|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well, that is your opinion, your protagonist disagrees that you have presented empirical evidence for the authorship of Moses. And further, 'no "good" reasons to believe he was not' is not empirical evidence, it is a logical fallacy to present the lack of proof of a negative as proof of the positive. So the ball is still in your court. Sorry, but the rules of logic apply even in nonscientific discussions. The above is a nonsensical statement at best. Think about it, if it is "my opinion" that Moses was the author, then it is "your opinion" he was not, seeing you presented no evidence to the contrary, which implies you have no good reason for believing he was not. It stands that from this point alone, he is quite possibly the author and no reason to believe he was not. Secondly, it is nonsnsical becase it assumes no evidence has been presented based on the fact that AM disagrees with my position and evidence presented. I also, disgree with the information he has presented, does this mean his positon if false or invalid. I have been throwing the provervial "ball" back and forth. Again, as I have stated, to jump in at this point and ignore all the previous evidence presented is silly. Did you really think my protaganist would agree with me and the evidence or not, that is a simplistic and nonsensical argument. You seemed to miss this point, it is irrelevant who the author was for the purposes of the discussion. Whoever he was, does not change the fact, that the narrative has never been discovered apart from the book itself. Whoever tne author was goes on to indicate "it" as a literal story not to mention everyone else in the OT, history, the NT, Christ and nearly every thinking person. Simply because something is written in poetic fashion does not negate it as being literal or factual, many other factors would have to come play to decide this fact itself. Christ told many stroies in poetic and metaphorical fashion, this does not mean they were not literal events. If he was God, the he would have a vast amount of information to draw his stories from, correct? Maybe it was like Dragnet, no names were given to ptect the innocent, or he felt no need to do a the outset, think about it. This is not rocket science fellas. D Berot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ball in your court again, I believe. Not a problem, will get to this this evening. I rather enjoy the ball in my court. Actually we have been over all of this already but I am specifically interested to get to logic part of the discussion. thanks, D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you have "been over all of this already" how could you make the nonsensical statement that the Eden narrative hasn't been found apart from the Book of Genesis? - because of course it has - numerous times. You are simply in denial if you insist otherwise. As for the logic, I see no need to get to that - there is really nothing to discuss. You don't understand logic so there is no point. Go do some reading on logical fallacies and get up to speed and then maybe we can talk. In a separate thread of course. Here is a good place to start. Hold on until a little later junior and we will see if that is the case. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Am and deerbeer as I read your posts and the websites you offered it became quite apparent that my task was much easier then I even imagined.
It would initially be good if you could present the Sumerian and babylonian texts of creation as they appear instead of refering to them, so we can see how they actually compare to the Biblical Eden narrative. First I would love to respond to this wonderful lesson in logic that DB (thats Deerbeer) has given me.
Bertot writes:quote: Think about it, if it is "my opinion" that Moses was the author, then it is "your opinion" he was not, seeing you presented no evidence to the contrary, which implies you have no good reason for believing he was not. It stands that from this point alone, he is quite possibly the author and no reason to believe he was not. Deer writes:No, that is quite flawed logic. It's a false choice, for one thing. I also don't have a good reason for believing Abraham was not the author but I can't prove it. And why not Abraham rather than Moses? Can you prove it wasn't Abraham? Two of us can't prove it wasn't so it must be so, by your logic, no? But now you say it doesn't matter anyway (though getting nailed on faulty logic of course always matters whatever the context). Quetion? Do you really study logic? If you will remember you jumped in here like a crazy person, insisting that I was saying I could prove absolutley Moses was its author. I never made any comment to that affect. That my friend is a unwarrented and false presupposition. You never even gave me a chance to respond, before you had me saying and asserting things I never said. My simple indication has been that based on the evidence contained in scripture (which should be counted as reliable as anyother ancient text, until proven unreliable), that evidence suggests he was its author. It is therefore not a false choice, it is simply one you do not like. It is for this reason I said there is no good reason to believe he is not its author and quite possibly is its author. Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch-Tried and True - Apologetics Press Bertot stated: Simply put however, all the information and indications would indicate he was the author, there is no "good" reasons to believe he was not. The above statement could only be made from a biblical context since he is nowhere else mentioned. But notice the mindset that automatically disqualifies the scriptures because they say they are said to be form God. Why are they immediatley ruled out as a reliable source, when all indications say they should not be dimissed? Notice your statement, "what emperical data can you provide", as if the scriptures do not qualify as emperical data..Emperical evidence about history my simple friend is often in the eye of the beholder, consider this quote from the author you provided. Ultimately, however, Cline concludes that, although there may be a kernel of historical truth to the Garden of Eden stories (the writer was, after all, referring to some kind of geographical reality, although at what scale remains debatable), the final historical “truth” will probably remain elusive:
Does this sound as if this author has emperical evidence to the contrary, especially where providnece and intervention are involved. Listen to the words of you cohort in this debate, Autumnman:
It is hard to put the Garden of Eden into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend (p. 13).Post 52 and 59 of Eden 2 quote:bertot: You have been misunderstanding me. I agree. The Hebrew source texts that we have are in fact the Hebrew source texts that we have. That we even have a Hebrew source text is absolutely amazing, and remarkable. I do not believe in luck. Remember me saying that? I am also not an atheist. Do the metaphorical math. We are essentially on the same page and in agreement. Read my earlier posts more carefully. AM states again: My conclusion is that the Hebrew source text is NOT the divine “Word of God,” but is instead the “human words” of ancient mankind describing their conceptions of God, and what they learned from God to us their descendents. The very fact that we even have a Heb. source text to translate, contemplate, interpret, examine, and explore points to The Divine desiring us to have these ancient Scriptures, in my opinion. Im like a lawyer in a courtroom arent I? The definition of Empericical:
em·pir·i·cal Audio Help /mprkl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. em·pir·i·cal Audio Help /mprkl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment. 2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine. 3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. When one by experience, experiments with the evidence in the scriptures and the factual, evidentual historical and archeological corroborated information contained therein, one is certainly justified in drawing warrented conclusions about items of history that may or not have taken place. One is not stepping out into the dark by drwaing such conclusions. So the answer to your original question is "the scriptures", the 66 books of the common Bible, as emperical evidence. This is my answer whenI am not being accused of bad logic by someone who does not even understand the simply principles of "deductive reasoning" or common sense This is the same method one uses when studying the theory of evolution. Only hypothesizes (assumptions made to tests its consequences) can be drawn to the best of our abilities about things in the past. No one was there to see the actual events. Yes, even the ToE, falls into this category. Probably more so than most theories. Sorry fellas that just how it works. Careful Deer how you throw around the word "emperical" http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2222Archaeology and the Old Testament - Apologetics Press Again, faulty logic only exists if a person involves themselves in a false statement or implication, not assumed or presumed ideas, statements of ones imaginations. You attributed to me something I never indicated, that I could demonstrate absolute emperical data. Actually absolute emperical data does not exist for anything in history that someone did not witnesses. Inturn however, such data is not necessary to form an informed decision about something, only enough information or evidence to indicate in favor of or otherwise.
So read on.
You really need to pay attention here buddy boy. "Every thinking person" statement had to do with weather or not the author of the rest of the book of Genesis believed the narrative to be literal, and the rest of the books of the OT indicate it as literal. Every thinking person examining atleast the OT could see this fact by simple observation. Not weather Mr Cline believed it as literal, or weather people in history percieve it as literal, but weather the author of Genesis believed it as such. This what happens when you jump in not understanding the "exact" context of a thread or statement
quote: ...nearly every thinking person. Well it is not clear what you mean "every thinking person" is supposed to be believing, but if you mean belief in a literal Eden your universe of "thinking persons" must indeed be quite small, as I would venture to say that not nearly a majority of Christians and Jews believe that, let alone the rest of the world. quote:
First I as I stated above go ahead and present the Sumerian and Babylonian narratives and lets see if they are comparable. I dont remember what post it was or what thread it was but I do remember Am saying he believed the Hebrew narrative was unique from all ther accounts of creation in ancient history and that this set it apart from them as such. I will try and find thatquote.Bertot writes; the narrative has never been discovered apart from the book itself. Deer writes: Actually it has. In fact, there is fairly good evidence that the author of Genesis "borrowed" the account from Sumerian sources that predate Genesis. This is pretty much accepted by most scholars, who presumably do think on occasion. I love responding to this one. Follow carefully what the author you cited says below. Oral tradition was a big part of the Hebrews and ancient peoples manner of communicating truth, ideas and stories. Now since the scriptures indicate that Noah was the forefather of the sumerians, based on the ancient context of the scriptures, it would follow that these peoples recieved these stories from those before them, until the stories without the hand of inspiration, were corrupted and the exact details of the facts were distorted, until such time Moses through inspiration put it back in perspective and its true form.Since the scriptures tout as much if not more fatual, historical and archeological evidence to its favor, this perception of what had taken place in ancient history cannot be discounted. A simple example will suffice here. Even though theJews were the Keepers of Gogds words (Romans 1, 2 and 3) by the time Christ arrived they had so corrupeted its meanings and sayings that it was necessary for him to say, "you teach for doctrine the commandments of men". Even in this case where specific knowledge was at thier disposal it became distorted. What do you think might happen if only oral tradition without inspiration might happen. Think about it. I dont remember the exact quote and I could not find it last night, but I do remember Autumnman saying that he believed that the Hebrew Eden narrative sets itself apart form any other account of creation, due to the facts he then presents and I will be happy to find it. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the ancients had similar stories that mimic the biblical accounts. The Old and Nts have exhonerated (free from blame) themselves to mnay times to mention, at the hands of skeptics.Now, couple all of this with the hand of intervention and inspiration in the process, that is if you believe in a God as AM does. quote:
Hundreds upon hundreds of years later peoples that were not under Gods "direct" influence (Romans 2:14-15) would have easily forgotten who Adam, Seth or Noah ever were if they ever heard of them in the first place and the stories would have become blurred, until the hand of inspiration interviend. As in the case of the Flood epic.
