Re: Plain Text Reading Yet Limiting Characters To The Book Itself
Trying to understand the broader context is fine. Why are the apologists disrespected for attempting to do this? Why does Craig Parton, an attorney, support apologetics while tangle dismisses any respect for the definition? Is it because of a preconceived result that supports the message and humanism yet rejects belief?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
I don't know which translation you are using but this is from the NIV.
quote:23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
I assume Ringo was using the KJV translation, which is clearly saying the exact opposite. And especially when you add 21:26-27 to the quote it becomes even more obvious that it is contradicting the NIV Exodus 21:23 passage, because it talks of giving freedom to servants if in beating them you cause them to lose an eye or tooth:
quote:23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
But the KJV version goes on to describe examples more consistent with taking an eye for an eye and so on, such as Exodus 21:29:
quote:29But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
In the KJV the whole passage is a mass of inconsistency that perhaps the NIV attempts to remedy.
You next quote Jesus correcting what NIV says, but it actually endorses what KJV says, and it doesn't mention Jesus saying anything about what to do with the owner of the known rambunxious ox.
In my mind this whole minute analysis is inappropriate because it gives far more attention to the analysis than was likely ever given to the composition. Exodus 21 is likely a collection of stuff gathered together in one chapter because it was related and not because there was ever any internal consistency.
Re: Plain Text Reading Yet Limiting Characters To The Book Itself
I dont see these guys mangling anything.
Just watch the first 5 min....
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Tangle writes:
Tacitus provides much needed independent evidence for your guy's existence and death. Personally, I think it more likely than not he did actually exist.
While that Tacitus passage is likely authentic, if you ask how Tacitus came by his knowledge it cannot be but by learning what Christians believed. What direct evidence could he possibly have had? Tacitus's source could have been Matthew, since that's the only gospel that mentions Pilate's first name, or it could have come from interviewing Christians, or even just from what was popularly known at the time.
Tacitus also gets Pontius Pilate's title wrong, calling him a procurator when he was actually a prefect, while Matthew calls him governor. Tacitus must have realized the title of governor was incorrect, but he wasn't sure of the correct title and chose the incorrect procurator.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think Tacitus is independent evidence of Jesus's existence.
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Phat writes:
I disagree, even though what you say is evidentially logical...it shuts the door on belief and experience of said belief.
It doesn't shut the door, it just says that such things are irrational. People will carry on being irrational forever.
In other words, if I claimed to have been born again...even if only to myself...your statement would disallow the possibility that Jesus or God exist outside of a book written thousands of years ago.
I'm saying that all that anybody knows about the Christian god is contained within the bible and that's open to anybody. Everything else is speculation.
Craig Parton is an attorney
Why does being an attorney give him more knowledge of god than me or you or a chemical engineer?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
There's your political motivation. They work out that their messiah's all get killed, so when this one gets killed too, you claim he came back from the dead so your little revelution can continue.
The bit in the Bible about it happening within a generation has been badly misunderstood.
It's straightforward. To make it something else requires you to turn logical and literary cartwheels. It doesn't work.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
According to you God's judgments are not just. That's a pretty risky position to take. You get away with it by insisting it can't be really something God did. I guess that way you don't have to worry about putting yourself above God. But of course from my point of view that is exactly what you are doing and then rationalizing it away. I am certainly not comfortable with all that slaughter myself but I don't expect to understand everything God does and I tremble at the thought of making myself His judge. It is justice because He cannot do anything that is unjust, and it is not my place to judge Him, He's the judge, not I, not you, not any human being.
His judgments are severe because sin is an abomination to God, it's the very contrary of His own nature, and that is something we need to learn, which His severe judgments could teach us if we have the humility to let them. Instead you make sin into something trivial, although it is the reason anyone goes to Hell and it is the reason Jesus, God the Son, died on the cross though he being sinless did not deserve to die.
The Canaanites had hundreds of years to repent and didn't. As for Ananias and Sapphira sometimes it is too late for repentance. They'd supposedly given themselves to Christ, they knew the gospel, they should have known that God can read minds and hearts and yet they lied straight to His face. In a way we don't need to say God killed them, since their guilty consciences were probably judgment enough to kill them. Same thing in a way of course since our moral sense is one of the ways we are God's image, though in us it may be seriously distorted by the Fall.
I am certainly not comfortable with all that slaughter myself but I don't expect to understand everything God does and I tremble at the thought of making myself His judge.
