest Christian writings we know of, is that of a mystical communion with the god-man through participation in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This essentially is just a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults devoted to the _pantheus_ ('all-god') of Osiris-Dionysus that were ubiquitious throughout the Mediterranean. Its certainly not a historical novelty, nor does it fall back on what most would consider traditional Judaism.


 I dont think christianity is upheld as novel or even different from other forms of religion or "mysticism". The apparent idea you are disproving is that christianity holds itself as true because its unique from other religions or beliefs. Thats not completely true however. Its uniqueness is not what makes christians believe in christ. Am I missing your point? The fact that similar stories or beliefs exist in no way disproves the factuality of "the bible, hell, and other topics of casual delight". :supcool:
 There are plenty that exist including Gilgamesh's account of "The Flood", I dont see that these discount the bibles accuracy at all.

   7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> OK, lets address this. First, the words pneu'ma and nou'ß have nothing to do with one another. They quote it saying "pneuma or nous" but that is an incorect premise. These two words are different. In fact, you can see this as nou'ß is used in the next verse (1 Cor 2:16) _ The word "mind" in this passage is the word __nou'ß or nous. We see a distinct difference and seperation from one word to the next. This is the type of incorrect inclusive transliterating that causes people without a knowledge of greek or the bible to fall prey to misinformation. Freke and Gandy's last quoted passage deals *only* with nous which we now see has nothing to do with the scripture at hand.
> _


_That's your opinion. Who else supports it?_


----------



## mantis (Oct 14, 2005)

dude..
there are people here, like me, who havent read the bible and have no idea what you guys are talking about now!
i tried to say several times that you guys are too hardcore for the "common people" to understand.
if you have 7starmantis rephrase this in "english" i promise i'll have a vote on this.
well, that's not the point of my post here! (otherwise i'll be put on "ignore" by lots of poeple)
my point is there is more than one mistake in the translation of the bible from Hebrew to other languages which caused the bible to become a contradiction to all religions that worship the one God. I do have a document written by a south african gentelman, but I dont think i can upload it here. maybe I can email it to someone who can upload it to look at it.
thanks


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That's your opinion. Who else supports it?


 Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary. The two words are different, also try looking at the actual text of the scripture. There is no need for opinions and support of opinions, simple facts will do.

     1 Cor. 2:16 (Greek New Testament)





 
     We can clearly see the word here in verse 16.
     Now, here is verse 14-15











 We can clearly see the word is not in verse 14 or 15 as I stated. No opinion is neccessary on the difference of the words either, just check out a dictionary, concordance, or lexicon.

     7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10)


 Ok, so much to adress, so little time. I'll address the unicorn issue now, as it seems to be a common one.

 OK, the term "unicorn is found in the KJV of the bible 9 times. (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7). However, the term does not appear in the American Standard Version or most other of the modern translations. That should tell us that the problem is one of translation, not a problem with the original text. 

 We haev established that the unicorn (from mythological literature) was a horse like animal with a horn protruding from the center of its forehead, correct? Well, there is actually no refrence of this "animal" in the bible. The hebrew words used in these texts is _"re'em"_, which is translated to "wild ox" as we have allready seen. Most scholars agree it refers to a large ox that is now extinct. Now, the greek old testament (Septuagint) transliterates _"re'emes"_ by the word monokeros which literally means "one horn". This is based on certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient babylon. These carvings depicted this wild ox in profile form, thus appearing to have one horn (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, C. Pfeiffer, H. Vos, & J. Rea, Eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 83). From this background derived the "one horn" perception. 

  Biblical evidence however, indicates otherwise. We see in Deut 33:17 the _"re'em"_ is described as having "horns" plural, not singular "horn". 

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2005)

Let's look at another connection with Jesus and the Old Testament.

In  1 Kings 13 a prophet comes to conflict with a king:

_And when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar at Bethel, Jerobo'am stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, "Lay hold of him." And his hand, which he stretched out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself.

The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.

And the king said to the man of God, "Entreat now the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me." And the man of God entreated the LORD; and the king's hand was restored to him, and became as it was before._

Now if we look at Jesus during the miracle at Bethesda:

_Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus._


In both stories we see a hand being stretched forth...one to be withered, the other to be healed.  Both stories use Greek variations of the phrase " stretched forth his hand," as well as the term "whithered."  In both the prophet has the authorities seek his arrest for what he's done.

Also note that in the fourth Gospel (John) Jesus does a similar Sabbath day healing...but of withered legs.  John borrows this story from Mark 2, where Jesus performs a similar miracle but not on the Sabbath.  There too he is opposed by the authorities (teachers of the law), not for violating the Sabbath, but for forgiving sins.  In both John and Mark Jesus says essentially the same thing to the cripple in question, directing him to pick up his bed (mat) and walk home.

Thus Mark's Sabbath account of the withered hand and withered legs becomes John's account of withered legs.  Both spring (John indirectly via Mark) from a source found in the Old Testament.


When you combine this with Heretic's information concerning Greek and Egyptian influences on Christianity, you start to get a bigger picture of how the Gospels were formed.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 14, 2005)

A common reaction to valid points concerning the bible's accuracy is to try and throw such a large amount of information out in such a short time it will hopefully (but not accurately) eclispe the truth. 

 With the amount of information posted here to "prove" the gospel's (or the complete bible's) innacuracy, I thought it fitting to post a few points concerning its accuracy. 

   Here is an interesting point to think about as far as the gospel's (New Testament) writers and their supposed fabrications.

 OK, the writers of the gospel accounts definitely affirm that Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, and that he performed miracles to authenticate that affirmation. Further they state that even though he was put to death, he rose from the dead, forcefully demonstrating he is Jehovahs beloved Son, and that his authority must be respected. There is really no dispute about what the record claims.

 Now, the question at hand is the accuracy of these claims. This is a common debate by the way. Skeptics believe these writers fabricated these stories and the events never happened. Lets think about this logically for a moment.

 "Logically speaking, either there is existence after death or there is not. If there is post-death existence, there either is accountability for one's earthly conduct, or there is not. The "law of the excluded middle" demands one or the other. If there is no post-earthly existence, it matters not what one does in this life. If, however, one believes that he will be held accountable for his earthly conduct in eternity, he will be more inclined to act in a morally responsible way in this life. Now, reflect upon the implications of this principle in light of the charge that the New Testament writers lied about the events in the life of Christ.

     If they believed in eternity and accountability before God, why would they _falsify_ the records regarding Jesus, knowing that such lies would exclude their entrance into heaven? Lying is conceded to be unethical universally, and, according to the Scriptures, liars will be excluded from heaven (Rev. 21:8).

     On the other hand, if the Gospel writers did _not_ believe in eternal accountability, and so, they callously fabricated the documents that affirmed Jesus divine nature, why would they have subjected themselves to the persecution that accompanied Christianity, since this life would be all they believed they would ever enjoy?" (Wayne Jackson - Christian Courier: Archives)


   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 14, 2005)

The early Christians were fond of parable and allegory.  Fictions, created to espouse what they believed were spiritual truths, were not off limits.  It was not an age where historical accuracy was demanded.  There were no academic or journalistic standards of ethics for writing.  An evangelist did what he felt he had to do to impart the Gospel...and employing a style of historically fictional writing then common was perfectly natural.  Myths were a literary form.

Back then deceit itself was not the sin we now consider it to be. Let's look at some of the writings by various church fathers on lying and evangelism.

St. Jerome wrote:

_"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him:

The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy  of justifying the means by the result."_

(St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus, xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)


Jerome elsewhere wrote: 

_"To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another ... Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful."_


Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea wrote:

_"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."_

(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

In his "A Vindication," Edward Gibbon comments on Eusebius:

_I shall only observe, that the Bishop of Caesarea seems to have claimed a privilege of a still more dangerous and extensive nature. In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous Proposition, "How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." _ 

Richard Carrier writes:

_So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a "good idea" worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted._


John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, makes an appeal for dishonesty in the name of the cross:

_"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... 

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."_

(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).


A contemporary of Augustine, Bishop Faustus (interesting name) wrote with full honesty:

_"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since  as already it has been often proved  these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."_




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 15, 2005)

The fact that ancient writers (considered saints by some, not all) spoke or wrote of deceit in no way has any bearing whatsoever on what the bible actually teaches about deceit. The bible teaches it to be wrong in any case, these so called christian leaders are obviously in disagreement with the bible itself and thus would be "sinning" and wrong according to its (the bible's) teachings.
 See, we can't say "Christianity" in a discussion about the bible and include those who did or do not preach its teachings. The term "Early Christians" has been used in this thread to include examples that are far from in line with biblical teachings. We are not discussing "Modern Day Definitions of Christianity, Hell, and other topics of Casual Delight", we are discussing "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight". Regardless of who claims the term Christian, the only thing that has bearing on the bible's errancy is the bible and its teachings. Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy. Someone who claims to be a christian and then "sins" or does something against what the bible teaches means nothing, in fact that is expected even according to the bibles teachings. I guess that would actually prove the bible to be acurate in that sense.

 7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary. The two words are different, also try looking at the actual text of the scripture. There is no need for opinions and support of opinions, simple facts will do.


Who supplied the definition? Why you you accept it as fact? Does everyone? How many people contributed to this definition, and what are their qualifications?

Not stating my opinion on the matter. Just contributing to a better, more productive debate.


