|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 19:18:07 GMT -5
The above link, (Stand to Reason) is just another of the Christian apologist site.
Why should we believe it anymore than any other apologist site? DMG ~ Well, I noticed you seemed to enjoy the atheist apologist site I pointed out to you earlier on Page 11 of this thread? Perhaps it's all about who writes the articles, huh?
Actually, it isn't WHO writes the articles, what matters if they use rational, logical, factual, critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 19:23:56 GMT -5
Xna ~ Not really, but perhaps Catholics do? I never did either. Also many christians faith was strengthened by the passion of christ movie. I see that a cheap way to manipulate people 's emotions. I guess we are all different. Manipulating people's emotions is the basis for religion.
Think about when they sing the last verse of the last song at the last meeting of the convention! Pure manipulation and aimed at the children who are at the most the emotional time of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 19:26:40 GMT -5
This is Christian fantasy and wishful thinking, not any kind of credible evidence of a resurrection from the dead of anyone. The only job atheists may have in the question of a resurrection is to attempt to keep Christians honest about their complete lack of any firm, credible evidence. The Christian apologists, imo, are a slippery bunch. Matisse ~ Do you feel the same way about the atheist' apologists sites that Ross proved to DMG actually existed earlier in this thread? ;) DMG seemingly found it interesting and left a comment pertaining to a quote she enjoyed on 9/13/2014 on this same thread in a response to me on the same subject matter.
www.atheistapologist.com/
I have not noticed atheist sites using the kind of slippery wording and "sleight of hand" techniques that I have found on many Christian apologist sites you have quoted. But then, atheist sites don't usually claim to offer proof of supernatural events. I took the time earlier in this thread to point out specific examples of underhanded techniques used on some of the sites you have linked to, and pointed out what I found to be fatal flaws in the arguments. You are always welcome to give a similarly detailed analysis of what you feel are the flaws in any arguments I present or sites I refer to.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 22:40:34 GMT -5
This is Christian fantasy and wishful thinking, not any kind of credible evidence of a resurrection from the dead of anyone. The only job atheists may have in the question of a resurrection is to attempt to keep Christians honest about their complete lack of any firm, credible evidence. The Christian apologists, imo, are a slippery bunch. Matisse ~ Do you feel the same way about the atheist' apologists sites that Ross proved to DMG actually existed earlier in this thread? DMG seemingly found it interesting and left a comment pertaining to a quote she enjoyed on 9/13/2014 on this same thread in a response to me on the same subject matter.
www.atheistapologist.com/
Oh, indeed I did enjoy some of those quotes from the site www.atheistapologist.com/
However, as I've said before, I don't consider that atheist is defending any positive belief as Christians are trying to do.
That is the meaning of the word, Greek apologia means "speak in return, defend oneself" was a formal defense, are 'defending' a belief.
Here are a few quotes:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." -- Superintendent Chalmers, The Simpsons
"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?" -- Robert G. Ingersoll
"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions." -- Frater Ravus
"'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'" -- Douglas Adams
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence" -- Bertrand Russell
"Deaths in the Bible.: God - 2,270,365, not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10" -- Unknown
"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on." -- Frank Zappa
"The Christian god makes man human, then burns him when he acts like one." -- HSM
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime" -- Anonymous
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand" -- Mark Twain
"Why would some all powerful being create creatures capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?" -- Josh Charles "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -- Richard Dawkins
"Do I think I’m going to paradise? Of course not; I wouldn’t go if I was asked. I don’t want to live in some rumpy pumping celestial North Korea, for one thing, where all I get to do is praise the Dear Leader from dawn till dusk. I don’t want this; it would be hell for me." -- Christopher Hitchens
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -- Epicurus
Sigmund Freud "We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be." -- Sigmund Freud
"It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life seem worth living." - Sinclair Lewis
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Henry Roberts
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
"Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence." -- Anonymous
"If God wants us to do a thing he should make his wishes sufficiently clear. Sensible people will wait till he has done this before paying much attention to him." -- Samuel Butler
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 23:05:39 GMT -5
Matisse ~ Do you feel the same way about the atheist' apologists sites that Ross proved to DMG actually existed earlier in this thread? DMG seemingly found it interesting and left a comment pertaining to a quote she enjoyed on 9/13/2014 on this same thread in a response to me on the same subject matter.