Ultimately, however, Cline concludes that, although there may be a kernel of historical truth to the Garden of Eden stories (the writer was, after all, referring to some kind of geographical reality, although at what scale remains debatable), the final historical “truth” will probably remain elusive: It is hard to put the Garden of Eden into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend (p. 13). Cline argues that these stories are “transmitted narratives” - oral history handed down from generation to generation and culture to culture, and eventually captured in a written language. Such narratives provide the best explanation for both the similarities and the differences between the biblical narratives and other stories from the region. This is an idea that makes good anthropological sense and is supported by anthropological, archaeological, ethnographic and historical data worldwide. We know that prior to written language (or in absence of such a language) oral transmissions of cultural knowledge were vital to maintaining cultural cohesiveness. Cline suggests that such oral traditions in the Near East were probably transmitted between cultures at a time scale on the order of centuries if not longer. I would suggest that oral traditions may in fact be passed for thousands of years. And of course, their content and concepts changed over time. It is also important to realize a primary function of such transmitted narratives: to “explain” the world around them in terms that were culturally meaningful, given their level of scientific and historic knowledge at the time. Cline next discusses mention of Eden in Sumerian texts that pre-date Genesis and which may themselves have been borrowed from an earlier culture, the Ubaidians (approximately 7500 - 5500 BP). He also notes the existence of additional creation stories from the region that have “striking similarities” to the story found in Genesis. All of these pre-date the biblical account: Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was compiled from various sources, which were written down as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. and as late as the sixth or fifth century B.C. Even the earliest parts of the Bible, such as the source called J by biblical scholars, do not date earlier than the tenth or ninth century B.C., hundreds of years after Enuma Elish was written.In fact, there are multiple non-Hebrew Eden accounts and there are Hebrew accounts not part of Genesis as well.
quote: Eden narratives in Enoch(1) The Book of Enoch (2) Eden narrative in Enoch (3) Differences from Genesis Eden narratives in Jubilee (1) The Book of Jubilee (2) Eden narrative in Jubilee (3) Differences from Genesis Ball in your court again, I believeThe Epistle of Enoch
Book of Jubilee traditionally dated or composed in 2 century B.C.EDated: some scholars propose a date somewhere between the 170 BC and the 1st century BC . Both of which are much younger than even a liberal traditional date of the book of Genesis.Obvious revisions of the original, even if you believe Genesis had numerous authors. These harldy qualify as distinct and seperate from the origianl narrative. Also, when I say apart from the book of Genesis I do not mean attached to some other Hebrew literature or scrolls, I simply mean by itself, discoverd as a ancient scroll or text attached to nothing. Try again fellas. If you have "been over all of this already" how could you make the nonsensical statement that the Eden narrative hasn't been found apart from the Book of Genesis? - because of course it has - numerous times. You are simply in denial if you insist otherwise
No denial here my friend, you simply need to work harder to demonsrtrate that the Eden Narrative, as it is written in Genesis, has ever been discovered independent of that book. Not examples of revisions, and later alterations. Keep trying though this should be interesting. Also, AM, if you want go ahead and finish your response to post 244 I will wait for its completion and the respond in time and turn It may take a while as "Nearbeer", here has taken us off course a bit. Ive got to work today, so my responese will be very late. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM I stayed up till 4:00 am last evening typing and I am sure you know by now I will get to your or anyone elses post eventually. But I am going to take the night off and relax, I may not even get to this last one tommorrow, but I will try, I will read it tonite. I am hoping the other fellow will not back down from his assertions he has advanced in his post and he will try and make a response to my last one, but we will see, right?
See you in a while. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM I am writing a response to the first part of 244, will have it out in a minute
D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM I this will be a response to post 257 and 259, if you would let me get finished with both and then make a response. This will avoid misssing material and skipping items. I simply cannot do the concise thing as you put it, I feel that much discussion on points is very important, especially when you are dealing with items of this nature.
I suppose 'deerbreh' was not up to the challenge of defending his assertions in his posts. Some fellas are like that, unable to uphold thier responsibilites and obligations. Either of you are welcome to reply to post 256, if you wish, as it appears he is not up to the task, as you called it.
Quote: So, the Greek version of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas can be dated to about 200 C.E. and the oldest New Testament Canonical Gospel manuscripts is dated to 200 C.E. The above information appears to place the oldest manuscripts of the Gnostic and Canonical Gospels to the 3rd century C.E. with only a fragment of the Canonical Gospel of John dating to the first quarter of the 2nd century C.E. However, all of these ancient manuscripts are regarded as copies of the originals that were probably composed in the 1st century C.E., but those originals no longer exist. Yes the originals dont exist but the people that were closest to the events did exist and it is possible to reproduce the entire NT excluding 11 verses from thier writings. The ones closest to the events would have know what the written, acceptable material was and what the truth of the situations was as I pointed out with the declaration of independance, bill or rights and constitution. The samthing will happen 500 years from now, guranteed, with these articles, I wish I were around to watch it culminate. Think about it AM. Now add to this the very very very real probablity of devine intervention into the process by a God you believe in. 2Peter 2:3Here is the natural and spiritual in one inspired verse. 3.His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Even assuming the Gth was composed in the 1st century, the earliest deciples, atleast the majority did not accept it as inspired or authoratative. There were probably numerous things of this nature floating around. Most if not ll of these spurious gospels carry no weight with them, its as if the composer wished to remain unknown. here is a aticle to demonstrate this point, I hope you find it interesting. http--Page not found - Apologetics Press Was Jesus Gay?An Examination of the Secret Gospel of Mark - Apologetics PressThanks for your modest and conservative dating of the NT and here is a couple of sites from a not very well known scholar (ha ha) that might assist you as well. http://www.bible.ca/...w-testament-documents-f-bruce-ch2.htm http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-bruce.htm
You neglect to point out that the NT Scriptures also carry with them a number of fanciful, mythical, and/or supernatural declarations that tend to alter the impact of their historical, archeological and verifiable information. It is not logically reasonable to extrapolate from that which is or can be naturally verified to that which is naturally and empirically absurd or fanciful. Deductive reasoning cannot be applied in a rational way when attempting to infer from what is historically and archeologically verifiable to that, which cannot be verified in a historical, archeological, or empirical fashion. There is no amount of natural or realistic information that will ever confirm the supernatural, and/or unrealistic information contained within the New or the Old Testaments. You must be aware of this fact to some degree.