----------



## mantis (Oct 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The fact that ancient writers (considered saints by some, not all) spoke or wrote of deceit in no way has any bearing whatsoever on what the bible actually teaches about deceit. The bible teaches it to be wrong in any case, these so called christian leaders are obviously in disagreement with the bible itself and thus would be "sinning" and wrong according to its (the bible's) teachings.
> See, we can't say "Christianity" in a discussion about the bible and include those who did or do not preach its teachings. The term "Early Christians" has been used in this thread to include examples that are far from in line with biblical teachings. We are not discussing "Modern Day Definitions of Christianity, Hell, and other topics of Casual Delight", we are discussing "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight". Regardless of who claims the term Christian, the only thing that has bearing on the bible's errancy is the bible and its teachings. Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy. Someone who claims to be a christian and then "sins" or does something against what the bible teaches means nothing, in fact that is expected even according to the bibles teachings. I guess that would actually prove the bible to be acurate in that sense.
> 
> 7sm


 sorry 7sm you gotta step out of the picture a little bit and reconsider what you have just said here.
 doesnt "distinguishing" between modern day, old day, and all-day christianity tell you something about that religion?
 alos, read this part again: "Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy." 
 doesnt this tell you about the bible that IS written by humans (also consider assemlies, and other mod's they do to the bible) doesnt this tell you ANYTHING about the bible, considering what you just said?
 no offense, no hard feelings. (I still like 7* )


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary.



Okay. Let's do.

From the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:

psu_chi-kos , ê, on, 

A. of the soul or life, spiritual, opp. sômatikos, hêdonai; hormai; pneuma ps. the spirit, or breath of life; nosos Adv. -kôs; opp. sômatikôs, noerôs; also, heartily, from the heart. 
2. of the animal life, animal, opp. ho pneumatikos. 
3. brave. 
II. for the soul or spirit of one deceased, ps. dôra didous. 
III. cooling.

pneuma^t-ikos , ê, on, 

A. of wind or air, kinêseis; phuseis; aeros psuchrotês; p. [organon] a machine moved by wind; mêchanêma. 
2. of the nature of wind or air; p. xêrotês, i. e. a dry vapour. 
b. of subtle substance; ousia, opp. hugra. 
3. inflated, distended with air, husterai . 
4. Act. (= pneumatôdês 1.3 ), causing flatulence, oinos; brômata, Adv. -kôs by flatulence. 
5. breathing, exhaling, euosmia. 
II. of the breath or breathing, to p. morion, ho p. topos. 
III. of spirit, spiritual, interpol; opp. sarkikos, psuchikos. Adv. -kôs. 
IV. hoi P. a school of physicians who referred all questions of health to pneumatic agencies. 
V. conveying pneuma, koilia, of the left ventricle of the heart (opp. haimatikê). 
VI. Rhet., Adv. -kôs in one breath (cf. pneuma VI), apoteinesthai Hermog.

And, just for the record, neither Freke & Gandy nor myself ever claimed _pneuma_ and _nous_ are used interchangeably in the aforementioned Corinthians passage. That is taking what was actually said out of context.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> As far as the word "signs", we are talking about hebrew and greek here, not both greek. The greek word used in John is shmei'on while the hebrew word used in Exodus istwa. While these both can be translated to the word "signs" they are a bit different in meaning.




The Hebrew scripture that was translated into Greek is the Septuagint, which was used to draft the Old Testament sample I've provided in this thread (from the Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century).  The Greek word you've given for "sign" is used in both accounts.  Kudos to your translation.


Let us flee to Egypt...

In the Gospel of John we see a connection with Egyptian myths mentioned earlier with the climactic miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus.

The characters of this drama are Jesus and Lazarus, as well as the latters two sistersMary and Martha.  John borrows the characters of the two women from the synoptics, blending the immoral woman who wiped Jesuss feet (Luke, chapter 7) with the woman who anointed Jesuss head with oil (Mark, chapter 14).  The Mark and Luke narratives are unrelatedMarks account takes place in Bethany at the house of Simon the Leper while Lukes version takes place in Nain at the house of a Pharisee.  Neither name the woman in question.  John synthesizes both stories into one and names the woman as Mary and gives her a sister, Martha. It is important for Lazarus to have two sisters as we will see.

In Egyptian mythology the God Osiris dies and is interred in the Necropolis at Annu, known also as the House of Annu.  He is mourned by two sisters, Isis and Nephthys.  He has been in a tomb for four days, bound in burial linens and is starting to rot.  Osiris is then resurrected.

Contrast the two accounts.

House of Annu, when semitized, becomes Beth-Anu.  Bethany is the location of Johns resurrection story.  Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew Eleazar.  The God Osiris, when semitized, becomes El-Osiris.  The similarities are striking.

It is said of Osiris, O Osiris, the King, you have gone, but you will live; you have slept, but you will awake; you have died, but you will live.  Upon learning of the death of Lazarus Jesus says, Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I shall go and wake him.  

When told this, Martha objects, saying Sir, by now there will be a stench.  He has been there four days.  After Osiris is resurrected we are told, Osiris speaks to Horus, for he has removed the evil [which was on the King] on his fourth day.

The dead one in Annu is told  I am Horus, O Osiris, the King.  I will not let you suffer.  Go forth, wake up.  The dead one in Bethany is told with a great cry, Lazarus, come forth.

The burial linens must be removed.  In Annu Osiris is told,  O King, live, for you are not dead. Horus will come to you that he may remove your bonds; Horus has removed your hindrance.  At Bethany we hear, The dead man came out, his hands and feet swathed in linen bands, his face wrapped in a cloth.  Jesus said, Loose him; let him go.


The oldest fragment of Johns Gospelindeed the oldest portion of the New Testament ever foundis dated from the early 2nd century and was found in Behnesa, Egypt.  The Coptic church in Egypt is considered one of the oldest in Christendomwith a cross that incorporates the Egyptian Ankha symbol representing eternal life. 

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

http://interoz.com/egypt/chiste1.htm

Further references:

R. O. Faulkner, _The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), p. 164.

E.A. Wallis Budge, _The Book of the opening of the Mouth_ (New York: Blom, 1972), p. 124.

Illustrations below, left to right:  Egyptian Ankh, two Ankhs held by Thutomoses I, Coptic cross 3rd century, Coptic cross 6th century.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 15, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Who supplied the definition? Why you you accept it as fact? Does everyone? How many people contributed to this definition, and what are their qualifications?
> 
> Not stating my opinion on the matter. Just contributing to a better, more productive debate.


 NO problem, you have a good point. The answer is to look at any lexicon, concordance, or greek-english dictionary. Actually Heritic provides one down a bit, lets take a look...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Okay. Let's do.
> 
> From the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:


  Ok, I think the confusion is coming from not distinguishing between "phusikos" (fusikovß) and "psuchikos" (yucikovß). This can be very confusing. The first (phusikos) means literally governed by the instincts of nature. The second (psuchikos) means the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion. (Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)
 Your lexicon not only ignores the distinction between two words, only one of which is used in said passage, but it also contradicts itself with its meaning of one word, while accurately confirming my translations. Lets see here, what you left off of your quote was this....



> *A.*_of the soul_ or _life, spiritual,_ opp. sômatikos, hêdonaiArist._EN_1117b28 ; hormaiPlb.8.10.9 ; pneuma ps. the spirit, or breath _of life,_ Plu.2.1084e, [p. 2028]   etc.; nosos ib.524d. Adv. -kôs  Ph.1.81 ; opp. sômatikôs, noerôs, Procl._Inst._139; also, _heartily, from the heart,_LXX _2 Ma._4.37, 14.24.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Now, we can see that deffinition *A* contradicts itself with deffinition *2*. It then goes on to list which one is used in the passage: 





> _1 Ep.Cor._2.14,


 We see that Def. *2* is listed in _your_ source as the one being used in said passage.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> And, just for the record, neither Freke & Gandy nor myself ever claimed _pneuma_ and _nous_ are used interchangeably in the aforementioned Corinthians passage. That is taking what was actually said out of context.


 Actually, lets see what they said via your quote:


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
> (Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?_, Three Rivers Press)





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English _psyche_ is derived from the Greek _psuche_), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what _psuche_ and _psuchikos_, as well as _pneuma_ and _pneumatikos_, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Freke and Gandy (in _Jesus and the Lost Goddess_) felt it best to transliterate _psuche_ into the English _psyche_ (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:


 OK, we can see that Freke and Gandy felt it best to trasnliterate the word _psuche_ into _psyche_. Thats all well and good, but then we see them interject this transliterated word _psyche_ into 1 Cor 2:14-15 where the untransliterated word (they themselves used) _psuche_ is simply not found.

     Thats either a mistake or an intentional interjection of a word that will help "prove" their point. 

     Now, lets take a look at:


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called _pneuma_ or _nous_. _Pneuma_ is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. _Nous_ is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas _nous_ is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes _nous_ as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of _being_ in every human being. It is who we _are_. A more appropriate modern translation for both _pneuma_ and _nous_ is 'Consciousness'."


 Thats simply incorrect. The ancients did not refer to "identity" as pneuma or nous. Why would they use two completely different words to refer to the same thing, thats a contradiction and is simply not found in the pages of the bible itself.
 I didn't claim they said nous was in 1 Cor 2:14-15, but that the explination and use of the word nous is irrelevant because they have an incorrect (intentional or not) transliteration of the word.

     Just for my source requesting friends 
nou'ß (nous) - the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining





 the intellectual faculty, the understanding
(Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)

pneu'ma (pneuma) - [font=Arial, Helvetica]the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated  [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica] the soul[/font]
(Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)




			
				mantis said:
			
		

> sorry 7sm you gotta step out of the picture a little bit and reconsider what you have just said here.
> doesnt "distinguishing" between modern day, old day, and all-day christianity tell you something about that religion?
> alos, read this part again: "Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy."
> doesnt this tell you about the bible that IS written by humans (also consider assemlies, and other mod's they do to the bible) doesnt this tell you ANYTHING about the bible, considering what you just said?
> no offense, no hard feelings. (I still like 7* )


  Heh, no hard feelings whatsoever! 
 Yes, your right, the distinguishing of the "periods" of people does tell you something, but what? What it tells you is the question. What do you think its tells you about the "religion"?
 Yes, the bible was written by humans who are agreeably not perfect, but it claims to be inspired by a perfect "god". To prove its not perfect, we cannot simply prove that humans are not perfect, thus the bible is wrong. We must prove the bible itself to be inaccurate, something I have seen tried many times, but nothing complete or verifiable as of yet.