www.atheistapologist.com/
I have not noticed atheist sites using the kind of slippery wording and "sleight of hand" techniques that I have found on many Christian apologist sites you have quoted. But then, atheist sites don't usually claim to offer proof of supernatural events. I took the time earlier in this thread to point out specific examples of underhanded techniques used on some of the sites you have linked to, and pointed out what I found to be fatal flaws in the arguments. You are always welcome to give a similarly detailed analysis of what you feel are the flaws in any arguments I present or sites I refer to. Right, matisse, "atheist sites don't usually claim to offer proof of supernatural events." I've been trying to get that across. You did it very well. We have no need to try & prove something for which there isn't any evidence to start with!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 19, 2014 2:37:04 GMT -5
The bible is NOT one body of work. It is many different books, -even different genres, -even some poetry. It certainly is possible to separate the natural from the supernatural. (Jonah in the belly of the whale? )
As an a atheist I certainly refuse to accept some of the lack of morality displayed bible as ethical, -but I don't doubt much of it did happen.
Of course it is many books, written by different people over many thousands of years. But there is a common thread that joins the many books together - that is clear.We were talking about Christ (not Jonah). It's not easy to divide the supernatural from the natural when it comes to Jesus.....hence, many atheists just put it in the myth basket. It's seems to be easier that way. Your last point is interesting - if you don't doubt much of it did happen it's essentially the same as saying you believe most of it did happen No it isn't clear. Some books of the bible have even been left out. They are called the Apocrypha "Apocrypha is commonly applied in Christian religious contexts involving certain disagreements about biblical canonicity.
The pre-Christian-era Jewish translation (into Greek) of holy scriptures known as the Septuagint included the writings in dispute.
However, the Jewish canon was not finalized until at least 100–200 years into the A.D., at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts.
Some were not accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible canon. Over several centuries of consideration, the books of the Septuagint were finally accepted into the Christian Old Testament, by A.D. 405 in the west, and by the end of the fifth century in the east.
The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century schism that separated the church into the branches known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches." from wiki
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 19, 2014 2:48:34 GMT -5
The bible is NOT one body of work. It is many different books, -even different genres, -even some poetry. It certainly is possible to separate the natural from the supernatural. (Jonah in the belly of the whale? )
As an a atheist I certainly refuse to accept some of the lack of morality displayed bible as ethical, -but I don't doubt much of it did happen.
Of course it is many books, written by different people over many thousands of years. But there is a common thread that joins the many books together - that is clear. We were talking about Christ (not Jonah). It's not easy to divide the supernatural from the natural when it comes to Jesus.....hence, many atheists just put it in the myth basket. It's seems to be easier that way. Your last point is interesting - if you don't doubt much of it did happen it's essentially the same as saying you believe most of it did happen No, Ross. We were NOT just talking about Christ (not Jonah). You made the statement that the "Bible is a body of work"
That included the whole of the bible, not just the NT.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 19, 2014 3:00:11 GMT -5
The bible is NOT one body of work. It is many different books, -even different genres, -even some poetry. It certainly is possible to separate the natural from the supernatural. (Jonah in the belly of the whale? )
As an a atheist I certainly refuse to accept some of the lack of morality displayed bible as ethical, -but I don't doubt much of it did happen.
Of course it is many books, written by different people over many thousands of years. But there is a common thread that joins the many books together - that is clear. We were talking about Christ (not Jonah). It's not easy to divide the supernatural from the natural when it comes to Jesus.....hence, many atheists just put it in the myth basket. It's seems to be easier that way. Your last point is interesting - if you don't doubt much of it did happen it's essentially the same as saying you believe most of it did happen It's Not difficult at all to divide the supernatural from the natural when it comes to Jesus... There were many would-be messiahs. It happens one was called Jesus.
Also many of them were put to death by the Romans for the same reason.
The supernatural resurrection was just added onto the story, like other supernatural incidents were added onto other historical figures of the time. People believed in such supernatural stuff like that in those days.
