Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Objection to subtitle of this forum
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 1 of 11 (32525)
02-18-2003 1:37 AM


Well, I'm not really objecting to the subtitle, I just disagree with it. I think it's a "false dichotomy," although I hate using those kind of terms.
What if the Bible contains messages from God and a lot of scientific errors--and plain ol' contradictions--because God speaks through men and he's not really interested in correcting their academic education in order to teach through them? Then it's not the inerrant Word of God, but neither is it just the very much errant words of men.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 02-18-2003 10:04 AM truthlover has replied
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 03-13-2003 1:51 AM truthlover has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (32551)
02-18-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
02-18-2003 1:37 AM


quote:
What if the Bible contains messages from God and a lot of scientific errors--and plain ol' contradictions--because God speaks through men and he's not really interested in correcting their academic education in order to teach through them? Then it's not the inerrant Word of God, but neither is it just the very much errant words of men.
If you already believe that the Bible is the word of God, I suppose this makes sense. But how do you know that the Bible is the word of God? That is the question. Looking for inaccuracy is an attempt to answer that question. The Bible is just a book like any other unless it contains something to make it stand out. Good science would make it stand out. So would accurate history. But it has neither.
You may assume that God is just teaching people via parable, analogy and metaphor, but that is nothing but assumption and isn't terribly convincing. And could be considered circular as well.
I am not particularly opposed to this reading of the Bible, btw. Except that I tend to consider pretty much every work of religion in the same vein-- as a snapshot of human psychology, and as such valuable.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 1:37 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 12:51 PM John has replied

  
AstroMike
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (32556)
02-18-2003 11:06 AM


The proverbs of Solomon are very profound in my opinion, so I believe there is a divine inspiration to it. I don't know whether good science or good history is very important to the message it preaches. 1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV) states: "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 4 of 11 (32566)
02-18-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
02-18-2003 10:04 AM


Hmm. Well, I was perhaps just being technical with my point, but my point makes sense in a different way--at least I think so, since this is the viewpoint I'm coming from--other than just believing the Bible is God's Word. I don't believe the Bible is God's Word.
I believe in the God of Israel and I believe that Yeshua is his Son. I believe that God has always had a people, or at least a person or two, that were his own. Some of them he used as unique messengers; prophets, if you will. Moses was one; Paul another; Isaiah another. I believe these were inspired men, just like some of the inspired men I know today. The men that I believe know God and hear his Word today do not seem to be bestowed with a supernatural knowledge of science, nor with a divinely-enhance total recall. One of the men I respect most has a horrid memory, and his stories evolve faster than bird feathers under the influence of sexual selection.
That same man believes in evolution because I told him the evidence for it is overwhelming, and because he already realized how dishonest staunch creationists are prone to be. His scientific inspiration comes from my study of books written by scientists of various religious persuasions, not from revelations, but I and many others have found that he is very prone to having insight into the human heart that we believe comes from God.
I simply hold Moses and Paul to the same standard. I think I could have taught Moses a thing or two about the creation, and I know Darwin could have--what a brilliant man and great thinker; loved his book. In fact, I count "Origin of Species" to be currently the best book on the creation I have ever read!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 02-18-2003 10:04 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 02-18-2003 2:09 PM truthlover has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (32575)
02-18-2003 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by truthlover
02-18-2003 12:51 PM


quote:
I believe in the God of Israel and I believe that Yeshua is his Son.
The question I have to ask is "Why?" Or, how can you be sure given that the evidence comes via fallible humans?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 12:51 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 8:03 PM John has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 6 of 11 (32617)
02-18-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
02-18-2003 2:09 PM