   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We must prove the bible itself to be inaccurate, something I have seen tried many times, but nothing complete or verifiable as of yet.




Now that you've said that, let's look at an inaccuracy or two.


Mark's account of the arrest and trial of Jesus very clearly has it occur during Passover, and his last supper with the 12 apostles is the Passover meal (Mark, chapter 14).  An unmistakeable chronology is given of the events leading from his departure from Jericho to his arrival in Jerusalem, the preparation for eating the Passover meal, his subsequent arrest and crucifixion (Mark 14-15).  

In traveling to Jerusalem from Jericho, Mark has Jesus and his followers pass through Bethphage and Bethany (Mark 11).  This betrays Mark's geographical ignorance of the area, as _one must pass through Bethany first_ to get to Bethphage on the way to Jerusalem, as seen on this map:

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html

For Mark, Jesus's blood was symbolic of the blood of the Passover lamb.  As it is, he has him arrested the night of Passover (which began that evening at sundown and extended to the next evening).  Matthew and Luke follow his lead in this.

John has Jesus arrested the night before the Passover, and the last supper isn't a Passover meal at all (John, chapters 13, 18 and 19).  He attributes Paschal significance to Jesus's crucifixion by having John the Baptist identify him as "the Lamb of God," and having Jesus killed at the very hour the Passover lambs are slaughtered.  

Mark, on the other hand, has Jesus's disciples going into town to prepare for Passover (and the last supper before his arrest that evening) at the exact same time John has Jesus on the cross.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 15, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Now that you've said that, let's look at an inaccuracy or two.
> 
> 
> Mark's account of the arrest and trial of Jesus very clearly has it occur during Passover, and his last supper with the 12 apostles is the Passover meal (Mark, chapter 14). An unmistakeable chronology is given of the events leading from his departure from Jericho to his arrival in Jerusalem, the preparation for eating the Passover meal, his subsequent arrest and crucifixion (Mark 14-15).
> ...


 Ok, so what your saying is that the listing of two cities which were close in proximity is somehow establishing an order of which came first? Lets look at the verse in KJV...





> And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples


 This doesn't establish an order of what city came first, it simply says that they neared Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany. In Texas if your coming East from El Paso all the way through to Louisianna, you must might pass through the Dallas/Ft Worth area. Is that incorrect? If we look on a map you actually pass through Ft Worth first. Its not incorrect that you pass through what is commonly called the "Dallas/Ft Worth" area even if you literally pass through Ft Worth first.

 I dont really see the importance in this, you would have to show some type of order being presented by the author. I see none in the english text or the greek text either.

  I've got to run, I'll address the second point later.

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 16, 2005)

So far we've seen a number of Old Testament influences on the New Testament, where New Testament authors drew heavily from the Septuagint (a Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures, referred to below as "LXX") in drafting their Gospel accounts of Jesus's life.  

Gospel authors borrowed from each other, of course, changing those versions of the works of their predecessors when they disagreed with them, or when the previous version conflicted with their theological interpretations.

Now we go to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus goes to pray prior to his arrest.

Luke's account draws heavily on imagry and vocabulary from the Septuagint.  In Septuagint III Kings 19 we find Elijah fleeing from Ahab and Jezebel.  Knowing the authorities are out for his arrest, he sits under a broom tree and prays for deliverance.  An angel of the Lord appears to him and he goes forth to meet his fate.  In Luke Jesus, aware the authorities are out for his arrest, prays for deliverance under the olive trees of the garden.  An angel appears to him as well, and he then goes on to meet his fate.  Both men gain strength from the angelic apparition, and the Greek in both accounts is similar.

In Mark's account of Gethsemane we find Jesus saying "My soul is deeply grieved, even unto death; stop here, and stay awake." (Mark 14:32-34).  Mark takes his text from Jonah in the Septuagint, where the prophet Jonah says "I am greatly grieved, even unto death."  (Jonah, 4:9 LXX)

Jesus's despair in Mark draws heavily on Psalm 116, which uses the imagry of a cup of salvation during a time of despair.  Jesus pleads "Father...take this cup away from me" (Mark 14:36).  

These observations support the idea that the stories of Gethsemane are fictions.  Jesus was alone in any case, and no one could have possibly witnessed his anguish.  His disciples were all asleep.

Matthew and Mark both borrow from Zechariah in likening Judas to the "worthless shepard" (Zechariah chapter 11).  This character abandons his flock to slaughter and for profit, rather than provide for them.  Matthew specifically writes:

_Then one of the Twelve, the man called judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me to betray him to you?"  They weighte him out thirty silver pieces.  From that moment he began to look out for an opportunity to betray him._ (Matthew 26: 14-15)

In Zechariah the worthless shepard breaks his staff and gives up his position:

_If it suits you, give me my wages, otherwise keep them."  Then they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver." _(Zechariah, 11:2)

More later...I'm off to hear Lewis Black do stand up.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 16, 2005)

It seems this thread has run its course of debate and is now being used as a sort of pulpit to simply proclaim ones beliefs of the bible. There is no debate (To engage in argument by discussing opposing points). It seems I'm the only one discussing opposing points now. 

 The past several posts which try to show some similarities between the Old and New Testaments stories is heavily incorrect in points which I've pointed out, but not only that, I don't see what they are proving or showing. The fact that similarities exist between stories proves nothing. I only see a bit of a conspiracy theory emerging here that is totaly void of fact and or proof.

 I'm not trying to offend, but the ignoring of opposing points in order to simply paste your own agenda is truly not debate or discussion. I've countered the past several with serious facts that show the theories to be incorrect, these facts however are simply ignored for the next paste of opinionated beliefs. Without discussion on both sides points, this thread is moot. 

 Until serious debate is occuring, I think I'll stand back a bit. I think the thread has lost its focus and is not even really making any type of point anymore, just a great place for ones opinions to be heard (or read).

  :asian:
  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 17, 2005)

Feel free to refute anything I've posted.  I'm giving you plenty to work with, of course.  If you're having a difficult time dealing with all of it, be as  selective as you like.  If your refutations have merit, then they have merit.  People can judge between my posts and your counters to them.  

You've posted that the Bible has no contradictions.  I'm posting contradictions and giving an explanation for their existence.  The authors wrote independently, borrowed freely from the Old Testament and Egyptian and Greek mythology in drafting their stories, and borrowed freely from each other.  

In that essence, I'm debating the inerrancy of the Bible by providing suppositions to the contrary and giving them support through an analysis of the texts themselves.  That is my point, so I disagree with your contention the thread has no point.  If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.  

If he has the time and inclination, I'd like to see Heretic's treatment of John from the standpoint of the mystery religions...and then perhaps something on the synoptics.  Many scholars suggest the synoptics became increasingly less Jewish and more Hellenized as the 1st century progressed.   Do you concur?

Let's take a look at he trial of Jesus.

Mark reports that the disciples deserted Jesus and ran away (Mark 14:50).  Peter follows eventually and waits in the courtyard while Jesus goes inside and appears before the High Priest.  

In Mark none of the apostles witness the trial, so lacking eyewitnesses he has to create a scene.  For this he again  borrows from the Septuagint and takes a number of passages from Daniel and the Psalms.

In Daniel 6:4 we find:

_Then the governors and satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel; but they found against him no occasion._

Mark 14:55 echoes this:

_The chief priests and the whole Council sought testimony against Jesus in order to kill him, but they found none._

Mark goes on to mimic verses from either the twenty-seventh or thirty-eighth Psalms:
_
Some having stood up gave false evidence against him. _ (Mark 14; 57)
_
Unjust witnesses standing up asked me  _(Psalm 34, LXX)
_
The high priest standing up, in the midst, asked Jesus  _(Mark 14:60)

_Many gave false evidence against him, but their testimonies were not consistent. _(Mark 14: 56)
_
Unjust witnesses have stood up against me, and injustice has lied within herself _(Psalm 26; 12 LXX)

Oddly, during this time Mark presents the story of Jesus tearing down the temple as false evidence: 
_
Some stood up and gave false evidence against him to this effect: We heard him say, I will pull down this temple, made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.  But even on this  point their evidence did not agree._ (Mark 14:57-59).

John, on the other hand, is struck by this symbolic imagery of the temple being torn down and has this false evidence actually become a genuine quote from Jesus:

_Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again._  (John 2:19-21)




Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2005)

A couple of things:

1) Contrary to what has been previously stated, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon does indeed distinguish between phusikos and psuchikos. Not only this, but it also provides a wealth of related information concerning the terminology, including: the frequency of the query in classical poetry and prose (respectively), a list of words with similar definitions to the query, a list of words that regularly appear with the query in both poetry and prose (respectively), and direct citations to serve as examples for _each_ definition accompanying the query.

2) Also, in case anyone is interested, the aforementioned lexicon is based on the text:
Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. _A Greek-English Lexicon._ revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
ISBN: 0198642261

3) The idea that the same word can have conflicting meanings, depending on both the context and the source, is hardly a 'contradiction'. I'm quite frankly surprised anyone with such an obvious degree of intelligence would make such a boldly naive assertion, to tell you the truth. In any event, the authors cite numerous examples of each usage of the words along with the accompanying definition, so it becomes something of a non-argument, anyway.

4) The primary definition of the word _psuchikos_ is an adjective form for _psuche_. According to the 1978 Oxford Dictionary I have in my living room, this is also the primary definition for _psychic_ ('[...] of, relating to, or pertaining to the _psyche_ and its functioning'). As such, the English _psychic_ does indeed become a direct transliteration of the Greek _psuchikos_ (just as _psyche_ is a direct transliteration of _psuche_). 

By contrast, the definition of _psuchikos_ as "of the animal life, animal" is a secondary definition.

5) Just because the lexicon I used claims the secondary definition is used in the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_ does not necessarily make it so. I was merely citing the lexicon as demonstrating there are multiple interpretations and definitions of the word _psuchikos_, which I think has been adequately demonstrated at this point. As to whether any given usage has a particular meaning in mind, this is solely dependent on the context in which the word is used. I will address the context of _1 Corinthians 2_ in my next point.