Why they CONTINUE to believe stuff like that in this day & age is - well unbelievable!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 19, 2014 9:11:17 GMT -5
Xna ~ Not really, but perhaps Catholics do? ;) I never did either. Also many christians faith was strengthened by the passion of christ movie. I see that a cheap way to manipulate people 's emotions. I guess we are all different. It wasn't cheap - $30 million But like so many things that play on the emotions of believers the payback was big - 20X.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 19, 2014 9:34:02 GMT -5
Xna ~ Not particularly, but I'm sure Catholics do! Did you note the new thread by Bob Williston pertaining to the increased adoration of Mary by Pope Francis where she is now elevated in importance above Jesus and his place in the Trinity? The excerpt below comes from that article which Bob displayed on his thread in the opening paragraph. The comments have been interesting, too! In fact, I can remember some apologist saying in the past that he didn't think it would be long after she was declared Co-Redemptrix that she would be right up there with Jesus and the Trinity. Honestly, like Bob said in his comment, I wonder what the RCC did with the Holy Spirit as a result of this elevated status of Mary? In fact, I believe this same subject was discussed much earlier in this thread, as it does come to mind? It was also brought up on this other thread referenced below. I quoted Snow's comment earlier and added a few references regarding Mary's elevation in status over the years.
professing.proboards.com/thread/22148/thing-shakes-faith?page=23 professing.proboards.com/thread/22374/mary-second-trinity
www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/year-of-faith-to-be-marked-by-exposition-of-st-peter-relics/
Xna ~ I just discovered Page 7 on this thread where this subject was brought up earlier and I was corrected for referring to Mary as a Co-Redeemer instead of a Co-Redemptrix; however, now it seems that my "slip of tongue" was a foreshadowing of what was to come down the pike under Pope Francis? Actually, there are a lot of different references to the RCC on this thread, because they were the first organized church on the scene for many centuries until the Reformation became a reality under Martin Luther and others due to the abuses of the RCC over the years. I'm reminded of such abuses as noted during the Inquisitions, Crusades, and Witch Hunts that were a part of organized religion back in time and left their mark on history down through the ages. This former Catholic nun surely got her eyes open to this worship of Mary within the Catholic Church, too! www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship_a_study.htm
professing.proboards.com/thread/21027/proof-jesus-existence-sacred-texts?page=7
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 19, 2014 10:40:16 GMT -5
Did you note the new thread by Bob Williston pertaining to the increased adoration of Mary by Pope Francis where she is now elevated in importance above Jesus and his place in the Trinity?
The pattern seems to be;
1. Pope says ______, ...
2. What the Pope means by that is _________, ....
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 19, 2014 10:50:52 GMT -5
The pattern seems to be;
1. Pope says ______, ...
2. What the Pope means by that is _________, ....
Xna ~ You know what, that sounds a lot like the Truth fellowship, too? Whatever the overseer says, gets interpreted in different ways, depending on the telling. However, when the Pope says something, it's viewed like coming from God Himself, since he's considered to be on about the same level with the Almighty. Unfortunately, that's pretty much how hierarchy functions within these one and only true churches today.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 19, 2014 22:05:36 GMT -5
further quotes from www.atheistapologist.com/ I did enjoy some of those quotes from the site www.atheistapologist.com/ Just can't resist giving you a few more quotes: "I cannot believe in a God who has neither humor nor common sense." -- W. Somerset Maugham (author: - Of Human Bondage -)
"Question: How do you know you're God? Answer: Simple. When I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself." -- Peter O'Toole ( Actor: Laurence of Arabia)
"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." -- James Madison
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" -- James Madison
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
"Gullibility and credulity are considered undesireable qualities in every department of human life -- except religion ... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our 'godly gift' of reason when we cross their mental thresholds?" -- Christopher Hitchens
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." -- Gene Roddenberry (author: Star Trek)
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." -- Douglas Adams , author: Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxey
"Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nation, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have." -- James Baldwin (author- Go Tell it on the Mountain)
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 22, 2014 10:13:55 GMT -5
However, when the Pope says something, it's viewed like coming from God Himself, since he's considered to be on about the same level with the Almighty. I believe this is only the case when the pope is speaking ex cathedra.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 23, 2014 3:46:47 GMT -5
further quotes from www.atheistapologist.com/ I did enjoy some of those quotes from the site www.atheistapologist.com/ Just can't resist giving you a few more quotes: "I cannot believe in a God who has neither humor nor common sense." -- W. Somerset Maugham (author: - Of Human Bondage -)
"Question: How do you know you're God? Answer: Simple. When I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself." -- Peter O'Toole ( Actor: Laurence of Arabia)
"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." -- James Madison
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" -- James Madison
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
"Gullibility and credulity are considered undesireable qualities in every department of human life -- except religion ... Why are we praised by godly men for surrendering our 'godly gift' of reason when we cross their mental thresholds?" -- Christopher Hitchens
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." -- Gene Roddenberry (author: Star Trek)
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." -- Douglas Adams , author: Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxey
"Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nation, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have." -- James Baldwin (author- Go Tell it on the Mountain)
Glad you are having fun Notice how Faune, I and others aren't even being tempted to comment on your list of quotes! But as reasonably intelligent folk who love the Lord we are smiling at how narrow-minded some of them are. Some folk have a weird and contorted view of true Christianity. Ah, but got you noticed it didn't you!The whole point is that atheists don't need to try to prove something where there is no evidence of it existing. All they have to do is to show up the Christian apologists for the irrational way Christian apologists use to try to defend something for which there is no evidence.
