Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 247 of 321 (477862)
08-08-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 11:50 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
deerbreh:
What empirical evidence do you have that Moses is the author of the Eden narrative?
Good question for bertot. As far as I know there is no empirical evidence that points to Moses as the author of the Eden narrative. We'll just have to see what bertot or someone else has to say on this subject.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 11:50 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 255 of 321 (477901)
08-08-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Reply to post 248
bertot wrote: Hows that for a response AM?
That was a fine ”bertot’ response, my friend.
bertot previously responded: Further, as this discussion goes it is irrelevant who the author was, as I have asked AM if the Eden narrative has ever been discovered apart from the book of Genesis or if it has always been a part of that book. He has avoided this quesion like a plauge.
I believe that I did respond to your above question and gave you Sumerian as well as Proto-Canaanite narratives as being similar to the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I do not recall exactly where (which Thread or which post} you asked and I responded to that question, but I do recall us discussing the subject. So, now, ”deerbreh’ states much the same thing in post #251:
quote:
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.
Northstate Science: Review of From Eden to Exile, Chapter 1: The Garden of Eden
quote:
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.
Eden narratives in Qumran | Cegula
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
I am not certain what more you are looking for?
I’ve got to get some sleep. I’ll check in tomorrow morning.
My post #246 is a continuation of my response to your post #244. I look forward to your reply.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 257 of 321 (477947)
08-09-2008 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2008 1:01 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Response post 244 continued:
bertot wrote:
Did you happen to read vs 46 of the Gospel of Thomas, "From Adam to John the Baptist", I think he bleieved Adam was real
Hmmmm, lets see, no historical or factual information to corroborate in its contents and its dated between 200 and 250 AD. I cant imagine why it was rejected can you? Ok, lets move it from the National Enquirer to the Globe.
The NT and its individual books usually carry with them a certain amount of historical, archeological and verifiable information that the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi (or as we say in Alabama, the "Nag hamidy") cannot boast. This is one of the "main" reasons they are considered as reliable.
Even the dates of many of the suprious books give them away as nothing more that feeble attempts at copy cat reproductions. The earliest documents and that which can be traced throught the earliest followers writings is usually the most reliable, even if you do not believe in the Holy Spirits watchful eye.
I did a little of my own research regarding the dates of the oldest Canonical Gospels and compared what I found with the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. This is what I found.
Oldest Manuscript of the Canonical Gospels & The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas
quote:
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.
We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.
ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450
Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A
As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts.
Literary background of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (GTh):
quote:
“One qualified expert has recently estimated the GTh was probably composed in the first century A.D.; many other scholars assign it roughly to the middle of the second. At any rate, its literary genre and some of the individual sayings are extremely ancient.”
The Gnostic Scriptures, by Bentley Layton, The Gospel According To Thomas, Literary background, pg. 377, © 1987, ISBN 0-385-17447-0
quote:
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional sayings, prophecies, proverbs, and parables of Jesus. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek; in fact, several fragments of this Greek version have been preserved, and can be dated to about 200 C.E. Thus the Greek (or even or Aramaic) collection was composed in the period before about 200 C.E., possibly as early as the second half of the first century, in Syria, Palestine, or Mesopotamia. The authorship of the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, that is, Judas "the Twin," who was an apostle of Jesus.
The Gospel of Thomas - The Fifth (5th) Gospel - Didymos Judas Thomas Twin of Jesus.
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.
You state above:
The NT and its individual books usually carry with them a certain amount of historical, archeological and verifiable information that the Gnostic Gospels cannot boast.
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.
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 will post this reply and await your response. Let's start a discussion regarding what we have posted on only some of these issues and let's try to keep our posts as concise as possible. If they get too long its like having a one sided conversation. I feel we are in need of talking points as opposed to lecture-like disertations. What do you say?
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2008 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-10-2008 1:19 AM autumnman has replied
 Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-11-2008 11:16 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 261 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-11-2008 11:38 AM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 259 of 321 (477984)
08-10-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dawn Bertot
08-10-2008 1:19 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
bertot wrote:
post # 258: 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.