So much of our discussion, centers around that which you refer to as "absurd and fanciful". It has alway interested me how someone who supposedly believes in God finds that which is contained in the scriptures as absurd.or rediculous. There are numerous people on this site AM that would find you belief inGod as absurd and fanciful no matter how much information you present, true? They would consider your position of moving from the natural to the supernatural (deity, God of nature) or whatever you wish to call it as fanciful and absurd, they say there is no good reason for believing in God, yet you maintain your position, even if you cannot "prove" it, correct. Now I know this is not a answer o your quetion, I simply wanted to point that out again. You commiting the same "mistake" that you accuse me of, correct. Also, I never said that moving from the natural to the supernatural, "proves" the supernatural. I was simply pointing out that we proceed with that which gives us the best information to make our own decisions, about, say the spirit world and things of that nature. In this instance, the scriptures as we know them provide us with the most accurate information and evidence to make a decision on our own. No other source/s can assist us in this manner. There are no other sources in ancient history and manuscripts that tout the amount of factual, historical and archeological evidence connected directly with the so-called supernatual that allow us to make a decision for "ourselves". You appearently have made you decision, so be it. But looking strickly at the factual data e one can decide that that data, is atleast accurate and it has stood the test of time from critics and skeptics.If you will remember this part of the discussion strated with the principle of what faith and blind faith was or was not, to see if some faith could be supported factually and logically. This is the manner in which I am proceeding. I challenged you to provide a scripture that suggested we proceed on blind faith alone. To this point you have not provided that passage. This is where our discussion took a detour. Hopefully we are returning to that point and then back to your origianl issues. To rule out the supernatural simply because we have not observed it or experienced it is not a completly objective way to proceed. Belief in God of any sort, is belief in the supernatural, belief that God sustains things with his might is a belief in the supernatural, belief that God wanted us to have the Hebrew eden narrative, is belief in the supernatural. I might point out as I have about 8 or 9 times now, that intervention in space and time to create anything by God and you belief in this is belief in the supernatural. you just need to pick a side and stick with it. Your statement above and you particular beliefs make no logical sense with the rest of the paragraph and its conclusions. You simply need t choose a camp and stay in it, eh.
Riddles and metaphors that are founded in natural substances (like “dust”), natural beings (like “trees”), or natural phenomena (like “rain”), however, possess empirical qualities. For example: “Dust” is a dry earthly substance that does not lend itself to being “formed” and in no way does it literally depict the substance of the mortal human body. “Trees” are living natural beings that human beings cannot create; but human beings do extract the “wood” from the corpses of living trees after they are killed. “Rain” is in fact water that falls from the heavens, and without rain life on earth becomes dry and desolate.
I warned you numeours times to stay off of the narcotics before writing out a post (ha ha). I think I have answered the above in my response, just stay away form that damn 'peace pipe' Your a wierd dude homie. Just kidding.Here is a response to the first part of 257 and 259. I tried to open one of the two together web sites and I dont know what happened on the websites search engine type in ff bruce read cahpter two of The New testamnet documents a any others I think you will find them interesting.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I will now make "concise", short reply to post 259 regarding the Gth statements.
Since the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in Alexandrian Greek, and here Jesus is essentially referring to the Septuagint Greek translation of the Genesis creation accounts, and probably more appropriately Gen. 5:1 (“This is the book of the generations of Adam” KJV), due to the context of GTh v. 46 referring to “the offspring of women”, it stands to reason that his audience would comprehend what he was stating in that context. Jesus refers to “Adam” again in GTh v. 85 “Adam was not worthy of us” {47:29 thru 33}, saying, “It was from a great power and a great wealth that Adam came into being; and he did not become worthy of you (plur.). For, had he been worthy [he would] not [have tasted] death.” According to the Orthodox interpretation of the “Adam & Eve fable”, had “Adam” not partaken of “death” he - “Adam & Eve” - would never have been sent back “to till/work the ground that he was taken from there” Masoretic Hebrew Text (KJV “to till the ground from whence he was taken”) Gen. 3:23. Had this not occurred then what is declared in Gen. 2:5”“and there was not a man to till the ground” KJV” would never have been fulfilled, for “Adam” was “formed of the dust from the ground” (KJV Gen. 2:7) prior to the Garden of Eden being established and “Adam” being put into it, which occurred in Gen. 2:8. When one follows this Orthodox translation context, then the plural “you” - which refers to Jesus’ audience - in GTh v. 85 would never have come into being, since “Adam & Eve” would never have partaken of “death” and would have never been sent from the Garden of Eden back to the ground from whence he was originally taken. Had this been the case then what is declared in Gen. 1:28 would never had been said: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it...” (KJV). Gen. 1:28 does not say Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Garden in Eden, and subdue it! I truly suspect that Jesus is stating much more in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that you are giving the Gnostic Scripture credit for. That is, of course, my humble opinion. Like most of the Gth vs 85 is complete nonsense. There is no way to determine or even begin to understand what is in the authors mind in this rediculous statement. Forgive my bluntness, but I will have to reject it as quickly as the early Church did. Alot of eloaboration about translations and of words, dosent help the Gospel of Thomas. If you work really hard you can make his nonsensical statements say anything you want, as you have done above. A simple reading of the entire book leaves one standing in total amazement.Consider the following: Gth vs11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?" "Scooby Doo can doo doo but Jimmy Carter is smarter"., Homer Simpson, 'The Simpsons' Come on Am, be serious. Ill make a deal with you. You tell me what Homer meant in his statement and Ill give you an explanation of verse 11. Since no one in the living room had a clue what he was talking about, I think there is no fear you will either, or that I will ever understand vs 11s meaning. I dont mean to be overly facetious here but think about it logically. The writer of these verses obviously has no idea what he is talking about and it is clear he is trying to ad-lib, things he does not understand. Secondly and more importantly there is no historical content or context in this book, heck there isnt even any context, context in the light of these statements. They seem to be random statements slung together for no apparent purpose, other than to get a "work" out in the mix. The Gth, vs4: Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live. Come on Am, what the heck does that ignorant statement mean. If you worked as hard at finding truth in the true Gospels as you do in this nonsense, you would be much further along in your understanding. Is it any surprise the early church rejected these? Apparently, they were much more intelligent than we ever imagined If however, we do a simple reading of vs 85, it also, makes it appear that Adam was brouhgt into being and was considered a literal being as well. Its only when you start the facny foot work, that makes this literal interpretation disappear. "do a little side step lead them on", etc, etc, etc. Here is a very interesting point. Isnt it interesting that skeptics of the four major Gospels will use these types of books (Gth) to try and undermine the four in thier arguments against them, however, if the Gth were included as a part of the 27 books in the canon at present, those same skeptics would be laughing at its (Gth) content as much, as say, I am. Now theres objectivity for you. One other interesting point. There seem to be numerous quotes in the Gth from the four major Gospels, but there doesnt seem to be any of the very specific statements that are unique to the Gth contained in the Gospels. Wonder why that is? Hmmmm? This ofcourse is my dogmatic, humble opinion, ha, ha. Lets talk about something serious, what so you say AM. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
bertot: Nice opinion. I've been topping trees and falling them all day for a friend of my wife. I am extremely tired. Tomorrow morning I'll complete my reply to your earlier post and perhaps this one also. I'll talk to you in the morning, my friend. Your just like statefarm, a good neighbor. That is damn admirable of you to assist your friends. I was extremely happy to see you had not responded, I really did not want to stay up very late. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Autumnman. you have given me a great deal of material to respond back to, thanks. I will get to it steadly over the next couple of days,as I also have a great deal of things to take care of . Nice post there freakshow, I really do love the comprehensive ones, they really make you work. I was raised, reading, watching and attending the types of debates where each person has 25 to 30 speeches, with about 4 speeches, by each opponent for two to three days. they are so copmrehensive and exhaustive, not much material is missed that could be discussed.
Seeing we are probably coming to the end of our discourses, with each other, it is imparative we get as comprehensive as possible. In the end we will be happy that we did this, as opposed to quick witted responses, trust me. I will get started tommorrow in 'Word' and finish in a couple of days. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I am working on it a little at at time, its going to taks a while as I am busy with other stuff as well.
Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Jaywill, thanks for your response in this area, you are as thorough as ever. I am finishing a response to his last one, hope to have it ut in a day or so, thanks again.