Once having been a Christian, I haven't a weird and contorted view of true Christianity.
I realize now that Christianity IS a weird and contorted view of reality. a few more quotes for your perusal:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the philosophers as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger
"One's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence." -- Sam Harris
"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." -- Anonymous
"A faith which cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Benjamin Franklin "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." -- Anonymous
"Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established." -- Ludwig Feuerbach
"I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this." -- Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 23, 2014 21:57:43 GMT -5
Yes, I did read the quotes - I'm always happy to read different viewpoints In terms of reality, we certainly do have a different view. Your reality ends with this life - my reality doesn't. As a result we will see things differently. In terms of quotes I like this CS Lewis one which touches on what we have been discussing recently: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. YYou must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity I've hear all that by C.S. Lewis before, -more than once in fact.
But Ross, -don't you understand that Lewis is wrong when he says, "You must make your choice?" from his limited list of definitions of Jesus!
No one has to use his limited definitions of Jesus & choose one of them!
Jesus didn't have to be either a lunatic , the Devil of Hell, madman OR the son of god!
Jesus could easily have been a man of perfectly normal intellect & mental abilities.
He would not be the first or last to see that his people, the poorer Jews, dissolution by the wealthy Jews & priests in cahoots with the Roman occupation.
He would not be the first or last to remember the hope of his people in a coming of a Messiah to deliver them from bondage.
Nothing what-so-ever needed for any lunatic, madman or devil! (or son of god,either) Just the hope that he, Jesus, could be that Messiah, the one that could be the deliverer of his people.
Neither do I have to "shut him up for a fool," "spit at him," "kill him as a demon" nor do I have to "fall at his feet and call him Lord and God!"
It is only because C.S. Lewis presents these limited options, another attempt of an apologist, -that Christians can't seem to see beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 0:15:36 GMT -5
I've hear all that by C.S. Lewis before, -more than once in fact.
But Ross, -don't you understand that Lewis is wrong when he says, "You must make your choice?" from his limited list of definitions of Jesus!
No one has to use his limited definitions of Jesus & choose one of them!
Jesus didn't have to be either a lunatic , the Devil of Hell, madman OR the son of god!
Jesus could easily have been a man of perfectly normal intellect & mental abilities.
He would not be the first or last to see that his people, the poorer Jews, dissolution by the wealthy Jews & priests in cahoots with the Roman occupation.
He would not be the first or last to remember the hope of his people in a coming of a Messiah to deliver them from bondage.
Nothing what-so-ever needed for any lunatic, madman or devil! (or son of god,either) Just the hope that he, Jesus, could be that Messiah, the one that could be the deliverer of his people.
Neither do I have to "shut him up for a fool," "spit at him," "kill him as a demon" nor do I have to "fall at his feet and call him Lord and God!"
It is only because C.S. Lewis presents these limited options, another attempt of an apologist, -that Christians can't seem to see beyond that.
I think CS Lewis is making a fairly obvious point - a person cannot read the words that Jesus is recorded as speaking and arrive at the conclusion that He is just a great moral teacher. If a person chooses to ignore a significant part of what Jesus is recorded as saying then they might arrive at this conclusion. But if they accept that Jesus said ALL that is recorded there is no middle ground. There is no sitting on the fence. Isn't that the point? What person in CS Lewis's generation would accept that Jesus said ALL that is recorded ?