6) If you read the entirety of the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_, you will find that the secondary definition of _psuchikos_ (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the _only_ definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within. 

The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (_sophia_) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there _is_ a 'wisdom' (_sophia_) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (_teleos_).

In other words, he references a deeper understanding that only those fully completed or initiated into the teachings can possess. This is not only evocative of mystery school symbolism, but it also belies any definition of _psuchikos_ in this context as referring to 'sensous' or 'carnal' truths. _Psuchikos_, in this context, seems to refer to individuals that not yet fully 'initiated' or 'completed' within Christ.

If you don't believe me, open up a Bible and read through the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_ yourself. At no point does the author even allude to hedonistic or carnalistic desires. Instead, he distinguishes between the doctrine of 'Christ crucified' which he first taught to his audience as compared to the 'wisdom of the initiated' that he was reserving for the Corinthians when they were 'mature' or 'perfected' or 'fulfilled' (_teleos_) enough to receive.

This is very, very telling.

7) This, of course, also demonstrates a trend that Freke & Gandy bring up in their books about Christianity. Namely, that much of the New Testament (particularly the Pauline epistles) is translated in such a way so as to conceal their relationship to both the Hellenistic mystery schools and to Christian Gnosticism. It is less of a translation and more of an interpretation. An interpretation, mind you, that is intentionally worded to confirm the existing belief structure within mainstream Christian doctrine. Pure self-confirmation.

8) In the works of Plato, Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and the _Corpus Hermeticum_, the words _pneuma_ and _nous_ are used in precisely the way that Freke & Gandy suggested.

I'll try to get to the rest a little bit later on tonight.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2005)

Just a little something I'd like to add...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you read the entirety of the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_, you will find that the secondary definition of _psuchikos_ (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the _only_ definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within.
> 
> The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (_sophia_) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there _is_ a 'wisdom' (_sophia_) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (_teleos_).
> 
> ...



And, of course, the most telling part of the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_ is how the author ends his dissertation. He concludes by simply stating, "But we have the mind (_nous_) of Christ."

This is the zenith, the _summum bonum_, the ultimate completion of the mystery school initiation: a radical identity with the Son of God himself.

Throughout _1 Corinthians 2_, we see are perfectly in accord with what would be a Jewish version of the ubiquitous Hellenistic mystery school. Upon first arrival, the traveling preacher desires that his prospective flock know only the literal, outward, or 'physical' lessons of his teachings --- that of 'Christ crucified'. He then divulges that there is indeed a 'wisdom' among those 'initiated' or 'fulfilled' or 'perfected' within the teaching, and that this 'wisdom' is not of this world or of this age. He then states that only those who are properly 'perfected', those with a 'spiritual' understanding of the teachings, can properly receive the Spirit of God and that such a 'spiritual' perspective enables one to understand or discern all things. Lastly, the preacher caps off this 'spirital' teaching by stating very clearly that he and the 'perfected' possess the very mind of the Son of God.

So, again, we are in perfect accord with what we would expect from a Jewish mystery school. The fact that the Pauline authors evince a decided ignorance of much of the Gospel narrative (such as claiming Christ appeared before 'the Twelve' after the Resurrection, apparently ignorant of Judas' suicide), as well as the fact that _only_ Gnostic schools (such as those of Marcion and Valentinus) claim Paul's authority prior to the appearance of the Pastoral Letters in the late 2nd century (appearing collectively and spontaneously in the hands of Irenaeus), all lend credence to this explanation.

Furthermore, there is the logical wrinkle of Occam's Razor: given all the available information, what is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation?? That the 'Gnostic heresy' became so widespread in such a short time (within a generation) so as to completely overshadow orthodox literalism in virtually all parts of the known Christian world?? Or, that orthodox literalism (which later developed into what is now Roman Catholicism) was itself a historically later emergent, developing in Rome in the latter half of the second century??

Which of these, truly, makes more sense??

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2005)

But, if you don't believe me, maybe you'll listen to Robert M. Price.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You've posted that the Bible has no contradictions. I'm posting contradictions and giving an explanation for their existence. The authors wrote independently, borrowed freely from the Old Testament and Egyptian and Greek mythology in drafting their stories, and borrowed freely from each other.
> 
> In that essence, I'm debating the inerrancy of the Bible by providing suppositions to the contrary and giving them support through an analysis of the texts themselves. That is my point, so I disagree with your contention the thread has no point. If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.


 Yes, my point however is that suppositions are simply not proof of anything and are simply suppositions. You offer assumptions to support your belief, not really verifiable proof. Plus, your "errancy of the bible" arguemtn is a little weak when your not presenting contradictions but theories about people stealing stories from each other.

  This is the attitude that makes this debate trite:


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.


 Again, assuming a false premise that because I post a dislike for the way the thread is going or the arguemnt is being presented that I "can't deal".




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) Contrary to what has been previously stated, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon does indeed distinguish between phusikos and psuchikos. Not only this, but it also provides a wealth of related information concerning the terminology, including: the frequency of the query in classical poetry and prose (respectively), a list of words with similar definitions to the query, a list of words that regularly appear with the query in both poetry and prose (respectively), and direct citations to serve as examples for _each_ definition accompanying the query.


 Your correct, I stand corrected, your lexicon does indeed distinguish between the two words, however the distinction is incomplete. It lists a contradiction within itself here:


			
				[url="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform" said:
			
		

> Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon[/url]]*psu_chi-kos* , ê, on,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Ok, it says the one word means both: _"Of the soul or life, spiritual"_
  as well as: _"Of the animal life, animal"_. How do you explain that? 
 Let me axplain, the word psuchikos (which is the only one used in said passage, thus the only one really worth discussing) is listed by Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon as meaning both of these deffinitions. However, they ignored a great distinction. Psuchikos does in fact mean "natural" but it is in distinction on the one hand from pneumatikos, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from phusikos, which is the lower or bestial nature. 
 Your lexicon leaves this distinction unlisted, thus allowing two seperate and almost opposite deffinitions for one word. Its not neccessarily completely incorrect, simply incomplete.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 5) Just because the lexicon I used claims the secondary definition is used in the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_ does not necessarily make it so. I was merely citing the lexicon as demonstrating there are multiple interpretations and definitions of the word _psuchikos_, which I think has been adequately demonstrated at this point. As to whether any given usage has a particular meaning in mind, this is solely dependent on the context in which the word is used. I will address the context of _1 Corinthians 2_ in my next point.


 Now your discounting your own source? No one was arguing there were not multiple deffinitions for the word, simply not such inclusive and contradicting ones. The words are in different form and usage when they mean other things, I'm actually surprised you overlooked noting this in your posts. Your lexicon includes all these distinctions in one word's deffinition, ignoring the different forms and usages used to create different meanings.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 6) If you read the entirety of the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_, you will find that the secondary definition of _psuchikos_ (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the _only_ definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within.


 OK, lets get started here. The deffinition of _psuchikos_ I gave is neither secondary or solitary. Neither of which I claimed. Using the word "secondary" here is extremely disingenuous. Having two deffinitions in ancient greek doesn't mean one is "more correct" or "less correct" it simply shows the word is able to be used differently to mean a slightly different thing. Actually the context of the author highly supports this deffinition, thus the reason I gave it, I'll present that a bit further on.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (_sophia_) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there _is_ a 'wisdom' (_sophia_) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (_teleos_).


 I'm assuming your refrencing this verse:





			
				KJV said:
			
		

> 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.


 Is that correct? Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired. Your have misquoted this verse and thus created a differnet context. The author is *not* saying here that "he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'". What he is saying is that *he* (the author) decided not to "judge" or "condemn" (krino - condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence. Strong's) them for anything before arriving basically. 

  He goes on to speak of wisdome (_sophia)_ but makes a very clear distinction between "mans wisdom" (lower wisdom) and "gods wisdom" (higher wisdom). Your using the same meaning when he (the author) clearly makes a distinction. The greek word (_sophia)_ means: wisdom (higher or lower, worldly or spiritual) according to my several lexicons, so the distinction must be made, and it is.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In other words, he references a deeper understanding that only those fully completed or initiated into the teachings can possess. This is not only evocative of mystery school symbolism, but it also belies any definition of _psuchikos_ in this context as referring to 'sensous' or 'carnal' truths. _Psuchikos_, in this context, seems to refer to individuals that not yet fully 'initiated' or 'completed' within Christ.


 Yes, your correct here, he does refrence a deeper understanding not grasped by those who are not "believers" or who do not have "gods wisdom". The fact that it is "evocative" of any symbolism doesn't change its meaning. It eithe rhas one meaning or the other, it can't have several meanings. How exactly does it "belie" any deffinition of _psuchikos_? What it _seems_ to refer to you or anyone else is not what I'm after, or what I'm presenting. What it _actually_ refers to is what I'm showing and interested in. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you don't believe me, open up a Bible and read through the second chapter of _1 Corinthians_ yourself. At no point does the author even allude to hedonistic or carnalistic desires. Instead, he distinguishes between the doctrine of 'Christ crucified' which he first taught to his audience as compared to the 'wisdom of the initiated' that he was reserving for the Corinthians when they were 'mature' or 'perfected' or 'fulfilled' (_teleos_) enough to receive.


 He isn't speaking of hedonistic of carnal desires, but of those who are governed by them. Every perosn has "hedonistic" or "carnalistic" desires according to the bible, the distinction is made between those who live in those desires and those who make an effort to live by other desires, spiritual desires if you will. 
 Again, your makign a distinction where there is none. He is not distinguishing between "christ crucified" and "wisdom of the initiated" but between levels of understanding. I dont see any proof of these theories you are presenting besides suppositions and feelings. I'm presenting actual text and deffinitions that show these theories and suppositions to be false.

 On a side note, I hope people reading this go out and read a bible or got online and read one, on both sides of this discussion. There is alot of information being presented that is very clear by just reading the passages.