D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM writes:
I hear from your above statement that you actually believe that the early Christian movement (from Jesus’ death until Roman Emperor Constantine’s so-called conversion in the first half of the 4th century C.E.) was a clear, easily defined, and unambiguous state of human consciousness. However, the research that I have performed presents a very different view. Professor Elaine Pagels, (who received her doctorate from Harvard University, chaired the Department of Religion at Bernard Collage, and Columbia University, and was the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University) author of the 1979 book titled, “The Gnostic Gospels”, states,
quote: “If the New Testament accounts could support a range of interpretations, why did orthodox Christians in the second century insist on a literal view of resurrection and reject all others as heretical? I suggest that we cannot answer this question adequately as long as we consider the doctrine only in terms of its religious content. But when we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day. Gnostic Christians who interpret resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim to authority: when they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as heretics. Such political and religious authority developed in a most remarkable way. As we have noted, diverse forms of Christianity flourished in the early years of the Christian movement. Hundreds of rival teachers all claimed to teach the “true doctrine of Christ” and denounced one another as frauds” (T. G. G. pgs. 6 & 7). "If" being the key would in this paragraph, they dont.In debate this is what is commonly refered to as presupposition and assertion. Since the author chose not to provide a single passage from the Gospels, it stands to reason intially atleast, that he is making a baseless assertion. The New Testament accounts do not support a "range" of interpretations, in relation to the bodily resurrection, that is as a nonsensical statement I have ever encountered. People may interret any thing any way they wish, that is not the same as saying the canonical Gospels support a range of interpretations on that subject. Secondly, the mere fact that there was some misinterpretation, misaplication and confusion on some folks part in those days, is certainly not indicative of the fact that the original Christians where unaware of the truth in these matters. This seems to be the authors whole argument and contention, but it is not consistent with the facts we have, say from the Aposolic fathers themselves. Here is a respone (by Kelly L. Ross, Ph.D, random House, 2004, 'The Gnostic Gospels, Beyond Belief, the Secret Gospel of Thomas') to the above quote, you might find it very interesting, the rest of the reaponse and the entire article is listed below, good stuff manard.http://www.friesian.com/pagels.htm This thesis, that orthodox Christianity defeated Gnosticism because of the political implications of its doctrine, seems to me false. In The Gnostic Gospels, Pagels applies the thesis to ideas like the Resurrection and the divinity of Jesus, while in Beyond Belief it is applied to the divinity of Jesus and, more profoundly, to the difference between a religion of belief, as found in the Gospel of John, and a religion of self-knowledge, as found in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. One is tempted to see Pagel's thesis as simply of a piece with Protestant anti-clericism and with the distaste of liberal religion for "organized" religion, confessional religion, religious dogma or doctrine, and, last but not least, Popes. Be that as it may, the thesis can be quickly and decisively refuted with counterexamples. Physical resurrection, something still "beyond belief" for most people, is a fundamental belief in Islam, repeatedly asserted and even argued (against objections) in the Qur'n, yet there are no priests, bishops, Popes, or apostolic succession in Islam. There is an Islamic Community, whose standards are determined by consensus, but no Islamic Church. After the death of the Prophet Muh.ammad, there was no personal claim to religious authority in matters of doctrine except in Shi'ism Thus, if Pagel's thesis is that resurrection implies and necessitates the Church and episcopal authority as these developed in Christian history, we have a glaring example of a religion where such belief implies and results in no such things. Apostolic authority, if not apostolic succession, certainly exists in Islam, since much of Islamic Law is based on Traditions that are traced back, authoritatively, to the Prophet, his Companions, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and others. A paper trail, not priests or bishops, makes do for that. In Pagels we find absolutely no mention or discussion of Islam in comparison to Christianity with respect to doctrine or history. On the other hand, Gnosticism, with respect to Apostolic authority, is really in no worse a position than orthodoxy. It is not clear why resurrection, even the specific Resurrection of Jesus, would make a difference. If the Gnostics claim the authority of Apostles who saw a Jesus who was spiritually, but not physically, resurrected, why is their testimony less compelling than Apostles who saw a physically resurrected Jesus? It isn't -- and Gnostics could claim to still be seeing the resurrected Jesus. Muh.ammad wasn't resurrected at all, and this did not diminish his authority, or those of his followers, in the least. The idea that a succession of bishops, by a laying on hands, is necessary to transmit apostolic authority is thus refuted by the example of Islam. And if a religion of belief is supposed to imply a succession of bishops, etc., this is also refuted by the case of Islam. The divinity of physically existing, incarnate God does not imply or necessitate the existence of bishops and Church because we find such beliefs in Hinduism, as with the incarnation and divinity of Krishna I am the Way, and the Master who watches in silence; thy friend and thy shelter and thy abode of peace. I am the beginning and the middle and the end of all things: their seed of Eternity, their Treasure supreme. [9:18, Juan Mascar translation, Penguin, 1962] Belief in Krishna exists in a religion, Hinduism, that has no overriding organization, structure, or authority. Indeed, Hinduism, although displaying philosophical attempts to organize its beliefs, remains poorly systematized but has not even bothered with general Councils, as in Christianity or Buddhism, to try define orthodox belief by vote. As in Islam, though without explicit legal principle, consensus tends to be responsible for what is common in Hindu belief. Although Pagels occasionally refers to Buddhism in these two books, I did not detect a single reference to Hinduism, let alone to the devotionalistic tradition of Hinduism in which we find Krishna, or, for that matter, even the devotionalistic tradition of Buddhism, where we find Savior figures like the Buddha Amitbha or the Tibetan Tr. Why would Pagels have ignored religions like Islam and Hinduism? Well, they damage her case. If belief in resurrection or divine Incarnation can exist without priests, bishops, and Church, we are suddenly left without an explanation for the success of orthodox, traditional Christianity and the failure of Gnosticism. Pagels says, "we cannot answer this question adequately as long as we consider the doctrine only in terms of its religious content." It may be that we can only answer the question "in terms of its religious content." It may turn out, gulp, that orthodox Christianity succeeded because, at the time, it was more appealing. It won fair and square in the marketplace of religious ideas. If you dont mind I would like to keep entering examples from the Gnostic gospels randomly to reinforce my contention about there character, example:
For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. [The Gnostic Gospels, p.49, from the Gospel of Thomas] Bertot writes: with the declaration of independance, bill or rights and constitution. The samthing will happen 500 years from now, guranteed, with these articles, I wish I were around to watch it culminate. Think about it AM .AM writes: I have given it some thought. The flaw in your argument is that the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Articles of the Constitution claim just the opposite of the New Testament. Article 6, clause 3 states, quote: “But no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That is the difference between a “Secular Government”, a “Representative Democracy”, and a “Religious Government”, a “Theocracy”. It was religious Christian men who founded the United States of America and who wrote the above mentioned documents, but nowhere does anyone claim to be God in the flesh, been born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water to wine, raised the dead, or been bodily resurrected. No one claims to personally speak for the Christian God, or any of the Apostils of the New Testament. No one claims even the slightest inkling of “divine intervention” or religious authority entwined in the process of establishing the United States Government. I suppose you totally missed the meaning of what I was trying to communicate to you about the Constitution or the Delaration or independance. My argument was that in just a short period of time,people will begin to question, who or if we can actually trust that those individuals proclaiming to have signed such a document, actually did. In 2000 years it may even begin to be questioned by survivors, wheather or not the actual events took place that are connected with the document itself. This was my simple point.The Apostles and earliest Christians connected with the events in question, knew "without question" who, what , when, where, why and how. That is why they rejected as nonsensical the Gnostic nonsense in those days One cannot add to the documents that establish the U. S. Government even the slightest possibility of supernatural “divine intervention”. For this reason more than likely five hundred years from now no one will be attempting to establish political and religious authority based on the documents that established the U. S. Government. The God to which 2nd Peter 2:3 refers happens not to be the God I “believe in.” According to the Orthodox Version of the Hebrew Eden Narrative, it was not God that created the natural, mortal world that gives us everything we need for life. It was “Adam’s” disobedience. I am also not quite sure what “godliness” we are supposedly bestowed through our knowledge of him or what knowledge of him is being referred to? I am not a Christian and I do not blindly believe in Jesus’ divinity or his bodily resurrection. Again, no one is talking about adding to these documents, simply, that it is a natural act to question the validity of things that happened so long ago. The surrounding evidence will assist you in making a decision. Does it not surprise you that just a few years away, people are actually questioning the halocoust and landing on the moon. Further, in response to the above quote by you. The context of 2 Peter is speaking about children of God. It is true that the "rain falls on the just and the unjust", however 2 Peter 2 is comparable to John 17, where Christ prayed that the believers would be one as he and the father were one and that the deciples not be taken out of the world, but be kept from the influence of the world. God gives to his children all they need for life and Godliness. You could also be a part of this body, if you would simply "believe", I will speak about belief and faith in a while. I suppose you will tell me in a while what exacally our God is in a moment.
