The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

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]

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.

I disagree, Ray.

I assume you disagree with my saying they were "good" people but still flawed.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

you know what.
I agree
you convinced me

Um, yay for 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)

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]

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.

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."

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]

A few more points to add to this discussion...

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Bats are very specfically listed as birds in of Leviticus in the NIV and KJV...also easily accessed.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

It's quite amusing trying to follow HHJH and 7*.

Heh, glad I can offer some entertainment! :ultracool

7sm