Hey, is there a method to this quote thing everybody does, or do you guys format the quotes every time? Wait, let me at least try blockquote.
The question I have to ask is "Why?" Or, how can you be sure given that the evidence comes via fallible humans?
The fallible human I have to worry about is me, not the Bible writers. I believe in history. I think it's about as far-fetched to say that Yeshua never existed or that he was several persons combined into one as it would be to suggest that, say, Cicero was.
When I first became a believer, at 20, I had my reasons. I wondered about people who were willing to die for the stories they told about this man. I guess it was the testimony of those who knew him that moved me most. Some of the prophecies moved me, too, most notably the description of a crucifixion in Psalm 22. I had heard a very similar description of crucifixion from a priest when I was a teenager.
However, those are hardly my reasons now. When I was faced with the awful idea of having to give up almost everything I was doing as a young, 20-year-old military man if it turned out Jesus was really someone we were supposed to obey, I struggled with it. Finally, one day, I decided to believe, realizing what it would mean to me. The result was absolutely overwhelming. Some would say, I guess, that I was just having a psychological experience. I called it a miracle and promised myself I would never forget it. I can't really describe what happened, and I'm afraid the closest description would be to say that I felt almost like I did back when I used to get stoned, except I wasn't stoned and my thinking wasn't hazy. The whole world looked different.
It's easy to shrug off that experience if it's someone else's. It's pretty much impossible if it's yours. I live a very spiritual life, and I have found that little voice inside very, very dependable.
What makes me doubt is not those who don't believe in spirituality. It's too real and too trustworthy for me to be shaken by things like that. I'm more prone to doubting because of how effective it is to teach anyone to look inside and trust what's in their heart.
Of course, then there's the incredible experience of watching about 200 people being transformed, day-by-day, changing into something we never planned to be changed into, but which we like and which makes the folks around stand up and take notice. I've been living that experience for seven years now, and our village, which was once trying to be a church for bringing denominational churches back together, has been together for about 14. There's no way to describe how the hand of God can be seen, felt, and experienced as all this happens. We see it, though, and so we are confident that "he who has begun a good work in us will complete it until the day of the Messiah Yeshua."
So, why do I believe. Because I don't care much whether it was the apostle John or another John who wrote First John. I don't care whether it's in anyone's canon. I just know that we are experiencing the same thing that the writer of that letter experienced. "That which we have touched, which we have seen, which our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life, that we testify to you. And we tell you these things so that you might have communion with us and with God's Son, Messiah Yeshua."
You probably didn't want that long of an answer. Sorry, it's the only kind I could give.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 02-18-2003 2:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 02-19-2003 9:57 AM truthlover has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (32655)
02-19-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by truthlover
02-18-2003 8:03 PM


quote:
Hey, is there a method to this quote thing everybody does
Yes indeed, there is. While in a 'reply to' window, look to the left and you will see a link that should read "UBB Code is ON" Click that link and you'll find instructions for using the formatted quotes.
quote:
The fallible human I have to worry about is me, not the Bible writers.
But if you consider the Bible to have some sort of authority, then you do need to worry about the fallible people who wrote it. Perhaps you believe that God communicates more directly?
quote:
I believe in history.
'k. ???
quote:
I think it's about as far-fetched to say that Yeshua never existed
I didn't suggest that this was the case. If I may make an observation... You have a bad habit of trying to guess and pre-emptively respond to people's 'agendas'.
quote:
I guess it was the testimony of those who knew him that moved me most.
What testimonies? If you believe history, surely you believe the historical fact that none of the Gospels were written by people who knew Christ.
quote:
Some of the prophecies moved me, too, most notably the description of a crucifixion in Psalm 22
What crucifixion? There is nothing in that Psalm that suggests death on a cross.
As for it being a prophecy, it is fuzzy enough as to be meaningless. Not to mention that the Psalms would have been know to the writers of the NT, and to everyone else in the early church. The only real tie to the crucifixion story is the passage about casting lots for Christ's clothing and writing that in would be no hard trick. I am sure you will complain, but this is the same logic you would use if evaluating a modern day psychic's predictions or Nostradamus or Edgar Casey...
quote:
The result was absolutely overwhelming. Some would say, I guess, that I was just having a psychological experience.
Well, yes.
Other people have the same experience with other Gods and religions. How does this prove anything? Or, perhaps a better question, do you accept these as valid spiritual experiences as well?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 8:03 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 02-19-2003 7:42 PM John has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 8 of 11 (32694)
02-19-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
02-19-2003 9:57 AM


quote:
What testimonies? If you believe history, surely you believe the historical fact that none of the Gospels were written by people who knew Christ.
No, I don't believe that at all, and while I'm no expert on that issue, I seriously doubt anyone could know that. It has been my experience that the people who have told me that were mostly every bit as fanatic as the staunchest Christian, so I didn't trust their claim that it would take a 300-page book to prove it to me. Maybe you could present some reasons for claiming this that could be judged.
The church histories I am most prone to reading are generally pretty liberal, which means the writers aren't usually prone to a lot of orthodox bias. I've read lots of suggestions that maybe the Gospels are late enough that none of their writers met Christ, but I've never seen anyone say they knew.
quote:
I didn't suggest that this was the case. If I may make an observation... You have a bad habit of trying to guess and pre-emptively respond to people's 'agendas'.
I think it's a great habit. Gets to the point, which you do not. You just make a bunch of unfounded statements, defend none of them, make no points, get off the subject of the thread, so, yeah, I'm trying to waste a little less of my time with you.
By the way, I can't imagine there's too many people who care whether you see a reference to the crucifixion in Psalm 22. I'm certainly not one of them. Thanks for bringing it up, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 02-19-2003 9:57 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 02-19-2003 11:15 PM truthlover has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (32712)
02-19-2003 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by truthlover
02-19-2003 7:42 PM