AM writes: On what extra biblical sources are you basing the claim that “the majority of the earliest disciples did not accept the GTh as inspired or authoritative”? I would really like to know what those particular extra biblical sources are. The following quotes are from the' The Christian Research Institute' in an article titled,"the Gnostic Gospels, are they Authentic?", part two, Douglas Goothuis. Quote:Unless we are content to chronicle a cacophony of conflicting views of Jesus based on pure speculation or passionate whimsy, historical investigation is non-negotiable. Christianity has always been a historical religion and any serious challenge to its legitimacy must attend to that fact. Its central claims are rooted in events, not just ideas; in people, not just principles; in revelation, not speculation; in incarnation, not abstraction. Renowned historian Herbert Butterfield speaks of Christianity as a religion in which "certain historical events are held to be part of the religion itself" and are "considered to...represent the divine breaking into history."[1] Historical accuracy was certainly no incidental item to Luke in the writing of his Gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4, NIV). The text affirms that Luke was after nothing less than historical certainty, presented in orderly fashion and based on firsthand testimony. If Christianity centers on Jesus, the Christ, the promised Messiah who inaugurates the kingdom of God with power, the objective facticity of this Jesus is preeminent. Likewise, if purportedly historical documents, like the gospels of Nag Hammadi, challenge the biblical understanding of Jesus, they too must be brought before historical scrutiny. quote: Robert M. Grant has noted that "the religious realities which the Church proclaimed were ultimately perverted by the Gospel of Thomas. For this reason Thomas, along with other documents which purported to contain secret sayings of Jesus, was rejected by the Church."[46] Here we find ourselves agreeing with the early Christian defenders of the faith who maintained that Gnosticism in the church was a corruption of original truth and not an independently legitimate source of information on Jesus or the rest of reality. Fitzmyer drives this home in criticizing Pagels's view that the Gnostics have an equal claim on Christian authenticity: "Throughout the book [Pagels] gives the unwary reader the impression that the difference between 'orthodox Christians' and 'gnostic Christians' was one related to the 'origins of Christianity'. Time and time again, she is blind to the fact that she is ignoring a good century of Christian existence in which those 'gnostic Christians' were simply not around."[47] This is what I have been trying to communicate to you recently, but this statement and the whole article should answer your above question. Here it is, its a good one as well. http://www.iclnet.org/...text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0088a.html
pseudepigrapha: Ancient documents which falsely claim authorship by noteworthy individuals for the sake of credibility; for instance, the Gospel of Thomas Quote: GNOSTIC UNDERDOGS? Although Pagels and others have provoked sympathy, if not enthusiasm, for the Gnostics as the underdogs who just happened to lose out to orthodoxy, the Gnostics' historical credentials concerning Jesus are less than compelling. It may be romantic to "root for the underdog," but the Gnostic underdogs show every sign of being heretical hangers-on who tried to harness Christian language for conceptions antithetical to early Christian teaching. Many sympathetic with Gnosticism make much of the notion that the Gnostic writings were suppressed by the early Christian church. But this assertion does not, in itself, provide support one way or the other for the truth or falsity of Gnostic doctrine. If truth is not a matter of majority vote, neither is it a matter of minority dissent. It may be true, as Pagels says, that "the winners write history," but that doesn't necessarily make them bad or dishonest historians. If so, we should hunt down Nazi historians to give us the real picture of Hitler's Germany and relegate all opposing views to that of dogmatic apologists who just happened to be on the winning side. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus went to great lengths to present the theologies of the various Gnostic schools in order to refute them biblically and logically. If suppression had been his concern, the book never would have been written as it was. Further, to argue cogently against the Gnostics, Irenaeus and the other anti-Gnostic apologists would presumably have had to be diligent to correctly represent their foes in order to avoid ridicule for misunderstanding them. Patrick Henry highlights this in reference to Nag Hammadi: "While the Nag Hammadi materials have made some corrections to the portrayal of Gnosticism in the anti-Gnostic writings of the church fathers, it is increasingly evident that the fathers did not fabricate their opponents' views; what distortion there is comes from selection, not from invention. It is still legitimate to use materials from the writings of the fathers to characterize Gnosticism."[50] It is highly improbable that all of the Gnostic materials could have been systematically confiscated or destroyed by the early church. Dunn finds it unlikely that the reason we have no unambiguously first century documents from Christian Gnostics is because the early church eradicated them. He believes it more likely that we have none because there were none.[51] But by archaeological virtue of Nag Hammadi, we now do have many primary source Gnostic documents available for detailed inspection. Yet they do not receive superior marks as historical documents about Jesus. In a review of The Gnostic Gospels, noted biblical scholar Raymond Brown affirmed that from the Nag Hammadi "works we learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus' ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his."[52]Another factor foreign to the interests of Gnostic apologists is the proposition that Gnosticism expired largely because it lacked life from the beginning. F. F. Bruce notes that "Gnosticism was too much bound up with a popular but passing phase of thought to have the survival power of apostolic Christianity."[53] Exactly why did apostolic Christianity survive and thrive? Robert Speer pulls no theological punches when he proclaims that "Christianity lived because it was true to the truth. Through all the centuries it has never been able to live otherwise. It can not live otherwise today."[54] I hope this answers your question. AM writesNumerous people on this site would probably not use the term “God” in reference to what I am alluding to. Which is fine because the English term “God” does not adequately address the subject anyhow. Unfortunately, in English we are left with a relatively limited, and inadequate vocabulary when attempting to refer to the objective and experiential yet mysterious Sublime Mystery of Life. There is absolutely nothing absurd or fanciful, or mythical and supernatural about the mysterious fact of life on this planet and in the cosmos, since the cosmos is where this planet happens to exist. You and I and the abundance of life that teems around us are all objective and experiential proof of this Sublime Mystery of Life {a.k.a. “God”). I am referring to a real, true, objective and experiential territory! What one chooses to “call” or “name” this real and natural territory is not important. Therefore, I honestly do not think many people on this site (except Fundamentalist Christians) would find what I am referring to as absurd or fanciful If I understand the above statement, you are now saying, or have always said and I missed it, that "God" is not a real actual personality apart from the universe, cosmos and the natural things, the universe is god and god is the universe. Is this what you are discribing as the supreme natural diety? AM writes in post 213 of Eden 1 To me, "Iam that I am", means "God Is." Let's say that we are mortal human beings on planet earth on a mountain we regard as "desolation" and yet all around us "life" is burning in all things. The tamarisk-bush is in full blossom amidst the stifling heat of summer. God and what Is are one and the same. Without God there is not such thing as "cosmic nature" "earth nature" or "human nature." "God is", what? Without telling me what God is not, tell me exacally what he is from your point of view. What are you "alluding" to God as. Is he a physical territory as you describe above? Bertot wrote in post 211 of Eden 1.is this God in the above discription a real personality, living and actual or your concept of what a God may be derived from alot of words that you do not consider to be from God's word anyway, the OT. Is God real or not, a simple yes or no will suffice, without all the rehtoric and double talk. AM wrotes in post 212Yes, God is real. I did not share with you "rhetoric and double talk." I am sad that you perceived it that way. I shared with you the most honest answer that I could provide at this point in time. I do not perceive God as being anthropomorphic. The Canaanites, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans anthropomorphized their supreme being and the lesser supernatural beings beneath him. I associate no human-like characteristics or perceived human personality to God. I will await your reply. Again, not what he is not, what is god in your estimation.I dont think you answered my question directly then or now. Is he a thinking, real, actual, reasoning, living personality, that is conscouos of his existence, or is your god simply natural processes which you regard as a mystery? AM, "proof of a mystery" is a nonsensical statement. Besides all of this what is mysterious about natural laws emerging and decreasing to another form of existence and this continual process throught an eternity. If it is eternal in and of itself, what and where is God in this mix, in your view? AM writes: Regardless of the amount of historically corroborated material that may be a part of the New Testament Scriptures, and regardless of the amount of archaeological evidence that may support certain aspects of the New Testament Scriptures, the very idea that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone. There is absolutely no empirical evidence or experience, or experiments that can confirm that any of these two thousand year old, literary described supernatural events had ever actually occurred. However, there is a vast abundance of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over the past two thousand years of human history that unequivocally prove that these supernatural divine interventions had in fact never occurred. That is a considerable amount of evidence against, and virtually no evidence for. Your statement above is only partially true. Demonstratable, accurate history and facts do not absolutley prove anything that occoured in the past or distant past, that is recorded in any source, no matter how reliable it is. This is where the difference between belief, faith and blind faith come into play. A few illustrations will suffice. Belief in God is certainly reasonable and rational based on the evidence at hand, that is essentially faith. Not seeing God directly does not constitute blind faith. If a person believes something with no "supporting" evidence that is blind faith. Example, if there were no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Nero ever existed and I had complete confidence in my mind that he accomplished or carried out the things he did, with not one shread of evidence of even his actual exsistence, that would be blind faith.Not to incite my Mormon friends here, but one reason we reject the contentions in the book of Mormon is the that no historical or archeological evidence can be brought foward to support the claims of peoples, places and events contained in that book. When asked why this is the case, they say we should pray to God, to know that those events were true or not. This is an example of blind faith, no supporting or corroborating evidence. The Old and New Testaments are not of this sort. Before you start hooten and a hallerin about Abrahham, Moses and Noah, not being cooroborated by archeological evidence, I would suggest you not commit the fallacy of eliminating the scriptures a source or historical document themselves. They must be considered as a reliable source "atleast" from a hitorically corrrect perspecive. They have demonstrated over and over thier acuuracy and inability to be demonstrated unreliable. Historical and arecheological finds tend only support its claims. Dismissing them unreliable as a historical or corroborting is simply not being objecive. If for no other reasons than this, Abraham and Moses come alive as actual persons that existed, weather you believe the miraculous or not. In contrast when documents dont demonstrate this capability or even are demonstrated to the contrary they should be approached with extreme caution, weather or not they contain what you call fanciful accounts. The Gnostic Gospels do not support from an objective or realistic standpoint a believable account of these events. One produces suppotable belief, the other continual doubt (and comedy Imight add) and speculation. What is this overwhelming amount of evidence that has been collected over 2000 years to indicate those events in the NT never occured?Consider the following again: Historical accuracy was certainly no incidental item to Luke in the writing of his Gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4, NIV). The text affirms that Luke was after nothing less than historical certainty, presented in orderly fashion and based on firsthand testimony. Douglas Groothuis. If Christianity centers on Jesus, the Christ, the promised Messiah who inaugurates the kingdom of God with power, the objective facticity of this Jesus is preeminent. Likewise, if purportedly historical documents, like the gospels of Nag Hammadi, challenge the biblical understanding of Jesus, they too must be brought before historical scrutiny. Part Two of this series will therefore inspect the historical standing of the Gnostic writings in terms of their historical integrity, authenticity, and veracity. Jaywill wrote or quoted in post 208 of Eden 1. Any definition of history stated so as to methodically exclude the possibility of a historical divine miracle is question begging. It is jury rigging the definition of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events will be considered no matter how powerfully evidenced a non-repeatable and unusual supernatural event is reported. AM writesOne does not have to “believe in The Supreme Natural Deity”! It/He does not care what you call Him/It. There is absolutely nothing anthropomorphic {a.k.a. human-like} about the Deity to which I refer. I do not have the burden of having to prove whether What I call The Supreme Natural Deity/God {a.k.a. The Sublime Mystery of Life} exists or does not exist. Regardless of what it is referred to, called, or named, It/He is what we are experiencing and yet cannot fully comprehend.