  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 18, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes, my point however is that suppositions are simply not proof of anything and are simply suppositions. You offer assumptions to support your belief, not really verifiable proof. Plus, your "errancy of the bible" arguemtn is a little weak when your not presenting contradictions but theories about people stealing stories from each other.


 
When contrasted with attempts at harmonization by true believers, they're also far better explanations, supposition or not.  The theory of Judas's suicide rope breaking is nothing more than a supposition, one ought note.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Again, assuming a false premise that because I post a dislike for the way the thread is going or the arguemnt is being presented that I "can't deal".



Well, those reading the thread might note all those challenges I've presented that you haven't dealt with.  I--for one--am waiting.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> On a side note, I hope people reading this go out and read a bible or got online and read one, on both sides of this discussion. There is alot of information being presented that is very clear by just reading the passages.



I'll extend that suggestion.  Read the entire thing, as boring as it can be.  Take it in small chunks.  Then read scholarly analyses of it, as well as some popular apologetics.  I'll provide anyone that wants it with a suggested reading list.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 19, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> When contrasted with attempts at harmonization by true believers, they're also far better explanations, supposition or not. The theory of Judas's suicide rope breaking is nothing more than a supposition, one ought note.


 In many cases you are exactly right. However, "far better explinations" does not mean actual fact in all cases. Someone may be far more willing to accept an explination that is devoid of fact simply because of thier experiences or belief system.

 The theory of Judas' rope breaking is a supposition, your correct. However its not one that plays an important role in factualness of the stories. The stories still "jive" without that supposition. So its really a non issue, if you recal its not something I offered as proof of anything.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Well, those reading the thread might note all those challenges I've presented that you haven't dealt with. I--for one--am waiting.


 An appeal to the thought process of all those suppositious readers out there? :wink:
 Ok, I seem to have lost track, I kept "refuting" your "challenges" without even a nod from you, you just kept posting three and four "challeneges" at a time. Most of which are easily refuted with correct context and quoting of the text in question....I'll scroll back several pages and see what I can do 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'll extend that suggestion. Read the entire thing, as boring as it can be. Take it in small chunks. Then read scholarly analyses of it, as well as some popular apologetics. I'll provide anyone that wants it with a suggested reading list.


 As will I, only expect mine to contain reading from both sides of the arguments, both extreme and mild. Remember to research the bias and experience of your "scholarly reading" as well.

 I'll address some of your "challenges" as soon as I have a little time. It would help if you clearly defined your "challenge" though. Are you offering contradictions, unbelievable facts, incorrect historical data, etc...

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, I seem to have lost track, I kept "refuting" your "challenges" without even a nod from you, you just kept posting three and four "challeneges" at a time. Most of which are easily refuted with correct context and quoting of the text in question....I'll scroll back several pages and see what I can do
> 
> I'll address some of your "challenges" as soon as I have a little time. It would help if you clearly defined your "challenge" though. Are you offering contradictions, unbelievable facts, incorrect historical data, etc...
> 
> 7sm




And I've offered things to which you've not responded.  I had nothing further to say after your answer to the Bethpage/Bethany post.  You made your point, I made mine.  Let your refutations stand if they go unanswered.  Others will decide for themselves whether they have merit when contrasted with what I present.  

I posted three or four at a time to show a number (and I have far more) of instances where NT writers borrowed from the Septuagint for their source material.  This isn't all about you, 7Star.  Other readers are out there to whom I'm presenting this.  

But if you want specifics, start with the crucifixion time-line contradictions I listed.  That'll be a good start.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 19, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> But if you want specifics, start with the crucifixion time-line contradictions I listed. That'll be a good start.


 OK, lets do that. If I'm correct you addressing: 


			
				Mark 15:25 (KJV) said:
			
		

> 25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.





			
				John 19:14 (KJV) said:
			
		

> 14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!



    This is easily clearified by understanding that Mark is using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM) while John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). We can see this is factual and true by looking at the crucifiction itself. We know that it took over 6 hours, if John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour (noon), then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet.

   However, we can see even further evidence of John using Roman time. In John 1:39 we are told that Andrew and Peter met Jesus and "spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour." If this were Jewish time, that would make it 4 PM, too late to spend the "day" with someone. But by Roman time, it is 10 AM, ample time to spend the day.

So we can clearly see that what appeared to be a contradiction is merely a misunderstanding of the actual context. Many supposed contradicitons are cleared up this way, by simply digging deeper into the stories and backgrounds.

  OK, so I'll try and address some more tomorrow.

   7sm


----------



## Raewyn (Oct 20, 2005)

Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............

Why all the debate???   Do you all have something to prove????  Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible???  I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people??  Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand.  I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age?  I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith??   Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??  

Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 20, 2005)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............
> 
> Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove???? Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible??? I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people?? Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand. I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age? I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith?? Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??
> 
> Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.


 Thats a good point, but because something can be interpreted differently doesn't mean there is no truth. Because people interpret things differently doesn't change whats true or factual. I think the bible is something you must "believe" with "faith", but even so why should it be a blind faith? The fact is that the bible is either true or not, inerrent or contains errors, the insipred words of God or not. I think thats what the thread is about. In my opinion is just simply interested and I enjoy this kind of debate. On the other hand, I have been forced as a child to learn alot about the bible, and it gets to me to hear people offering arguments of the bibles truth or falsehood with flawed arguements. I dont mind someone proving the bible incorrect to me as long as they do theri homework and offer me facts substantiated with proof.


  7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This is easily clearified by understanding that Mark is using Jewish time...



This doesn't solve the contradiction at all.  If you read what I wrote, the two accounts have the crucifixion on different DAYS.  Mark has Jesus slaughtered on Passover, with the Passover seder (the meal) consumed as his last supper on the evening of his arrest with his execution the next day.  John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover when the Passover lambs are slaughtered, and his final meal isn't the Passover seder.  In John, Jesus was dead by the time Passover starts.  In Mark, he's alive and preparing for Passover.  

This has nothing to do with Roman or Jewish time, and the use of these as an apologetic harmonization ignores the fact that John clearly has Jesus die on a different day altogether.  




			
				Raewyn said:
			
		

> Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove????



Yes.  

Raewyn, the inerrancy of the Bible has been used throughout American history as justification for slavery; denying women their rights; for the murder of women suspected as being witches; for the crimes perpetrated against native populations; for the persecution and social shunning of homosexuals; for the subjugation of free thought and artistic expression; for attacks on science and science education; for the suppression of academic freedom; and for some of the most mean spirited and hateful rhetoric one can imagine.  

A personal observation of this latter example was when I saw a "Hellfire and Brimstone" preacher exercising his right to free speech on the Indiana University campus.  A young woman passed by--she said nothing to him and did nothing to interrupt his red-faced ranting--and he called her a "whore."  She burst into tears.  

I personally don't mind if people choose to believe.  When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 20, 2005)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............
> 
> Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove???? Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible??? I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people?? Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand. I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age? I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith?? Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??
> 
> Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.


 I do not mean to offend anyone here, but I made an observation.
 There are at least two mistakes being committed on this thread
  1. people talk while their ears are closed
  2. people present a vast number of points.
 the conclusion of these two mistakes is NONE of the conflicts are being resolved, and this thread is going nowhere until you guys lead US, the audience, to a conclusion SOON.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 20, 2005)

There really are too many points to follow. It mightbe best to start a new thread focused on some one of them.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 20, 2005)

Good point, but lets not start another thread, this one is directed towards that topic, so lets see what we can do....I'll address the alleged "rape and murder" charge, in my next post, I have to run right now, but Ill jump on when I can and address that one since its a big one.

7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Good point, but lets not start another thread, this one is directed towards that topic, so lets see what we can do....I'll address the alleged "rape and murder" charge, in my next post, I have to run right now, but Ill jump on when I can and address that one since its a big one.
> 
> 7sm




You haven't addressed the crucifixion question I posed yet.  

Mantis is quite correct in his point.  You didn't read my post.  At no point did you address it.  

There are two main crucifixion timeline contradictions.  One debates the hour of the crucifixion, the other debates the day.  

I presented the latter contradiction, and you answered with the stock answer for the first question...which I didn't bring up.  Now you're saying in your next post you're moving on to something I posted...how many pages ago?  You haven't addressed THIS one yet.  

Why?

So once again, I ask with diminishing patience, was Jesus crucified on Passover as Mark states--or on Passover eve as John states?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This doesn't solve the contradiction at all. If you read what I wrote, the two accounts have the crucifixion on different DAYS. Mark has Jesus slaughtered on Passover, with the Passover seder (the meal) consumed as his last supper on the evening of his arrest with his execution the next day. John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover when the Passover lambs are slaughtered, and his final meal isn't the Passover seder. In John, Jesus was dead by the time Passover starts. In Mark, he's alive and preparing for Passover.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Roman or Jewish time, and the use of these as an apologetic harmonization ignores the fact that John clearly has Jesus die on a different day altogether.


 My bad, I just didn't make myself clear enough. I sort of jumped to another parallel point. I'll address it clearer in a bit.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Raewyn, the inerrancy of the Bible has been used throughout American history as justification for slavery; denying women their rights; for the murder of women suspected as being witches; for the crimes perpetrated against native populations; for the persecution and social shunning of homosexuals; for the subjugation of free thought and artistic expression; for attacks on science and science education; for the suppression of academic freedom; and for some of the most mean spirited and hateful rhetoric one can imagine.
> 
> A personal observation of this latter example was when I saw a "Hellfire and Brimstone" preacher exercising his right to free speech on the Indiana University campus. A young woman passed by--she said nothing to him and did nothing to interrupt his red-faced ranting--and he called her a "whore." She burst into tears.


 Now, this is whats called radical extremes and is just as much a "sin" in the bible as murder. See, anyone who uses the bible to justify something the bible clearly labels as wrong or "sin" is simply not understanding or intentionally using it to justify their own evils. We could also make a list of radical extremist who use the bible's alleged inaccuracy to support their "habits" as well. The truth is that not everyone who believes in the bible is a bigoted racist homophobe; just as everyone who does not believe in the bible is not a mass murdering sexual predator who drinks the blood of virgins on haloween. Can we see that extreme statements aren't really the norm?