Even Percy says that you differ from both GDR and me.
Percy writes:
GDR and Phat reject inerrancy, but they do believe the Bible captures the general outline of events. But once they begin filling in the blanks and reconciling the contradictions there's nothing to place any limits on their speculations. Faith's inerrancy claim (combined with the everpresent "we can't explain that yet") actually becomes the lesser nonsense.
So we all recognize your authoritarian view on God and the Bible in general.
I have a question, though. Do you believe that only through an inerrant Bible can GGods character be known? Do you ever feel as if though when you pray, God confirms Himself or desires to know you better? If so, what differentiates you from other praying believers? If not, that is, if God only speaks through the book, how would the ones being killed even have an opportunity to know Him since there was no book at that time? Or do scrolls and original manuscripts qualify---and if so, what of the people who never read or heard those?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:
esus gives a different opinion on what the law is supposed to mean. You're jumping the gun in assuming that Jesus was right and Moses was wrong. There is a strong tradition in Judaism of tolerating different opinions that are neither black nor white.
The point wasn't just that Jesus corrected Moses but that He also does not say the Yahweh told you this but that it was Moses.
ringo writes:
"You" can be confident that your made-up theology is "correct". The whole point of sanitizing the Bible is to make "you" comfortable, isn't it?
Nonsense. The whole point is to understand the Bible in a way that is consistent with what Jesus taught.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Tangle writes:
There's your political motivation. They work out that their messiah's all get killed, so when this one gets killed too, you claim he came back from the dead so your little revelution can continue.
That makes zero sense. In the first place the revolution that Jesus was leading called for them to live a life of service and sacrifice as opposed to the life of power and prestige they had been looking for.
Other messianic movements from the Maccabees reign, to the Bar kokhba rebellion saw various degrees of actual success in leading revolts against the Romans but when the leaders were brutally executed nobody suggested that the leaders were anything but dead. Here was a comparatively small pacifist movement almost exclusively from among the peasant class. It called for sacrifice of their time and their meager assets. In some cases it cost them their lives.
The Gospels are not anything like what a 1st century Jew would concoct. The leaders are consistently shown in a bad light. There was a group that believed in resurrection of some sort but that it would occur at the end of time but there was no belief that anyone would be resurrected in the middle of time. Jesus doesn't come back as a figure surrounded by light or with a company of angels. It is very clear that the compilers of the Gospels believed that what they were writing was based on something that had happened historically. The only question is whether they got it right or wrong.
Tangle writes:
It's straightforward. To make it something else requires you to turn logical and literary cartwheels. It doesn't work.
Well, actually it does and I explained it.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
According to you God's judgments are not just. That's a pretty risky position to take. You get away with it by insisting it can't be really something God did. I guess that way you don't have to worry about putting yourself above God. But of course from my point of view that is exactly what you are doing and then rationalizing it away. I am certainly not comfortable with all that slaughter myself but I don't expect to understand everything God does and I tremble at the thought of making myself His judge. It is justice because He cannot do anything that is unjust, and it is not my place to judge Him, He's the judge, not I, not you, not any human being.
You start from the point that something written many years earlier than the Gospels is more reliable than what we have from Jesus' teaching. Yes i believe God's judgments are just and consistent with what Jesus taught. You can't both follow Jesus and an inerrant Bible. The two aren't compatible.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Percy writes:
In my mind this whole minute analysis is inappropriate because it gives far more attention to the analysis than was likely ever given to the composition. Exodus 21 is likely a collection of stuff gathered together in one chapter because it was related and not because there was ever any internal consistency.
In my view it reads like a committee deciding what they have to do to please Yahweh. They are influenced by the partial revelation of God, their own understandings of God's nature and by their non-Jewish neighbour's practices.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
The Gospels are not anything like what a 1st century Jew would concoct.
Probably true. The Christian movement may have begun with Jews, but the bulk of new Christians, particularly by the time the gospels were written, were probably not converted Jews.
It is very clear that the compilers of the Gospels believed that what they were writing was based on something that had happened historically.
Thank goodness we know that no one back then ever lied or was mistaken or made things up, and that there were no mythmaking dynamics. They could only have been writing about actual historical events.
In the ancient Middle East the missionary Paul created a network of Christian churches by co-opting the myth of a group led by Peter whose teachings included a Jewish savior who preached about a new kingdom. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD Christianity spread into the empty niche.
™ Version 4.2