Jaywill has responded to the majority of this so I will wait for your reply to him Being a Fundamentalist Christian I am fully alive to the fact that the “God” to which you refer is fully and completely anthropomorphic. The human being of two thousand years ago whom you refer to as Jesus Christ {a.k.a. Jesus of Nazareth} fully, completely, and thoroughly anthropomorphized the Hebrew Deity yhwh. Some two thousand years ago the Hebrew Deity yhwh became fully Hellenized and became the focus of the Hellenistic theocratic politics of the ancient Near East and eventually established the Holy Roman Empire. This Hellenization of the Hebrew Deity yhwh is extremely well documented in history and transcends mere speculation or theory. The anthropomorphic God to whom you refer as “Jesus Christ” is in fact the product of Greco Roman - Hellenistic - Mythology and has very little to do with Judeo Hebrew conceptions of God.Then for heavens and my sake please tell me what you think he "might" be, if that is not to anthropomorphic. Besides all of this how do you know he does not posess these qualities, where did you et your information from to make such a decision.? AM writes;What I call The Supreme Natural Deity/God {a.k.a. The Sublime Mystery of Life} exists or does not exist. Regardless of what it is referred to, called, or named, It/He is what we are experiencing and yet cannot fully comprehend. And you dont see this extrapolation of the natural to the unknown as leap of faith, if you believe in god as more than simple material existence?. I believe you just gave a definiton of faith, my friend. If you believed in nothing but the natural and only the natural, you evaluation would make logical sense, as it stands it does not.. AM writes: Once “the spirit world and things of that nature” becomes anthropomorphized the human perspective corrupts the information you are receiving, regardless of the source you are employing. The New Testament completely anthropomorphizes the Judeo Hebrew Deity yhwh and “the spirit world” and therefore corrupts one’s conception of both. This statement is circular in nature. It like saying I dont like something, simply because I dont like it. The NT would have to be demonstrated to be inaccurate and unreliable, to dismiss anything it has to offer. Secondly, since you do not know anything about the spirit world, it would follow that you comments are nothing short of assertion. Thirdly, if deity does not posses some of the characteristics of the human intelligence, or something resembling it, what in the world would this entitiy be composed of? How would it have created anyhting, if its makeup is not atleast a little that of its creation, in this instance intelliegence. You absolute denial of some anthromopophic charcteristics in deity, seems to absolute and unreasonable.
There is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence directly connected to any “so-called supernatural” event anywhere are planet earth. None. The “so-called supernatural” event must and can only be taken on “faith”; the historical and/or archaeological evidence happens to be empirical: such empirical evidence can be “experience” and/or can be “reproduced by experiment.” There is nothing empirical about “the supernatural.” The factual and reliable scriptures are connected with the supernatural. Your objection and refusal to exercise faith in this aspect is your choice, it is not a negation of its valdity. If there is nothing emperical about the supernatural then it makes no sense for you to extrapolate from the natural to any sort of deity, no mattter what you call It/He. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Hey AM, innocuous Bertot here, ha ha.
AM writes:What I perceive as our principle difficulty in conversing with one another is our differing understandings of the dictionary definitions of certain English words. Until this semantic disparity can be resolved we are never going to be able to reach any kind of consensus.
It can be resolved by understanding that history is history no matter if you describe its sources as a "historical dcoument or not. Many of the items are forceably corroborated by verifiable and demonstratalble means. Further, there veracity is usually without question. Once again let me say this lends viable support, not abso;ute proof to assist one in making an informed decision.
I am not fully certain why Jaywill feels that the above definition of historical “beggs any questions” or is “jury rigging the definition of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events”? If we cannot rely upon established dictionary definitions of words in the English language to make our case then we have no foundation at all upon which to establish coherent conversation. What the above definition of historical states in a clear and concise manner is that the New and Old Testaments of the English Holy Bible are NOT regarded as historical documents because they are regarded as documents of “religious belief.” The Old and New Testaments, whether composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or English, are regarded as documents espousing “religious belief”. If you would simply post the full definition of the word history or historical you would see that what I am advocating falls well with in its parameters and that Jaywills earlier statements mask perfect sense. We can rely on established words in the dictionary if we are honest about thier complete definitions and understand that they can only be applied to a certain degree. They are not meant to be exhaustive in nature, but provide a starting point for application. Example,go look up the word "spirit" as you described God and see if it will explain in detail all that God really is or is not. Look at definition "one" of history Am you always seem to be a master of words, but of very little common sense, when reasoning out a simple point. . All I need to do to dispose of all this rehtoric about History and such is actually post the "complete" definitions of the word offered by the dictionary concering history, here it is my simple friend:History 1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research. 2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg. 3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus. 4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past. 5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics. 6. historic (def. 1). Now look at the definition of "facts":
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. The New Testament and the Old Testament documents are in fact “imbued with religion.” They contain numerous “religious documents” that espouse sets of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and...contain moral codes that govern the conduct of human affairs. Therefore, the New and the Old Testaments are NOT regarded as historical documents because they pertain to religious belief, as cited in the above dictionary definition of the English term historical. You are over stating and ad-libbing what the actual definitions will allow. Nowhere does it say the scriptures are not historical documents, this is you conclusion from the definitions. It is unwarrented. You are taking two definitions and making them say something they do not.
It appears as though you no longer recognize the difference between what is real-a.k.a. empirical and what is not real-legendary, mythical, and fanciful. This confusion on your part makes it extremely difficult for me to employ English terms that distinguish between the two in my attempt to communicate my thoughts to you.
Lets see, ok?