No problem, my friend. Take your time. Take a break. I’ll keep my eye on the Emails and the forum - since I have not been receiving Reply Notification of late. I will look forward to your response whenever you can get around to it.
p.s. Please try to keep your replies as concise as you can so we can establish some talking points and not just end up trying to reply to each other’s lectures, eh?
Reply to post 244 continued:
bertot cited GTh v. 46 {41:6 thru 10} Did you happen to read vs 46 of the Gospel of Thomas, "From Adam to John the Baptist", I think he bleieved Adam was real
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.
In the “Introduction,” pg. iv, of the Brenton, Septuagint it states:
quote:
The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. ...They used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. ...As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew...
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-10-2008 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2008 9:10 AM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 263 of 321 (478205)
08-12-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
08-12-2008 9:10 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
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.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2008 9:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-13-2008 2:16 AM autumnman has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 265 of 321 (478293)
08-13-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dawn Bertot
08-11-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
bertot wrote:
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
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).
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.
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.
Now add to this the very very very real probablity of devine intervention into the process by a God you believe in. 2Peter 2:3
Here 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.
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.
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.
bertot wrote: 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.
I did indeed find the first article quite interesting. The whole homosexual theme was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense, and I was amazed at the length to which the author of the article went to dispose of the homosexual Jesus assertion. But I guess that is what the article’s author does.
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.
bertot wrote: 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?
Numerous 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.
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?
One 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.
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.
Now I know this is not an answer to your quetion, I simply wanted to point that out again. You commiting the same "mistake" that you accuse me of, correct.
As I have conveyed above, you are completely incorrect! Your God is completely anthropomorphic, taking the human form of “Jesus Christ.” The God/Deity to which I refer cannot be pressed into human form, for It/He is alluding to the life/Life we are experiencing at this very moment and yet cannot fully comprehend.
I am sure you can see the difference between our two very different conceptions of Deity.
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.
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.
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".
Of course there are other historical and archaeological sources that can be used to help one make a decision regarding a non-anthropomorphic Deity and non-anthropomorphic “spirit world.” The Dead Sea Scrolls would be a great place to start; East Indian documents are another; Chinese wisdom which dates back five thousand years of one civilization are another; Native American wisdom is another. 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.”
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.
I am not skeptical of the historical and archaeological evidence that supports certain portions of the New or Old Testaments. I truly find such empirical evidence fascinating and amazing, and quite often enlightening. I am and remain quite skeptical of the “supernatural”, anthropomorphic-spiritual, and mythical claims conveyed in both the New and Old Testaments. There is absolutely no empirical, historical, or archaeological evidence to support any “supernatural”, anthropomorphic-spiritual, and mythical claims made in any ancient, old, or modern literature. None!
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.
Here are a few examples of verses in the NT that require “blind faith”:
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)
Regarding the literal, bodily Resurrection of Jesus himself, Professor Elaine Pagels states:
quote:
“Why did orthodox tradition adopt the literal view of resurrection? The question becomes even more puzzling when we look at what the New Testament says about it. Some accounts, like the story we noted from Luke {...the desciples themselves, in their astonishment and terror at the appearance of Jesus among them, immediately assumed that they were seeing his ghost. But Jesus challenges them: ”Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have’ (T. G. G. pg. 4 & quote Luke 24:36 thru 43} tell how Jesus appears to his disciples in the form they know from his earthly life; he eats with them, and invites them to touch him, to prove he is ”not a ghost.’ John tells a similar story: Thomas declares that he will not believe that Jesus had actually risen from the grave unless he personally can see and touch him. When Jesus appears, he tells Thomas, ”Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing’ {John 20:27}. But other stories, directly juxtaposed with these, suggest different views of the resurrection. Luke and Mark both relate that Jesus appeared ”in another form’ {Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13 thru 32}”not his former earthly form”to two disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus. Luke says that the disciples, deeply troubled about Jesus’ death, talked with the stranger, apparently for several hours. They invited him to dinner; when he sat down with them to bless the bread, suddenly they recognized him as Jesus. At that moment ”he vanished out of their sight’ {Luke 24:31}. John, too, places directly before the story of ”doubting Thomas’ another of a very different kind: Mary Magdalene, mourning for Jesus near his grave, sees a man she takes to be the gardener. When he speaks her name, suddenly she recognizes the presence of Jesus”but he orders her not to touch him {John 20:11 thru 17}.
