|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: I know, but I don't find it that surprising. The apostles murdered a married couple? You don't find it surprising that the followers of Jesus murdered a married couple? I think most people, believers and non-believers alike, would think your analysis has gone off the deep end. Doesn't it make much, much more sense that the story was apocryphal and intended to serve as an object lesson about the importance of sharing the gifts of your life with the church?
We see in Acts 1 that the first apostles were still thinking that now that Jesus is back that he would lead a revolution to get rid of the Romans. As we can see all through the Gospels these guys were very slow to understand that a revolution was to be fought with entirely different weapons that what they envisioned. As I said earlier this still around the time that Saul was involved in the stoning of Stephen. If by "involved" you mean a participant, I think it would be more accurate to say Paul was merely an approving observer. But whatever misimpressions the apostles had of the nature of the battle for God's kingdom, murdering their fellow "soldiers" with no due process bears no resemblance to what happened to Stephen, and it is as far from Jesus's teachings as possible. His miracles restored health and life, not the opposite. The Apostles didn't need Paul's supposed letter to the Ephesians about the spiritual nature of the battle to know that murder was wrong. There might even be a commandment about it.
Percy writes: Agreed Well, true or not, whatever really happened, the story paints a horrible and murderous picture of the early church. I don't see how you can feel that way and still be a member of such a religion. I believe the story is made up. The true origins of the Christian church are buried in antiquity, including whether there was ever really a person named Jesus, let alone that he did all the things claimed. I do think there was a person named Paul. Whatever the truth about Jesus, whether he was completely made up or was based on a real person (the Teacher of Righteousness perhaps) or was an actual person, it died with Paul. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Sure I can. If you get a bill in the mail, does it matter what colour the envelope is? What matters is that you pay the bill.
You cant simply claim that any envelope can just as easily hold your letter. Phat writes:
Nope, still false, no matter how many times you repeat it. The message was already here. That particular messenger was just a reminder. (We are currently in a postal strike in Canada. If my bills don't come, I'm still responsible for paying them. I might have to use a different messenger, such as the Internet, but the amount owing is the same.)
The messenger is the message, for the messenger contains the message. Phat writes:
Putting the messenger ahead of the message is not accepting the message.
You claim that I want to belong to a club where I don't even accept the message. But this is not true. Phat writes:
I don't think I've ever said you were.
I'm not as stingy as you think... Phat writes:
I have said that being "selective" is often an excuse for being stingy. ...I'm just selective over how I give. Giving a dollar to a panhandler is more than just a down payment on a sandwich or a beer. It's treating him like a human being. They seem to like that.
Phat writes:
Then vote wisely. Never trust a politician who promises to cut taxes.
I don't trust that I will be taken care of. Phat writes:
The library is a ten-minute walk from my house. I have a dozen or so "library friends" that I know only at the library. The library encourages it to be a gathering place. (Imagine kids gathering to play computer games. It isn't as quiet as it used to be but we have to move with the times - resources aren't what they used to be.) Is the library within walking distance from your house? Where do the locals gather to socialize? Edited by ringo, : Spellin.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I did. There was a picture of somebody believing that talking snakes are factual.
You might want to look up the word "ironic." Faith writes:
You're being dishonest. If you saw a newspaper article about a talking snake you wouldn't believe it for a second. I do believe there was a snake that communicated to Eve. Simple factual reporting.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
First of all it's based on your refusal to accept what the account actually says, that lying to the Holy Spirit is the reason the couple died.quote: And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I guess when someone's as wrong as you, obfuscation is their only recourse.
Faith writes: Luke and Peter are separate individuals, both referred to in other books of the New Testament. I don't need to have Ananias tell a lie, it is quite enough that Luke reports it and Peter chides him for it. This isn't relevant. You claimed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit. The reality is that only Luke claims that Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. You have nothing from Peter about whether he ever said anything like that or not. You have only one person, Luke, asserting something, not two.
Your horrible impression of the early church is ridiculous. What positive impression can be garnered of a church that murders its congregants for minor infractions.
First of all it's based on your refusal to accept what the account actually says, that lying to the Holy Spirit is the reason the couple died. First, the story is made up. It's apocryphal, sending a message to early Christians of the importance of sharing the gifts of their life with the church community. No Ananias/Sapphira couple was ever struck dead by the Holy Spirit, and likely there was no such couple anyway. Second, nothing in Luke's account relates either Ananias or Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit. Ananias says nothing, while Sapphira lies to Peter.