If a document, any document, describes an empirical event, i.e. an event that can in fact be experienced in the real world, or an event that can be reproduced through an experiment in the real world, then that empirical event is associated with “absolute proof.” For example: If someone long ago wrote that they walked from the land of Canaan to the land of Egypt that statement can in fact be reproduced today by walking from Israel or the Palestinian Territories to Egypt. There is no reason to suspect guile, deception, or fantasy in that particular statement. And, if there are corroborating sources from ancient Canaan, ancient Egypt, and/or the territories through which the long ago author had to have traveled confirming that the journey had indeed taken place, then there is no reason to suspect that such a journey had not transpired. That is called “absolute proof” of an empirical historical event. The event is both empirical in that it can be reproduced in the real world, and the event is historical in that it is corroborated by other ancient sources and does not invoke “religious belief.” The New and Old Testaments produce and offer the best possible evidence to suggest tha there is no reason to suspect, guile deception or fantasy. This is why they are connected with the best possible information and verifiable documentation and historically corroborated data. Why would say, Luke take the time to be so technically correct abouut minute details and circumstances and ultimatley die for fanciful reasons, that makes no logical sense.There you go again, with that absolute proof thing. Do you need me to reproduce statements from yourself where you have indicated that it does not exist. The man on his journey in your story could be either real or fictional, complete in details or incomplete. there is simply no way to know absolutley weather he took that journey or not, it requires faith on your part to believe it and the specific deatails. You are dismissing the supernatural because you have never seen it first hand. This is no indication it is not real, in any shape form or fashion. This is the reason Jaywill made his comments about begging the question. Belief and blind belief, faith and blind faith are all focused on what is referred to as “religious belief.” One does not have to “believe” that the Roman Catholic Church began in the four century CE. One does not have to “believe” that Rome conquered Europe and that the Roman Catholic Church became the religious power in Europe until the Reformation in the 1500’s CE that gave birth to Protestantism - essentially the religious doctrine followed by Fundamentalist Christians. These empirical and historical events are not only documented in numerous sources, but the effects of these historical events are still unfolding in the real and experiential world to this very day. To suggest that empirical and historical events such as these fall under your assertion that. This my friend is an absurd statement. Belief, faith and blind faith have to do with life and not necessarily religious anything. Belief about anything is either supported or unsupported, corroborated or otherwise. One "does' have to believe the above information you cite, because it is either real or not, supported or not. Theexact details of those situation are what you must exercise some blind faith in. Again, I never said that the miracles could be demonstrated with absolute proof , only that they are supported by the best possible information. Your belief about exact details in history is not actual proof AM. I did not see or hear the order by Nero to burn portions of Rome, I believe it because it is supported by good evidence.
is an absolutely absurd statement. And to suggest that “bodily resurrection”, “walking on the waters of the sea of Galilee”, or any other supernatural stunt is some how believable because a religious document connects these supernatural events to historically or archaeologically corroborated empirical events is also quite absurd. It appears as though you have completely lost your ability to determine and acknowledge what is “real and true” and what is NOT. Not at all. Ill let the reader decide if this is indeed the case. It appears you have lost the ability to be objective about you application and over application of words and thier meanings. the words history and religious do not make the conclusions you wish. The items you describe above are believable, first because God exists every indication is that he intervens in the affairs of men, weather natural or supernatural. secondly, those events are connected with facts that have stood the test of time and scrutiny. Thirdly, not having seen the miraculous is not sufficient to reject it absolutley. In otherwords for these reasons it not absurd at all.
To honestly believe that the virgin Mary actually and literally gave birth to yhwh God in the flesh and named that child Jesus one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat.
Ye there is , the scriptures!!! They corroborate not prove its viabilityYou are digging a hole logically that you cannot extricate youself from AM. If you believe in God AM, yet cannot see him or him acually doing anything, yet you believe he sustains by intervention life and things you involve yourself in the worst form of contradiction. To maintain one and reject at all cost event even the possibility of the other is "absurd". Your love of the natural and view of it as emperical evidence of the supernatural (or what ever you call your god today) dosent help you absolutley prove anything. Let me begin by asking you a question: Is this “thinking, real, actual, reasoning, living personality that is conscious of His existence” God a human being? Or is your conception of God that He is “omnipresent, i.e. present in all places at all times?” It is an oxymoron to suggest that your conception of your supernatural God is that He is “real and actual” but He is not “omnipresent”, and therefore not to be found in any aspect of “nature.” Either your God is omnipresent or He is not. I believe He is, isn’t He?
I agree, so whats your point. God is and can be all of these things and create man in is own image. Do you not believe that God created man with the ability to be creative. Isnt that your big deal about the Eden narrative? How could God create at all or create creativity in man and not himself be creative or intelligent. I think you are being obviously evasive, in not wanting to mention or acknowledge God hsa the characteistics as well. But og ahead Ill play along.
As for my conception of God: God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Omnipotent means, “having unlimited authority or influence.” Omnipresent means, “present in all places at all times.” Omniscient means, “having infinite awareness, understanding and insight.” The English term mystery is also defined as “something not understood or beyond understanding”. There is so much that I can absolutely prove exists in this mortal experience we share, but that is either “not understood” or that remains “beyond understanding.” Just because aspects of reality are “not understood” or “beyond understanding” does not mean that they are not real, true, empirical aspects of our reality and as such one can have actual proof that they exist. I really think you need to rethink the above assertion.
Its may only be a mystery to you. You do not know that somewhere there is information to answer that question, or that someone may have that information, it is therefore not proof that it is completely a mystery. Since God exists and he is all knowing as you suggest, it follows that there are not myteries ultimatley and therefore no "proof" of a mystery. For this reason it is a nonsensical statement. In this instance, the proof (as you call it) is the data contained in the scriptures you have completly ignored.
God cannot be omnipresent and at the same time be “a real, actual personality apart from the universe, cosmos and the natural things.” God’s real, actual personality must be part of the universe, cosmos, and natural things if God is perceived as being omnipresent. That is what the English term omnipresent means.
I actually had to read this several times to see if what you were saying is what you were actually saying. How could God "create" the universe, cosmos or whatever and not be sperate from and not actually a part of it. Now I agree that wahtever is in existence is probably God material (from God)but how does this make God equivalent to the actual material itself. The universe is quite obviously not Spirit material but only a manifestation from the spirit world. To assert that Gods personality "has " to be a part of the universe and that this is what constitues omnipresent is the height of assertion. Where in the world did you get the information to explain this mystery?If your conception or perception of this Supreme God/Being is that He/It is not omnipresent then I must say that the God you worship is not as Almighty, or All-knowing as you suggest. Something is blatantly missing! How do you know emperically the following items.That God is omnisciencent That God is omnipresent Thst God cannot be omnipresent and not be an actual real personality apart form the universe. Now I understand that you can deduce the logical possibility of the existence of God from the natural but how do you come up with these other amazing extrapolations and constitute them as emperical evidence . How do you know what Gods exact existence will or will not allow him or not allow him? Where did you learn these facts from, apart form the dictionary written by men. And you say you do not rely on faith, this constitues the epitomie of faith to believe and maintain these positions. AM writes:That which we today call “living beings” are more than the mere sum of their scientifically acknowledged parts; a scientist today can take a peach seed and break it down to its most basic aspects”from its shell to its cells, its proteins, its DNA, its atoms, electrons, neutrons, and nucleolus”but when the scientist puts all of that back and makes again the same peach seed, that particular seed is incapable of growing for it is dead. Although the scientist did not even glimpse what escaped during the exhaustive examination process, or the process of reconstituting the peach seed, what would allow a peach seed to grow into a peach tree escaped without leaving a trace of Its/His existence. When I employ the term Deity or God I am referring to that which enables a peach seed to become a peach tree; that is The Sublime Mystery of Life, {a.k.a. The Supreme Natural Deity/God). The above statement is very insightful, there are those that would not even recognize that such an event possibly took place or ignore the obvious fact, that you have very wonderfully pointed out, that when reconstructed something is lost forever, atleas to us. I applaude and laud you for such insight. If you believe however, in this context that such was lost and something left that cannot be gotten back it would be your responsibilty to demonstrate several things in this context. A. how do you begin to demonstrate that this was not simply a natural process, material in character,yet unexplainable. B. What was the makeup of that "thing" that left, that caused life. C. How would you equate or emperically demonstrate this "quality" with any Supreme Natural Deity or personality? D. How would you deonstrate that this quality that left is the same thing that is consistent with the same so-called deity?. These types of extrapolated assumptions on your part require the greatest leaps of Faith imaginable. While I certainly share your view in this connection and that which you so wonderfully described above, I think you will have the greatest problems trying to demonstrate any of these conclusions from an "emperical" standpoint. Do you see what I trying to convey. And yes, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate these claims if, you uphold these extrapolations and you require the stricktest emperical evidence for everyone else. You may say to yourself, Bertot, what is the point of all your above rehtoric? I would oblige you by saying that in both instances, yours and mine, we cannot demonstrate the events of miracles or invisible life force, emprically, however, there is connected with each situation the best possible evidence to support the very real possibilty that these things actually occured and even continue to occur. One is general revelation (the natural) in your case and the other is specific revelation (the written/documented word)to the corroboration of Gods existence and divine communicated word. Continuation of post 265
Here are a few examples of verses in the NT that require “blind faith”:
These are not examples of blind faith. They are example of faith, they would only be blind if they were connected to a document that was unrealistic, innacurate and completley unreliable, there is the difference.