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I personally don't mind if people choose to believe. When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it.


 However you seem to take a stand against anyone who believes the bible, not just those who use it for their own "nonsense". No one in this thread is participating in any of your listed examples.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You didn't read my post.  At no point did you address it.
> 
> There are two main crucifixion timeline contradictions.  One debates the hour of the crucifixion, the other debates the day.
> 
> ...


   Whoa there chief....lets not fly off the handle. Breath and repeat after me....woooosaaaaaa

 Ok, I'll address your post later, I just got into addressing the hour and didn't clearly make my point, I'll address it later tonight. Anyone who reads my post and then reads the passage could really see it though.....for those who can not I will post it later tonight.

   7sm


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> The truth is that not everyone who believes in the bible is a bigoted racist homophobe; just as everyone who does not believe in the bible is not a mass murdering sexual predator who drinks the blood of virgins on haloween. Can we see that extreme statements aren't really the norm?



I never said that everyone who believed in the Bible is a mass murdering sexual predator that drinks the blood of virgins on Halloween.  Nor did I say that all Christians are evil.  As for extremes being the norm, they may not be...but they're the most dangerous.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> However you seem to take a stand against anyone who believes the bible, not just those who use it for their own "nonsense".





I said--and its above for you to read:

"I personally don't mind if people choose to believe. When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it."

What part of that did you not understand?



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Whoa there chief....lets not fly off the handle. Breath and repeat after me....woooosaaaaaa



<snicker>...loss of patience isn't necessarily anger...you haven't seen me angry...nor close to it.  

I turn green when I get angry.

And then Hulk smash.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> John has Jesus arrested the night before the Passover, and the last supper isn't a Passover meal at all (John, chapters 13, 18 and 19). He attributes Paschal significance to Jesus's crucifixion by having John the Baptist identify him as "the Lamb of God," and having Jesus killed at the very hour the Passover lambs are slaughtered.
> 
> Mark, on the other hand, has Jesus's disciples going into town to prepare for Passover (and the last supper before his arrest that evening) at the exact same time John has Jesus on the cross.


 OK, since you have not given specific verses, I'll just assume I know of which you refer. It has been argued that John shifted the time to correspond with the slaughtering of the lambs, however, if John wanted to make this point, he could have done so quite obviously (as Mark mentioned the exact day the lambs were killed), and John is clearly the one who would make significant mention of it (as the one who called Jesus the "lamb of God"). So, seeing that the idea may be flawed, lets look deeper at the time frame. What we gather from the synpotics and historical data is this time frame:





lambs (the passover, and the first day of the longer feast of Unleavened Bread) were killed (Thursday afternoon) 
the Last Supper was eaten at the beginning of the Passover holiday (Thursday evening, until early Friday morning; in accord with the Jewish reckoning which started a day at 6 PM) 
Jesus was crucified (Friday morning and afternoon)
OK, so on surface we see a contradiction, but lets dig even deeper. Most recognize that in John 13:1, the only thing being said to be "before the passover" was Jesus' knowledge, and that verse 2 starts a new thought. Thats very likely and possible, but lets seek fact. 
    John 18:28 states: 





			
				(KJV) said:
			
		

> 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.


 Here, people read that Caiaphas and friends have yet to eat the passover. The key here is in knowing that "Passover" was used to refer to the _entire feast_ which was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During this feast, there were still sacrifices being offered that the priests might temporarily disqualify themselves from by being in the place of a Gentile. We can see factual evidence of this by looking at a few supporting facts:
 

In Luke's Gospel: Luke 2:41-43 - Speaks of Jesus' parents going to Jerusalme for the "day*s*" of the passover. 
In Mark's Gospel: Mark 14:12 "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover..." 
Even in Josephus, who like Mark calls the first day of unleavened bread the passover. 
In rabbinic sources, which refer to the "nights of Passover" (in the plural).
So we see from my earlier post that the hour is quite correct and they correspond. We see from this post that the word used "passover" is not refering to the same day. See, John 19:14 speaks of the "preparation of the passover".The main point for contradiction here is to say that this "preparation of the passover" refers to the preparing of it on Thursday. But the word "preparation" here refers to the day of preparation for the _Sabbath_ -- i.e., Friday. In other words, John is saying that it was the Friday, the Sabbath preparation day, of the Passover. The word "preparation" (_paraskeu_) is never used anywhere else in coordination with the word "Passover" like this, and elsewhere it _always_ refers to Friday before a Sabbath. Note as well that John goes on to refer to the preparation _by itself_ in 19:42, which all agree refers to a Friday.


 We can also see from John 19:31 that the jews wanted Jesus' body down from the cross because it was preparation day (friday) and the body should not be left for sabbath (saturday). We see proof of this here in: 


			
				[/size said:
			
		

> John 13:27-29 (KJV)] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.  28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.  29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.



Some think this means John puts the Supper on a Wednesday, because shops would not be open if it were Thursday night for Judas to buy stuff for the Passover feast. But first, the "feast" here should be understood as the _Feast of Unleavened Bread_, the several days of holiday that followed. Second, if this is Wednesday, then why is it needful for Judas to move quickly under this assumption, since they could easily go shopping Thursday? 
   Also this passage clues us in about this being a Passover eve by the reference to the poor. It was on Passover eve that the temple gates were left open from midnight forward, so that beggars could congregate there and collect alms.


So, we can see now that the two stories are exactly identical in day and hour....seems strange they are so exact and yet none of the disciples or authors of these passages had watches or clocks eh?


7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 21, 2005)

Now lets look at the alleged rape and murder ordered by God in the OT. Lets just begin with the best example for HHJH's case....Numbers 31. 

   On the charge of rape, lets look at the facts. 
 It's quite clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or even consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects.

   [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite (the very people we are talking about here) women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context.

   [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]God did gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16).

 [/font]Lets also look at the prospect of rape or "forced sex" of captives:[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
   The law explicitly condemned all of the following: [/font] 

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Rape (Dt 22:25-27)[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Prostitution (23:17-18)[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sex outside of marriage, whether consensual or not (Ex 22:16-17, Dt 22:28-29)[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sex with a servant who was betrothed or married to someone else (Lev 19:20-22)[/font]



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Which leads us to wonder why the non-virgin females and boys were slaughtered, when they'd be perfectly good house slaves.


 Good question, with some background and digging its pretty easy to see the reasons. [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared. (RationalChristianity).

   7sm

   [/font]


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 23, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> [/list] Good question, with some background and digging its pretty easy to see the reasons. [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared. (RationalChristianity).




And the little boys?  Why were they killed?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 23, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And the little boys?  Why were they killed?



Hey, this is getting pretty depressing!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Hey, this is getting pretty depressing!




Oh, don't worry about it too much, Arnisador.  'Tis a myth in any event.  Sadly reflective of human nature, however.  We can find instances of such inhumanity in Darfur right now.

This whole argument shows me how much spin inerrantists will put on the Bible...stretching what it says to support what they believe.  

Here's a web definition for spin that fits this perfectly:

_In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation that is designed to bring about the most positive result possible. While traditional public relations relies more on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics to sway audiences away from widespread (and often commonsense) perceptions. _

Operating with prior assumptions of the Bible's infallible truth, inerrantists do backflips in their efforts to rationalize Biblical difficulties and to avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance.  Its a psychological defense mechanism that requires a rather sad kind of intellectual dishonesty, because the arguments they use are pathetically ill-reasoned.

From what I've seen many inerrantists will read nothing that will shake their faith...showing in essence rather weak faith.  Nor will they allow their children such freedom.  Its much easier for them to criticize 150 years of Biblical scholarship than to actually read some of the more uncomfortable articles and books on the topic.  Bertrand Russell?  Dismiss him!  Read C.S. Lewis instead.  Thomas Paine?  That filthy little atheist.  Here, spend some time with Robert Shaeffer.  The Higher Criticism?  Yuck...you're better off with the "scholarly" Josh McDowell.

And, in a way, this behavior is understandable.  Their world is shrinking.  We read that mandatory prayer isn't making any headway in the courts; Gay rights have been advanced in Massachussetts; the sodomy laws througout the country have been overturned; the "Intelligent Design" court case will surely get shot down in Pennsylvania; stem cell research is being backed by their elected representatives; a woman's right to choose hasn't been seriously compromised and likely won't be; censorship has been turned back time and again and prudery is on the ropes; their "born again" President has been a disappointment.  

Some of them seem scared.  That also shows to me a lack of faith.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 23, 2005)

There is one thing I always enjoy about discussions like this, those that pertain to literalist and absolutist readings of agrarian mythologies --- and the emerging logical defenses of such mythic-membership systems.

They always, without exception, foster within me a greater appreciation of Occam's Razor.

Oh, and big ups for the cognitive dissonance reference there. My social psychology professor would get a chuckle out of that one. 

Laterz.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This whole argument shows me how much spin inerrantists will put on the Bible...stretching what it says to support what they believe.
> 
> Here's a web definition for spin that fits this perfectly:
> 
> ...


 Wow, and yet you argue without the slightest offer of fact or proof and instead rely upon presumptions and assumed &quot;likely&quot; events. Your assumptions of whom your arguing with show further your blinded &quot;faith&quot; to your own belief system. Lebeling me as an &quot;inerrant&quot; who refuses to read certain material, who favors censorship, hates gays and scientific advancement makes you feel better about being unable to present me with valid proof of your claims. I'm actually none of those things you listed and yet seem to be able to present logical arguments to disprove all of your alleged contradictions. I'm stretchign nothing, I'm assuming nothing, I'm working off straight factual data, your the only one here offering &quot;more than likely&quot; scenarios as truth.  You have completely missed the mark on labeling me and have thus showed your ignorance to not only this arguement, but to those whom you confine in your bigoted labels. Offering personal attacks of those whom you disagree with makes it easier to swallow when you can't offer logical explinations to disprove their beliefs. Again, it seems your statement about not caring what one believes was actually false, eh?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 24, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You have completely missed the mark on labeling me and have thus showed your ignorance to not only this arguement, but to those whom you confine in your bigoted labels.