Thomas Jefferson didn't accept all of them. He left out the "miracles" supposedly Jesus performed and the miracles about Jesus.
Besides, Jesus himself didn't say all that is recorded as him saying.
It was the gospel writers who put all those words into his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 8:47:37 GMT -5
Ah, but got you noticed it didn't you!The whole point is that atheists don't need to try to prove something where there is no evidence of it existing. All they have to do is to show up the Christian apologists for the irrational way Christian apologists use to try to defend something for which there is no evidence.
Once having been a Christian, I haven't a weird and contorted view of true Christianity.
I realize now that Christianity IS a weird and contorted view of reality. a few more quotes for your perusal:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the philosophers as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger
"One's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence." -- Sam Harris
"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." -- Anonymous
"A faith which cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Benjamin Franklin "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." -- Anonymous
"Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established." -- Ludwig Feuerbach
"I cannot see why we should expect an infinite God to do better in another world than he does in this." -- Robert G. Ingersoll
Yes, I did read the quotes - I'm always happy to read different viewpoints :) In terms of reality, we certainly do have a different view. Your reality ends with this life - my reality doesn't. As a result we will see things differently. In terms of quotes I like this CS Lewis one which touches on what we have been discussing recently: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Unless you have redefined reality, you enjoy the same reality as everyone else. You may, of course, have hopes and dreams but there is a reason they are called hopes and dreams and not reality. And sadly even CS Lewis commits the informal logical fallacy of False Choice.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 8:58:33 GMT -5
' Plenty of people in his generation and plenty of people today. It's good that we have four accounts - there's quite a lot of consistency between them. That is usually the result when material is copied - a high level of consistency. However, consistency between copies in no way indicates truth. Think of the various versions of some urban myths that have been circulating for a decade or more. Still myths no matter how many copies/versions there are.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 24, 2014 11:41:27 GMT -5
' Plenty of people in his generation and plenty of people today. It's good that we have four accounts - there's quite a lot of consistency between them. That is usually the result when material is copied - a high level of consistency. However, consistency between copies in no way indicates truth. Think of the various versions of some urban myths that have been circulating for a decade or more. Still myths no matter how many copies/versions there are. Rational ~I believe consistency between gospel accounts does contribute to authenticity. For example, it's a proven fact that no two eye witness testimonies appear the same. For instance, some may give more detail or less than the other, depending upon what they witnessed, but each tells the same story. However, one way of knowing if something really happened is the consistently in the same story being told, although different in information given. However, there are a lot of stories found in John's gospel that tend to stand alone without references within the synoptic gospels. That's one reason why John's gospel was questionable for inclusion in the original canon along with a few other books, like Hebrews and Revelation and some letters attributed to Paul. It's because of this fact that you have to used Bible scholar's tools to determine what might be authentic scripture and what might be considered a latter addition to the Bible. Bart Ehrman's books relating to the historical Jesus tend to give some valuable insights in this area, too.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 12:31:04 GMT -5
Isn't that the point? What person in CS Lewis's generation would accept that Jesus said ALL that is recorded ?
Thomas Jefferson didn't accept all of them. He left out the "miracles" supposedly Jesus performed and the miracles about Jesus.
Besides, Jesus himself didn't say all that is recorded as him saying.
It was the gospel writers who put all those words into his mouth.