Paul himself, of course, later defended the teaching on resurrection as fundamental to Christian faith. But although his discussion often is read as an argument for bodily resurrection, it concludes with the words, ”I tell you this, brethern: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable {that is, the mortal body} inherit the imperishable’ {1st Corinthians 15:50}. Paul describes the {bodily} resurrection as ”a mystery’ {{1st Corinthians 15:51 thru 53}, the transformation from physical to spiritual existence” (T. G. G. pgs. 5 & 6).
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.
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.
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.
I certainly hope that the “camp” I have always been in has become a little clearer to you.
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.
All that and no “happy smoke”; what do you think?
All the best, my friend,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-11-2008 11:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2008 1:48 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 267 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2008 9:56 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 268 by jaywill, posted 08-15-2008 8:47 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-15-2008 9:57 AM autumnman has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 271 of 321 (478488)
08-16-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dawn Bertot
08-15-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Reply to post 270 & 268
bertot & Jaywill:
I will attempt a coherent response to the two posts cited above. I will begin with post #270 and conclude with post 268.
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.
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.
The following definition of historical was obtained from
Historical Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
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.
This is exactly the same definition that I have previously cited a number of times from Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, © 2003.
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”.
quote:
AM wrote: 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.
Let’s first try to clear up any confusion that may be connected with the dictionary terms applied above regarding “religious belief”.
Religious Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
religious
quote:
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
Religion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
religion
quote:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
To be “imbued with religion” means, “to inspire with beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
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.
The above dissertation is also directed to bertot’s comments.
quote:
AM wrote: 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.
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.
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.”
Now, take what has been conveyed from the beginning of this post and apply it to your next statement:
This is where the difference between belief, faith and blind faith come into play. A few illustrations will suffice.
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
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
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.
quote:
AM wrote: 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.
bertot asks: What is this overwhelming amount of evidence that has been collected over 2000 years to indicate those events in the NT never occured?
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.
On to the next series regarding God:
bertot asks: 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?
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?
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.”
bertot proclaims: AM, "proof of a mystery" is a nonsensical statement.
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.
bertot asks: 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?
Check out the above definition of “omnipresent”! If indeed the Fundamentalist Christian God is “omnipresent”, and I state that my conception of Deity is also that He/It is “omnipresent”, then “where is God in this mix”? Ah! The non-anthropomorphic God is “present in all places at all times”. It would be a little difficult to be an anthropomorphic God and at the same time actually be really “present in all places at all times”!
bertot asked: "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?
This is what I “described above”:
quote:
AM wrote: 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 and “What Is” are one and the same. There is no other way to describe an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and therefore non-anthropomorphic Deity. Any attempt to “humanize” such a Deity is to diminish the Deity. To associate a human personality, human knowledge, thought, reasoning, and self-awareness with an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Supreme Being is to lose the essence of What and Who (for the lack of better terms) that Supreme Being actually Is.
I am again telling you precisely what my conception of Deity is:
Omnipotent means, “having unlimited authority or influence.”
Omnipresent means, “present in all places at all times.”
Omniscient means, “having infinite awareness, understanding and insight.”
If that is not enough for you, I am not certain what you are asking.
bertot states: 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?
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.
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!
To conclude this post I will respond to Jaywill’s post #268 which employs Old Testament symbolism to depict the presence of the Hebrew God yhwh.