Matthew 1:23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son... (KJV) Matthew 2:16 Then Herod...sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof... (KJV) Matthew 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 14:29 ...And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water... (KJV) See also Mark 6:48/9 & John 6:19. John 11:43/4 And when he {Jesus} thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus come forth.” And he that was dead came forth... (KJV) Apparently you have been unable to hear 90% of what I have been sharing with you since we met. Let me try again to establish with you my conception of the non-anthropomorphic Deity {a.k.a. God} to which I refer. Here we go:
That which we today call “living beings” are more than the mere sum of their scientifically acknowledged parts; a scientist today can take a peach seed and break it down to its most basic aspects-from its shell to its cells, its proteins, its DNA, its atoms, electrons, neutrons, and nucleolus-but when the scientist puts all of that back and makes again the same peach seed, that particular seed is incapable of growing for it is dead. Although the scientist did not even glimpse what escaped during the exhaustive examination process, or the process of reconstituting the peach seed, what would allow a peach seed to grow into a peach tree escaped without leaving a trace of Its/His existence. When I employ the term Deity or God I am referring to that which enables a peach seed to become a peach tree; that is The Sublime Mystery of Life, {a.k.a. The Supreme Natural Deity/God). You and I are also much, much more that merely the sum of our parts. We are also more than the mere sum of our mortal experiences. Although we are objective, real human beings and our mortal experiences - whether real or imagined - have actually taken place according to our senses, what enables us to claim or proclaim mortal existence is The Sublime Mystery of Life. By perceiving The Supreme Natural Deity in every aspect of life that actually and truly exists on this planet that exists within the cosmos, Life become respected and revered at all levels. Loving one’s enemy and respecting one’s food supply, and one’s natural habitat becomes not only much easier, but imperative. That is the natural reality I live within and share with you and all other beings on this little planet in the cosmos. There is nothing “supernatural” or “divine intervention” about it. Either the Divine & Sublime Mystery of Life is present or we simply do not exist. The Sublime Mystery of Life. By perceiving The Supreme Natural Deity in every aspect of life that actually and truly exists on this planet that exists within the cosmos.
If you are not willing to admit that the above quote has anything to do with the supernatural and yet define God as real, omnipresent and divine it is obvious you are unwilling to be objective in any sense of the word. A rose by anyother name is still a rose, AM. If God actually exists and is real and is not simple material, yet he is unseen to you and unattainable from a human standpoint, that my friend is supernatural. I dont know anyone besides yourself that would define it otherwise.
I certainly hope that the “camp” I have always been in has become a little clearer to you Supernatural: Since you like the dictionary so much>
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity It snot that I dont understand you, its that you have involved yourself in the worst possible contradictions in some instances, that you cannot extricate yourself from. AM writesBut I am quite certain that you guys feel quite comfortable with the supernatural “man” Jesus Christ as being “God in the flesh”, and there is nothing I can say or point out that will ever change your mind. But, you are left with the difficulty of making your Trinity (3) and/or Tetragrammaton (4) Judeo Hebrew God fit the “omnipresent” description and the human form at the same time. An omnipresent God is in all of us, not just Jesus. And God cannot only be in one man if God is in everything. You figure it out. I have not doubt that you already have. This seems an odd argument to me, this contention that God is not, has not and will not mainifest himself in anthropomorhic form. I simply dont see why this is a issue. If God exists and he is omnipresent and includes all that is in existence, then one could clearly ask what would be thepoint of creating or manifesting anything in a "finite" type of existence? What would be the point of creating anything in this seemingly limited fashion, why not just leave it the way it was, piritual, infinite and omnipotent. But since he clearly did create things in our present finite situation, what would be the problem with him also manifesting himself in a finite visual fashion to communicate with those creatures? I dont see what the big problem is and how do you know what God would or would not do in these instances, didnt you say that was out of your pay grade? Also, Since you did not present any counter material to t he Gnostic question and did not reference any of the "vast" material I presented in that area, I will assume you have given up trying to defend E. Pagels and her caravan of Gnostic nonsense, ha ha. Thanks D Bertot. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But you, bertot, and you, jaywill, have taught me the most; particularly you, bertot, for you have stayed with the discussion far longer than I ever could have hoped. For your insights, wit, and wisdom I thank you, bertot. For your incredible knowledge of Christian Scripture, I thank you, jaywill. AM thanks for the kind words and heart felt final message. I also, have learned much from you as well. I hope things work out on the ranch. You have demonstrated in this debate a type of patience that would not be characteristic of others. You are I am sure as fine a person that anyone would want to meet in life. It concerns me not a little that you believe the tone of the debate had turned antagonistic. I assure you that is not the case. If it were not for the prohibitions in the scriptures, that require me to "not sit down and eat with such a person", I am sure you would be a very fine person to involve myself with. You should never believe that the words I speak in the the debate are any reflection on you character as such, they are not. While I do not agree with your doctrines, I have only the greatest respect and admiration for you. AM wrote;These are some of the “events in the NT” that we are discussion there being an “overwhelming amount of evidence collected over 2000 years to indicate ... {they} never occurred”: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM wrote: Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Hebrew God yhwh, and that this divinely propagated individual walked on water, changed water to wine, raised the dead, and was bodily resurrected after being put to death on a cross; all of these and any other “supernatural” events described in the New Testament must in fact be accepted on blind faith and blind faith alone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A virgin in this context is a human female who has never had her vagina penetrated so that a male sperm can fertilize one of her eggs. According to the basic biology of the female human body a virgin giving birth to a child is an absolute impossibility. Because it is an absolute impossibility for a virgin to give birth to a child that is why no virgin in human reality has ever given birth. Only in the ancient literature of myth, legend, and religion has a human female virgin ever been said to have given birth to a child. To honestly believe that the virgin Mary actually and literally gave birth to yhwh God in the flesh and named that child Jesus one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. Due to the molecular structure of water and the absolute force of gravity, water will not sustain a human body that attempts to walk upright upon it. The feet of a human being do not displace enough water for human feet to be sustained by it. To actually and literally believe that a human being walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. The only way in the real world to “change water into wine” is to irrigate a vineyard, harvest the grapes and then distill the grape juice into wine. To actually and literally believe that a human being can somehow miraculously turn a pitcher of water into wine one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. To actually and literally believe the account of Jesus {yhwh God in the flesh} bringing the four day old rotting and smelly corpse of Lazarus back to mortal life as it is described in the New Testament one must employ “blind faith” for there is nothing in the real world that can confirm or corroborate such a feat. I do certainly hope that no more of explanation is needed. The same goes for the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself. Since I do not consider this a summation, as you have indicated the possibility of returning to the subject at hand,there is one point I wished to address that I left relativley untouched, that I consider of extreme importance. Its is you contention that observable nature or natural things are inconsistent with the miraculous. While this is usually the case and the miraculous is that which implies an act of God intervining in the natural order of things to accomplish his tasks or purposes, it does not seem unreasonable that a Deity with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence would have any trouble accomplishing such small feats. In other words you are correct that nature or man may not be able to accomplish any of the feats, but why would this task be any problem for a deity that brought those same substances into existence in the first place. Your argument here seems to be incongruent with your views of a supreme natural deity and the characteristics you assign to him, that of omnipotence and omniscience. Is it also not concievable, that in the distant future, humankind could not learn how to accompish most if not all of the above feats in a slighty different manner that is not with in the natural order of things presently. Is it not concievable that at some point a pill could be devised when introduced into water that changes it into wine. While this is far fetched at this point, it is not inconcievable that at some point the distant future it will be second hand knowledge and capability. How much more could a ominpotent Deity accomplish. The very existence of the God you believe in is and should be emperical evidence of the very real probablity of the miraculous. whats the big deal for God. Man is beginning to accomplish feats that defy the natural order of things already, that is not to say his action are unatural, he simply circumvents natural order to accomplish a task. A rocket pushing its way twords space defies the law of Gravity, etc. Your over equivocation of the the word "miraculous" to the supernatural, is I believe, where your main problem exists, in your thinking. When we speak of the supernatural, it usually has to do with the exclusive nature of that which is not natural or visible. The miraculous, while parly supernatural, because God is involved should not be viewed as completley supernatural. A miraculous event is both supernatural and natural at the same time. It is simply God intervining in the natural order of the things he established, altering that order, by his omnipotence, temporarily to accomplish a task. If we did not witness this event, it then beomes the supporting and surrounding evidence of that event, to suggest wether or not that event could or could not have occured. So far from be "blind faith", the supporting evidence, of his existence and onipotence coupled with his specific revelation, corroborate a supportable belief in that which you call the miraculous. D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