Again, 7Star...this isn't all about you.  That post was directed to a group of people who have as yet to step into the 21st century...in fact, they have yet to step into the 17th century.  

Why would I even assume you're an inerrantist Christian (thus including you in the lable) in the first place?  You wrote in post #233:

"Actually you dont know if I am a Christian."  

After that I've been operating under the assumption you're a "Jew for Jesus," or that rare atheist that just happens to believe in the Resurrection.  Or something.

As to my being a bigot, one definition I've found is this:

_A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. _

My stance on intolerance is stated in the thread on intolerance started recently.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 24, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Again, 7Star...this isn't all about you.  That post was directed to a group of people who have as yet to step into the 21st century...in fact, they have yet to step into the 17th century.
> 
> Why would I even assume you're an inerrantist Christian (thus including you in the lable) in the first place?  You wrote in post #233:
> 
> ...


 Well, your being heavily disingenuous at best. Your making blanket statements about a group of people who make the same arguments that (oddly enough) I make. Then you run back and say, well 7star, I'm not talking about you, just people who make the same points you make. You label me as an &quot;inerrant&quot; then attack that group of people (whom you have confined in your label). You speak of my arguements as those which are &quot;stretched&quot; and &quot;spun&quot; by these radical groups, but then say...."7star, this isn't just about you" - disingenuous at the very best.  

Truth is, my political affiliation, "faith", and belief system is going to be quite different from many of these people your refering to, but your dissmissing the points because of them. The facts still stand as presented here in this thread. Because someone you do not like makes the same points in no way makes them incorrect or irrelevant.   

The argument here has been contradictions within the bible and you base your points on your dislike of radical "christian" groups, or political affiliations opposite your own, or those who choose to live a certain way opposite of your own choosing. This is in effect a great big, hug, massive strawman. What do the beliefs of these radicals have to do with this discussion? Answer is, nothing. But its a great way to take the focus off your argument and plead to the emotions of those reading.  

7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Well, your being heavily disingenuous at best. Your making blanket statements about a group of people who make the same arguments that (oddly enough) I make. Then you run back and say, well 7star, I'm not talking about you, just people who make the same points you make. You label me as an &quot;inerrant&quot; then attack that group of people (whom you have confined in your label). You speak of my arguements as those which are &quot;stretched&quot; and &quot;spun&quot; by these radical groups, but then say...."7star, this isn't just about you" - disingenuous at the very best.


 
Yet coyly hiding your own personal opinion while arguing for an unsupportable point of view you "may" or "may not" agree with is sincere argumentatin'?


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 25, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yet coyly hiding your own personal opinion while arguing for an unsupportable point of view you "may" or "may not" agree with is sincere argumentatin'?


 Argumentation or debate? I'm not hiding anything, but even if I was, what does my personal opinion have to do with supportable facts? Opinions, suppositions, and assumptions only cloud true honest debate. My opinions being out of this arguement only help me to present factual points and not ones I have some emotional connection to. To speak of those arguing from their personal beliefs you would have to start with those who keep attacking groups or organizations they disagree with, which I have not done in this thread. 

As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.

7sm


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 25, 2005)

> As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.



OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible.  Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others.  For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you.  However, to see each person's answers as a personal attack isn't quite right. I think things are getting *lost in translation* between the two of you (and others.)


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible. Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others. For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you. However, to see each person's answers as a personal attack isn't quite right. I think things are getting *lost in translation* between the two of you (and others.)


you should realize by now that they're not off to prove anything, they're debating for the sake of argument only! <br /> just get your popcorn and watch!


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> you should realize by now that they're not off to prove anything, they're debating for the sake of argument only! <br /> just get your popcorn and watch!


 
This is a misconception that many people have.

Simply put, you can't "prove" anything in a debate --- even if one party "wins", it does not necessarily mean they are "right". In fact, you can't "prove" anything in any way whatsoever. You can provide evidence, logic, and arguments that _support_ your position, but never do you absolutely "prove" anything to be true.

That is the difference between science and dogma --- broadly speaking, of course.

Rather, debates like this exist as a type of communal peer-review and public appraisal that, over long stretches of time, can lead to gradual changes in the public's perceptions of reality. Any changes that take place will be in the very long-term, you can't expect short-term changes here.

Personally, I engage in such discussions because its a topic that interests me and I enjoy them on an intellectual level. That's enough for me.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This is a misconception that many people have.
> 
> Simply put, you can't "prove" anything in a debate --- even if one party "wins", it does not necessarily mean they are "right". In fact, you can't "prove" anything in any way whatsoever. You can provide evidence, logic, and arguments that _support_ your position, but never do you absolutely "prove" anything to be true.
> 
> ...


okay, you made a point!
but in 19 pages of debate i expect some one say "oh you are making a point" or change someone's view.
you just changed me with this last post of yours!


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> okay, you made a point!
> but in 19 pages of debate i expect some one say "oh you are making a point" or change someone's view.
> you just changed me with this last post of yours!


 
Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but...

I really don't have any expectations concerning changing the viewpoints of others. In fact, as a general rule, I pretty much take it for granted that no matter how much logic and evidence I gather to support my position, the chances are pretty nil that someone's mind is going to be changed who believes the exact opposite.

It is, after all, much harder to open a locked door than it is to open one that is pulled to. You're not likely to change others' minds if they weren't at least partially leaning in your direction to begin with.

As such, I don't make it a personal crusade to change the minds of others. I think intellectual discourse exists of its own validity and is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself.

Y'know, that whole dictum about the journey versus the destination. This is something many obsessed with "converting" others fail to comprehend.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but...
> 
> I really don't have any expectations concerning changing the viewpoints of others. In fact, as a general rule, I pretty much take it for granted that no matter how much logic and evidence I gather to support my position, the chances are pretty nil that someone's mind is going to be changed who believes the exact opposite.
> 
> ...


okay fair enough
but i mean, i didnt learn anything new
and they didnt learn anything new either
looks like they all have their ears clogged, and their eyes shut and they only rigidly presented their ideas until it became a series of "interesting" personal attacks.
it's all your fault my friend, you started this thread hehe


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> it's all your fault my friend, you started this thread hehe


 
Damn straight!!


----------



## Marginal (Oct 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.
> 
> 7sm


Facts as set by your own personal definition of the word.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 25, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible. Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others. For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you.


We seem to be all quoting from the "original" greek now, that wouldn't be anyones "pet" version. My version and anyone elses version says the same thing. We are addressing contradictions held within the bible itself, they should be contradictions in any version. Also, I'm not looking for interpretations, thats allowing personal belief and opinion interfere, but I'm looking for pure fact on what the verses say.

I'm also not really looking to change anyones mind, I enjoy the intellectula discussion and the topics, thats all.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Facts as set by your own personal definition of the word.


 No, you dont seem to be reading the posts. Fact as set by the accepted deffinition of the word. If you are alluding to the fact that my points and "facts" are wrong, simply post a logical verifiable post that proves them incorrect and we'll be cool. Otherwise your just mouthing off because you dont like my points. It seems you have missed the posts where I explain my stance is not neccessarily that of what I'm arguing and have even said its quite different. I'm just offering facts from the bible that discount the alleged contradictions held within the bible itself. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2005)

I think *heretic888* stated it well. One doesn't expect to "win" a debate like this--one hopes for a slight change of position, or renewed understanding of or openness to the other side's viewpoint. Over time, public discussions like this may shift the "center of mass" of the public's beliefs. This is part of the enormous benefit of the free exchange of ideas that drives the First Amendment.

Plus, it can be fun!


----------



## Navarre (Oct 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Plus, it can be fun!



Apparently! This is the longest thread in history. It should have its own web address and a billboard about it on the interstate.


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think *heretic88* stated it well. One doesn't expect to "win" a debate like this--one hopes for a slight change of position, or renewed understanding of or openness to the other side's viewpoint. Over time, public discussions like this may shift the "center of mass" of the public's beliefs. This is part of the enormous benefit of the free exchange of ideas that drives the First Amendment.
> 
> Plus, it can be fun!


im only hoping to learn
but the way this is going
im only learning how to shut people up and fire personal attacks
i mean, hey, it's good in a way, and we're in a MA forum after all


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Apparently! This is the longest thread in history. It should have its own web address and a billboard about it on the interstate.


 
Actually, the original "Historical Jesus" thread that Paul and I participated in some years ago was quite a bit longer than this.

Laterz.


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, the original "Historical Jesus" thread that Paul and I participated in some years ago was quite a bit longer than this.
> 
> Laterz.


i wanna suggest something dumb
all of the conflicting people should submit a list of initial thoughts and another party should pick a list of topics, and points to discuss then go over them one after another
even if the "fighters" here dont agree, at least the audience would learn something about the topic


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 25, 2005)

I really dont like it when people refer to hearing someones ideas or opinions as "learning". If I state my case nad it seems reasonable, you still should *not* accept it as fact until you have researched it for yourself. This goes for either side of the argument.


----------



## mantis (Oct 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I really dont like it when people refer to hearing someones ideas or opinions as "learning". If I state my case nad it seems reasonable, you still should *not* accept it as fact until you have researched it for yourself. This goes for either side of the argument.


fair enough
good point. sorry about that, and i take it back


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I really dont like it when people refer to hearing someones ideas or opinions as "learning". If I state my case nad it seems reasonable, you still should *not* accept it as fact until you have researched it for yourself. This goes for either side of the argument.


 
so without researching something yourself, seeing the well argued viewpoints on a subject will not lead to learning anything?

i think people that are not really schooled in the bible and its related myths would learn quite a bit from this discussion, and hopefully it would lead to them wanting to seek out the information that is readily available.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I really dont like it when people refer to hearing someones ideas or opinions as "learning". If I state my case nad it seems reasonable, you still should *not* accept it as fact until you have researched it for yourself. This goes for either side of the argument.