Second their death is said to have had a salutary effect on the church in that it increased fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom. Gee, how Catholic of you. According to Wikipedia, "Roman Catholicism counts this fear as one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. In Proverbs 15:33, the fear of the Lord is described as the 'discipline' or 'instruction' of wisdom." So you're saying that the Holy Spirit not only took into account the supposed seriousness of Ananias and Saphhira's crime, but also that murdering them would have the "salutary effect" of increasing fear of God. Putting the two together (the crime and the need to increase fear of God) the Holy Spirit decided to murder them. My own wisdom is that people should avoid religious flimflam.
A and S lied to God in the context of claiming to be believers during the formation of the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no passage in the Bible where either Ananias or Sapphira lied to God. There's no passage where they ever said a single word to God.
Other people lie to God all the time. If you don't repent you'll eventually have to see that it's not a trivial sin. I hear the boogey man has first dibs on me. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Luke and Peter are separate individuals, both referred to in other books of the New Testament. I don't need to have Ananias tell a lie, it is quite enough that Luke reports it and Peter chides him for it. This isn't relevant. You claimed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit. The reality is that only Luke claims that Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. You have nothing from Peter about whether he ever said anything like that or not. You have only one person, Luke, asserting something, not two. Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity. Luke is a real person, the author of Acts, he is reporting on an incident involving the real people Ananias and Sapphira, who appear nowhere else in the New Testament, and Peter the apostle, who appears in lots of places. All are real people, the incident is real etc etc etc. So it's my opinion against yours, but really it's the opinion of the Church through the ages against yours. Again, Luke says they lied, Peter asks Ananias why he lied since he didn't have to since he had the right to dispense of his property however he wanted to, I don't need Luke to quote Ananias speaking the lie, then Luke says they fell down dead, nobody killed them, and a reasonable reading of scripture simply takes what it says at face value.
I hear the boogey man has first dibs on me. Gosh that's actually cute. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're being dishonest. If you saw a newspaper article about a talking snake you wouldn't believe it for a second. The Bible is not a newspaper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The part you quoted isn’t a biased opinion, it is a fact. You have the Book of Acts claiming that Peter accused Ananias of lying. You do not have any statement from Peter on the matter. I hardly believe that the whole history of Christianity has been lying about that, but even if it were true it would only condemn Christianity.
quote: Luke does not say that Ananias lied. Percy kept asking you about that remember ? And it wasn’t there, was it ?
quote: No he doesn’t. Try reading in context. The words attributed to Peter condemn Ananias for not giving all of the money to Peter. Since Ananias had control of the land and the money he had no excuse for holding any back.If you disagree quote the part where Peter says that it would have been alright to hold back part of the money.. Or admit that you can’t because there is no such statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The part you quoted isn’t a biased opinion, it is a fact. You have the Book of Acts claiming that Peter accused Ananias of lying. You do not have any statement from Peter on the matter. Don't be silly, I have Luke's account of what he said to Ananias, and that is all that is needed or nobody could ever believe anything written about what someone said ever. The idea that Ananias' having control of his property could have anything to do with giving an excuse to hold any of it back or not is too absurd to even consider. Get real. Peter's mentioning it is to point out that he had lied to no purpose at all except his own pride.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You have an account written by someone who wasn’t there, based on unknown sources, written at a time when historians routinely invented the words they attributed to their subjects. That may be all you need but rational people are aware of the limits of the evidence. No matter how much you pretend to have Peter’s statement you don’t.
quote: If Ananias had not had control of the land or the money he would not have had the right to unilaterally hand over all the money to Peter. He would have had to have the agreement of the other interested parties. Maybe you consider that absurd but very few other people would. Including the courts.
quote: Except that there is absolutely nothing to support that claim. Which makes more sense if Peter is emphasising that Ananias had no excuse for not handing over all the money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Apparently all you have to offer is fallacies and bald, unsupported declarations.
Faith writes: Luke and Peter are separate individuals, both referred to in other books of the New Testament. I don't need to have Ananias tell a lie, it is quite enough that Luke reports it and Peter chides him for it. This isn't relevant. You claimed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit. The reality is that only Luke claims that Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. You have nothing from Peter about whether he ever said anything like that or not. You have only one person, Luke, asserting something, not two. Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity. This is the "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" fallacy, plus I doubt "the whole history of Christianity" is of one mind on this point.