Jaywill cites the following Old Testament verses: And Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and there were three men standing opposite him. And when he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them. And he bowed to the earth and said, My Lord, if I have found favor in You sight, please do not pass on from YOur servant. (Genesis 18:1-3)
And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before Jehovah. Genesis 18:22
And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. And when the man saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was dislocated as he wrestled with Him. (Gen. 32:24,25)
And Jacob said to Joseph, The All-sufficient God appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me. (see Gen. 28:19; 35:6).
And he [Moses] said Please show me your glory. And He [Jehovah God] said I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah before you; ... But He said, You cannot see My face, for no man shall see Me and live. Then Jehovah said, Here, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand upon the rock; And while My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I pass by. And I will take away My hand, and you will see My back; but My face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:18-23)
And above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, like the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was One in appearance like a man, above it..... This was the likeness of the appearance of the glory of God. (Ezek. 1:26,28)
This is all the Old Testament speaking. So AM's idea of the anthropomorphic appearance of God as purely Hellenistic is false.
The Judeo Hebrew symbolism in the above verses are NOT depicting the Jewish God yhwh as an anthropomorphic God. Fundamentalist Christians often have considerable difficulty with the concept of metaphor and symbolism. The Judeo Hebrew God yhwh cannot be contained within a human form. Nowhere in the Judeo Hebrew Old Testament is God depicted as being an actual human “body”.
Furthermore, Genesis 18:22 concludes by stating:
quote:
and Abraham still stood to the face of yhwh. Heb. ‘ — ‘
At this time all three human-like {) forms had turned their faces from Abraham; the Hebrew plural form of humans {) indicates that all three “men” turned, and went toward Sodom.
This clause in Gen. 18:22 certainly appears to be in contrast to Exodus 33:20 where yhwh supposedly tells Moses:
quote:
Thou Canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live.
The Hebrew term for “face” in Ex. 33:20 is = face. Yet Abraham stood to the face of yhwh in Gen. 18:22. These verses make it quite clear that neither Abraham nor Moses actually perceived the God yhwh in anthropomorphic form.
The Canaanite supreme god El is depicted in anthropomorphic form, as is the Canaanite God Baal. It is quite doubtful that Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Ezekiel were describing the God yhwh as being an anthropomorphic entity. When yhwh God states in the Ten Commandments, “Thou shall not make unto you...any likeness that is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the water” (paraphrase KJV), making yhwh God in the likeness of one, two, three or even four “men” was probably understood as not being an appropriate act. What do you think?
But 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.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-15-2008 9:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by jaywill, posted 08-16-2008 6:58 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 273 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-16-2008 11:22 AM autumnman has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 274 of 321 (478551)
08-17-2008 10:51 AM


A Farewell from autumnman
bertot & jaywill
I apologize for no responding to your posts yesterday. A highly charged weather system came through and I was unable to turn on my computer without fear of getting it fried. This weather event, however, gave me some time to reflect on our weeks of discussion, as well as the ever-increasing adversarial tone of our debate in this final thread. It was never my intent to become anyone’s adversary on this forum. All I wanted to do is share some of what I had found in my research and allow whoever was interested to share their points of view with me. I feel as though that initial intent has been accomplished, and I have learned a great deal from everyone who has posted a reply. 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.
We share very different interpretations of the natural world in which we live, the English Language we speak, and the Scriptures that we respect. I feel that as long as our United States of America remains a secular government and true to its Constitution we will all continue to enjoy the freedom to interpret our world, our language, and our Scriptures as we personally see fit.
Once the grass dries harvest will get into full swing, and I am going to be very busy for at least two full months. For this reason I am going to stop posting on the EvC Forum for a while. I do hope you understand.
bertot, you have my Email address. Feel free to drop me a line if you ever feel inclined to do so. Whether our interpretations of anything are in agreement or not, please know that I respect you as a person whom I have come to know as a friend.
All the best,
Ger

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2008 9:42 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 281 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2008 10:38 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024