Adam, I agree that just because a person hears a viewpoint or opinion that such viewpoint or opinion should not be accepted as "fact."  However, I think learning DOES occur when we exchange ideas and opinions.  For me, I get to discover another person's thought process which sometimes causes me to question what I know and dig further into fact-finding and moral consequence.  So learning actually takes place without a person accepting someone else's feelings as fact.

I think it's a very important point that you brought up and it might even be worthy of its own thread!

Further, kudos for pointing this out - very responsible.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 25, 2005)

No one is even in the ballpark of longest thread yet.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 26, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> No, you dont seem to be reading the posts. Fact as set by the accepted deffinition of the word.


Your definition of the Word is what's skewing the facts.



> If you are alluding to the fact that my points and "facts" are wrong, simply post a logical verifiable post that proves them incorrect and we'll be cool.


That's impossible as you'll simply offer yet another "Who says this? Are they legion?" I've yet to see you cooly accept any fact that doesn't meet your personal schema. 



> Otherwise your just mouthing off because you dont like my points.


Yes, but only because of the intellectual double standard you delight in employing.



> It seems you have missed the posts where I explain my stance is not neccessarily that of what I'm arguing and have even said its quite different. I'm just offering facts from the bible that discount the alleged contradictions held within the bible itself.


Which is pointless.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Adam, I agree that just because a person hears a viewpoint or opinion that such viewpoint or opinion should not be accepted as "fact." However, I think learning DOES occur when we exchange ideas and opinions. For me, I get to discover another person's thought process which sometimes causes me to question what I know and dig further into fact-finding and moral consequence. So learning actually takes place without a person accepting someone else's feelings as fact.
> 
> I think it's a very important point that you brought up and it might even be worthy of its own thread!
> 
> Further, kudos for pointing this out - very responsible.


Quite right! Thats really what I meant, not that learning doesn't occur, but that this type of discussion would push people to seek out what they believe or seek out the "truth". 

Good point Geo! 

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Your definition of the Word is what's skewing the facts.


 You keep saying that but offer no deffinition yourself. You say mine is skewed but yet dont even attempt to point out my own skewed deffinition. Would you mind defining the word and contrasting it to my supposed deffinition allowing me to see the differences? If not your point is moot.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> That's impossible as you'll simply offer yet another "Who says this? Are they legion?" I've yet to see you cooly accept any fact that doesn't meet your personal schema.


 As I recall your posts seem to follow this trend more than anoyone elses on this particular thread.....





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> That's your opinion. Who else supports it?


 However, support of a point is vital to a sound argument. If you can't offer some type of proof or support your only offering up your own beliefs or opinions and thats really not what this thread is about, at least to me. I've "cooly" accepted many alleged contradictions and "facts" however I simply and "cooly" offer facts to show the "other side". This is known as debate. That is what this thread is about. If what your saying is that I have yet to simply accept what someone is saying as truth and not offer an argument of my own.....your expectations of debate are off by far. 
Once again, allow me to point out to everyone here, your again blindly trying to hold me to some personal agenda or "schema". You should really read this thread man, my personal schema or agenda is quite different from the simple debate we have going here. This is a clear cut case of someone taking debate way too personally and injecting that emotional bias into others posts.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, but only because of the intellectual double standard you delight in employing.


 You are very good at accusations but lack on the support or proof side. Name calling goes only so far, unless you care to explain what "intellectual double standard" I am "delighting in employing" your arguement is simply that...argumentative. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Which is pointless.


 You may find this debate pointless, but if so, why are you still reading it? Maybe you hsould offer some points yourself instead of simply chiming in with your unaccounted accusations and name calling. I'm not trying to offend you or upset you, but your not offering anything but your own dislike of people who make the points I'm making. Attack the points, not the one making the points. 

:asian:
7sm


----------



## Marginal (Oct 26, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> You keep saying that but offer no deffinition yourself. You say mine is skewed but yet dont even attempt to point out my own skewed deffinition. Would you mind defining the word and contrasting it to my supposed deffinition allowing me to see the differences? If not your point is moot.


That'sthe whole point. "Debating" this topic with you is moot. You sat down and made yourself some handy rules like "Don't reference historical context" which makes the discussion pointless. 



> As I recall your posts seem to follow this trend more than anoyone elses on this particular thread.....


Not really. I've just been repeating the arguments you tossed out at others early on in the thread. If they seem nit-picky and substance free now....



> You are very good at accusations but lack on the support or proof side. Name calling goes only so far, unless you care to explain what "intellectual double standard" I am "delighting in employing" your arguement is simply that...argumentative.


That's the point of an argument. Does trumpeting "I win!" count as a storied debate tactic? Does telling folks to "Calm down"? Count as high debate?



> Attack the points, not the one making the points.
> 
> :asian:
> 7sm


It's a shame I can't follow you for an example for that. For the points you so dispassionately bring up just for the sake of playing devil's advocate (apparently) you certainly seem to retreat to that very behaviour a lot.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That'sthe whole point. "Debating" this topic with you is moot. You sat down and made yourself some handy rules like "Don't reference historical context" which makes the discussion pointless.


 Ok, well when the discussion is about contradictions within the bible, the source text is pretty important wouldn't you say? It seems your still being guided by your personal bias and reading that into other's posts. I didn't say not to refrence historical data, but that discussion of a text containing within itself contradictions to itself, obviously produces discussion of said text. Historical data means nothing to that discussion. This is a trite excuse for those who cannot post on said topic. Once again you are offering these excuses rather than points or facts. If historical data can prove or disprove internal contradictions of the bible, by all means please share it with us. What we have seen is that of all the attmepts of that clearly take supositions and context to a whole new level. A simple study of the text is adequate to show their inacuracy. I guess I'm trying to say (in a way not to offend) is "put up or shut up". :wink:



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> That's the point of an argument. Does trumpeting "I win!" count as a storied debate tactic? Does telling folks to "Calm down"? Count as high debate?


 Ok, thats why in my last posts I made a distinction between what you are calling an argument and a debate. If your here to simply argue, then go ahead, but honest debate is not based in argumentative behavior. No one in this thread has "trumpeted I win!". Again, this is stering off the course of the topics to an argumentative point that has nothing to do with the discussion. If your trying to allude that all I'm presenting is "I win" and "Calm dwon" you really need to re-read the thread. Thats simply an ad hominem fallacy to mask not having a point. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It's a shame I can't follow you for an example for that. For the points you so dispassionately bring up just for the sake of playing devil's advocate (apparently) you certainly seem to retreat to that very behaviour a lot.


 Now your claiming I'm attacking the people here instead of the points. You can't be serious. Your agenda here has become clear and is clouding your posts. I have simply offered facts and support to counter many points made here. The fact that you see those posts as attacks only illuminates your personal bias and agenda.

Can't you see whats happened here? Look at your last several posts. They are all about me and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is called argumentative ad hominem. If you have points to make acording to the topic by all means share them. If you only care to attack me because of my supposed affiliation with those who also make the same points I make...please do us a favor and refrain. 

7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2005)

Settle down, guys. There's no need to make things personal here.

Geez.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 26, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Settle down, guys. There's no need to make things personal here.
> 
> Geez.


Your concern is noted, but nothing is getting personal here. We are having discussions and this is part of that process. No need making it into things its not, lets all just continue to post as we feel needed to. If things get personal or cross a line we have a great mod team (I'll step down for this thread as I'm involved) who will handle the issues.

7sm


----------



## Snapcrackler (Feb 11, 2006)

I believe in the Bible and I know that Jesus is alive and helping me every day.    I need the help.

Everybody will find out the truth in the end, which really is just a short while away for all of us. I hope and pray, that you guys that are opposed to Jesus, will just give your troubles to Jesus, ask Him to help you, believe that He died for you guys. If I am wrong, than I am wrong, but I am sticking to it until I croak.

If you believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then you have to believe in the Devil and Demons. It's like a package deal. You know, the Devil that is always trying to keep you from thinking that there is an almighty God that really likes us enough to send someone like Jesus to save us. 

Lots of people throughout history make fun of Jesus, more than anyone makes fun of other religious figures. Likewise, lots of people throughout history have hurt or kill others "in Jesus's name" and accuse others "In Jesus' name". This is wrong and twisted, and it turns people away from Jesus.

But the bottom line is that the Bible does not condone any of that messed-up stuff. If you want to read the Bible and see what it is really about, you can start in the old testament and read a chapter each night and pray about it a little. Just check it out for yourself. Remember that the original Bible was written in Aramaic, so pick a translation that is reasonable, for me I do not like King James. Living Bible or something like that works a lot better for me. 

Remember it's like translating Chinese to English and the better the translation, the more sense it is going to make to you; I do not know anyone that likes to talk in "thees and thous".  God Knows you because He made you. Just ask him to show you the way and listen to Him through the Bible and prayer. What do you get, if you ask Jesus into your life, believe that Jesus was killed for your sins and that he rose from the dead and lives today?? Peace, eternal life, that huge crushing weight pulled right off your back, for starters.  

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. 

Tang Soo


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2006)

Snapcrackler said:
			
		

> Remember that the original Bible was written in Aramaic, so pick a translation that is reasonable, for me I do not like King James.


 
Actually, if you're talking about the New Testament, it was originally written in Greek. The Old Testament quoted by the New Testament authors was also a particular Greek translation called the Septugaint.

Not that Aramaic translations can't tell us anything about primitive Christianity, but the texts we're working with were primarily written in Greek.

Laterz.


----------



## ajury (Mar 15, 2011)

wow I am amazed that 20 pages in people are still mostly civil.   Good job folks and thanks for letting us read.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 15, 2011)

ummm....you do realize that no one has posted on this thread in six years.....right?


----------



## granfire (Mar 15, 2011)

No wonder everybody was so nice...


----------