Luke is a real person, the author of Acts,... Obviously the author of the New Testament book known as the Gospel According to Luke was a real person, but whether that author was Luke the Evangelist or even just someone named Luke has scarce evidential support.
...he is reporting on an incident involving the real people Ananias and Sapphira,... That Ananias and Sapphira were real people is just a bald, unsupported declaration.
...who appear nowhere else in the New Testament,... Had they appeared elsewhere in the New Testament, perhaps in a Pauline letter, it would have provided at least a bit of support, but as you note, they appear in that one place in Acts and nowhere else. This argues against them being real people.
...and Peter the apostle, who appears in lots of places. Right, exactly my point. That Peter is mentioned in many places, especially that he is mentioned by Paul himself for whom there is good evidence he was a real person, is fair evidence that Peter was a real person. Ananias and Sapphira have barely any mention at all, and that their story is apocryphal and obviously intended to send a message casts a great deal of doubt on their being real people.
All are real people,... Concerning them all being real people, I'd place Peter somewhere between possibly and probably being real, and I'd place Ananias and Sapphira in the "not likely real" category.
...the incident is real etc etc etc. More bald, unsupported declaration.
So it's my opinion against yours, but really it's the opinion of the Church through the ages against yours. Actually it's the opinion of a realist against the opinion of a fabulist. If yours and the Church's opinion are on such solid ground, where is the evidence that convinced them of the truth of their opinion? That you call it opinion is telling, revealing you know there's no evidence.
Again, Luke says they lied,... I don't know why you're continuing to have this problem with something so simple. Luke does not say they lied. Luke writes that Peter said Ananias lied, and he quotes Sapphira lying. Nowhere does he write anything along the lines of, "Ananias and Sapphira lied." He's telling a story.
...Peter asks Ananias why he lied since he didn't have to... Yeah, pretty weird since Ananias didn't say a word.
...since he had the right to dispense of his property however he wanted to,... This is a weird thing for you to say. The whole point of the passage was that because the early Christians had agreed to share all they owned with one another, that they therefore did not have the right to dispose of their property (and the proceeds thereof) however they wanted.
I don't need Luke to quote Ananias speaking the lie,... You pretty much do. Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit when he uttered not a word. Later Peter accuses Sapphira of lying to the Holy Spirit when she only lied to Peter. The whole passage is pretty much of a mess.
...then Luke says they fell down dead, nobody killed them, and a reasonable reading of scripture simply takes what it says at face value. Actually, a reasonable reading of scripture would include understanding that religious people make up stories. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's what I'm telling you. You're the one who said it was simple factual reporting. The Bible is not a newspaper.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity. This is the "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" fallacy, plus I doubt "the whole history of Christianity" is of one mind on this point. Don't think you can claim this fallacy and people here don't get it right about fallacies most of the time anyway. You can't compare Frenchmen to believers taught in a theology sharing an opinion. Really stupid comparison. Yah, my bad: to me the whole history of Christianity means true Christianity which basically means the theological positions held by the followers of the Protestant Reformation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity.
This is the "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" fallacy, plus I doubt "the whole history of Christianity" is of one mind on this point. Don't think you can claim this fallacy and people here don't get it right about fallacies most of the time anyway. You can't compare Frenchmen to believers taught in a theology sharing an opinion. Really stupid comparison. The stupidity is all yours, madam. "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is just a familiar (to most people) catchphrase, a sarcastic way of referring to the fallacy that when many people believe something then it must be true. It isn't meant to be taken literally. (Looking it up just now, it traces back to a 1927 song that was also sarcastic. The lyrics are available online if you're interested.) The formal name of the fallacy is Argumentum ad populum. So it wouldn't matter if the whole of all mankind throughout history believed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, a simple reading of the Gospel According to Luke still says they're wrong. Plus there's still no meaningful evidence of authorship, or that Ananias and Sapphira were real people, or that they lied to the Holy Spirit, or that the passage is anything more than apocryphal and intended to strike fear and teach a lesson.
Yah, my bad: to me the whole history of Christianity means true Christianity which basically means the theological positions held by the followers of the Protestant Reformation. So where you've been saying that inerrancy traces back to Christianity's beginnings, you really only mean the 1500's. That's still wrong, but at least you're 1500 years closer to being correct. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, the Protestant Reformers traced their conclusions back to the beginning too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024