' Plenty of people in his generation and plenty of people today. It's good that we have four accounts - there's quite a lot of consistency between them. The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 14:54:43 GMT -5
That is usually the result when material is copied - a high level of consistency. However, consistency between copies in no way indicates truth. Think of the various versions of some urban myths that have been circulating for a decade or more. Still myths no matter how many copies/versions there are. Rational ~I believe consistency between gospel accounts does contribute to authenticity. For example, it's a proven fact tha t no two eye witness testimonies appear the same. For instance, some may give more detail or less than the other, depending upon what they witnessed, but each tells the same story. However, one way of knowing if something really happened is the consistently in the same story being told, although different in information given. However, there are a lot of stories found in John's gospel that tend to stand alone without references within the synoptic gospels. That's one reason why John's gospel was questionable for inclusion in the original canon along with a few other books, like Hebrews and Revelation and some letters attributed to Paul. It's because of this fact that you have to used Bible scholar's tools to determine what might be authentic scripture and what might be considered a latter addition to the Bible. Bart Ehrman's books relating to the historical Jesus tend to give some valuable insights in this area, too. The gospels weren't even eye witness accounts. The first one was written at 30 years-40 years after the death of Jesus. Others written still later, making them even less reliable as accurate. Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
from wiki
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 15:12:05 GMT -5
Rational ~I believe consistency between gospel accounts does contribute to authenticity. No Kidding?As a teacher I know that if student 'A' copies from student 'B' there will be consistency. The gospels are not 4 separate accounts that ended up bound together in the same book. They are alike because there was a substantial amount of copying going on.Embellishments, you might say. Written at a later date when the beliefs had changed somewhat.That's right, it was not a copy of the 'company' line.Perhaps just a scholar in the deciphering of ancient text would better serve the purpose. Someone, so to say, without an axe to grind.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 24, 2014 16:27:22 GMT -5
Rational ~ If you have read any of Bart Ehrman's books regarding the historical Jesus, you would discover that they present a pretty concise picture of what was believed regarding Jesus in that day and what was probably added to the gospel stories from ancient myths. The stories of Lazarus and the woman taken in adultery and facing stoning are just two stories that are believed to be imported into the gospel accounts in the book of John and found in ancient Egyptian folklore passed down through oral tradition. Therefore, I believe you have to really evaluate the scriptures in light of these facts to get a more accurate picture. Exactly how much of the Bible stories got embellished in the telling down through the ages remains to be seen, too? Perhaps that's one reason why the Bible cannot really be taken literally as an historical document, but rather as a collection of stories accumulated over the years with truth and myth mixed together? Bart Ehrman's book entitled, "Misquoting Jesus ~ The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" would probably be a good one to read in regards to the above for anybody interested in learning more along these lines?
www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 20:28:27 GMT -5
' Plenty of people in his generation and plenty of people today. It's good that we have four accounts - there's quite a lot of consistency between them. The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
the Gospel of Q is a hypothetical document that has never been found nor has ever been referenced in the bible or NT apocrypha
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 20:46:53 GMT -5
The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
You state as factual - ie true, genuine, "they used a common source, the Q". Can you send me a copy of the Q document. that is, the parts that are written. I also love how when a hypothesis that is developed fits into someone's belief system it is all of a sudden "factual". I would have thought that someone with your ability would have said that the consistency may be due to their using a common source etc Are you just playing with words?
I said that "The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true."
And I meant just that! Just because there is a consistency amongst the synoptic gospels does not mean that the gospels are true. I only means they were copied.
Mark is considered the first gospel written using the Q material. The others then copied from his gospel along with the Q material
Most all biblical scholars consider that the synoptic gospels all came from a common source that is called "Q." That statement about what most scholars believe is "true."
Most all biblical scholars do believe that. That statement is "factual."
Have you never even heard the name "Q" before?
If not, just take a look at the reference called "Q" instead of questioning my reliability.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 24, 2014 20:49:45 GMT -5
The consistency amongst the synoptic gospels is not because they are true.
The consistency is due to the fact that they used a common source, the Q.
The Q is a loose collection of bits & pieces material about Jesus, -some written, but a lot handed by word of mouth.
Mark is considered the first gospel written & written using the Q material. The others then copied from his & the Q material
the Gospel of Q is a hypothetical document that has never been found nor has ever been referenced in the bible or NT apocrypha I know, wally, what the "Q" is.
Of course it "hasn't been found!" It isn't a part of the bible or any apocrypha. I also know how scholars arrived at that idea.
Do you?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 24, 2014 21:59:56 GMT -5
You state as factual - ie true, genuine, "they used a common source, the Q". Can you send me a copy of the Q document. :) that is, the parts that are written. I also love how when a hypothesis that is developed fits into someone's belief system it is all of a sudden "factual". I would have thought that someone with your ability would have said that the consistency may be due to their using a common source etc Does this mean that you believe there are originals of the gospels? Do you believe that Matthew and Luke did not copy from Mark?
|
|