quote:
No, I don't believe that at all, and while I'm no expert on that issue, I seriously doubt anyone could know that.
You'll be hard pressed to find a scholar who claims differently.
Take for instance, the Gospel of Mark.
The idea that Mark wrote a gospel is attested by Papias, early in the second century; he says that Mark never encountered Jesus but later became the disciple and ‘interpreter’ of Peter. On the basis of Peter’s teaching about the words and deeds of Jesus, he drew up an account which was accurate but not ‘in order’ (Eusebius, H.E. 3, 39, 15).
Page not found – Religion Online
Or:
Mark is the author of the Gospel According to Mark, the second Gospel in the New Testament, but the earliest. He wrote his Gospel in Rome, accurately recording the testimonies of the apostle Peter and other eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ's life. According to Papias and Saint Clement of Alexandria, Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the Roman Christians around AD 49.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Christian_martyrs/Mark.html
Mark is the earliest Gospel and was written sometime around 70 AD, though the above gives an earlier date.
While there is disagreement about where Mark wrote, there is a consensus about when he wrote: he probably composed his work in or about the year 70 CE, after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the hands of the Romans.
The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Mark | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS
This is 40 years after the death of Christ, give or take. Thirty-five or forty-five years was a decently long lifespan at the time, so you have a full generation passing between the death on the cross and the writing of Mark. Where is the fantasy in this? The other Gospels were composed even later, Matthew and Luke both drawing from Mark.
quote:
I've read lots of suggestions that maybe the Gospels are late enough that none of their writers met Christ, but I've never seen anyone say they knew.
Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. In spite of what the Gospel authors say, biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry.
Page not found » Internet Infidels
This information is not hard to come by and there is no real contraversy among biblical scholars.
quote:
I think it's a great habit. Gets to the point, which you do not.
No, it doesn't. It just makes you look like you have an itchy trigger finger.
What is the point you think I have not made? There you go again, seeing agenda around every corner. Sad...
quote:
You just make a bunch of unfounded statements, defend none of them, make no points, get off the subject of the thread, so, yeah, I'm trying to waste a little less of my time with you.
Why is it that a few simple questions triggers such hostility? Where does it come from?
Unfounded statements? Nope, quite well founded, maybe that is what lit the fuse.
Defend none of them? Well, one has to start somewhere. I don't know what you will dispute and what you won't. Guess I could just jump the gun, guess your agenda and start swinging, but why?
Make no points? Funny, you responded to some points I didn't make.
Get off the subject? Even more funny. Seems we've been discussing biblical accuracy and it is a concern.
quote:
By the way, I can't imagine there's too many people who care whether you see a reference to the crucifixion in Psalm 22. I'm certainly not one of them. Thanks for bringing it up, though.
Ah... more hostility-- the sweet sweet smell of christianity.
You seem to feel it was important enough to bring up Psalm 22. I read it and I commented. Is that not how a discussion works?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 02-19-2003 7:42 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 02-20-2003 7:09 PM John has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 10 of 11 (32771)
02-20-2003 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
02-19-2003 11:15 PM


quote:
This is 40 years after the death of Christ, give or take. Thirty-five or forty-five years was a decently long lifespan at the time, so you have a full generation passing between the death on the cross and the writing of Mark. Where is the fantasy in this? The other Gospels were composed even later, Matthew and Luke both drawing from Mark.
Two of the three references you gave for the date and authorship of Mark's Gospels quote Papias on Eusebius' authority. The same sources give a date of 97 or 98 for John's Gospel and say that he wrote it late in life. Actually, I guess the date is attributable to Irenaeus, who is only a two person link from John, having known Polycarp, who was appointed to his bishop's position by John (again, according to Irenaeus, who would be the closest source).
It is a widely attested tradition that John lived past 90 years. 40 years or so may have been an average lifespan, but that is not because people were old and near death at 40 back then. Disease and infections often caused people to die before old age. Polycarp was martyred at age 86, so it's not like old age was unusual. I don't think anyone doubts Peter's martyrdom date, somewhere in the 60's AD, and that would have made him at least 50, probably somewhat older.
A quick search turned up this site about the four Gospels: Page not found – Religion Online. He says, "We can be fairly certain that the author was the Luke mentioned by Paul as a physician and as one of his early associates." He gives the date as 80-90, and he doesn't mention the authorship of Matthew, although I do agree that most scholars don't think Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him.
But as far as I can tell, that's the only one. Mark was supposed to have seen Christ, according to the same early church sources you gave. I can't imagine why anyone who thought Mark wrote Mark would not think Mark was some sort of eyewitness to his ministry, though not a central one, of course.
Here's that web site's comments on John: "Irenaeus, at the end of the second century, speaks of the disciple John as living to an old age in Ephesus and writing the gospel. But other early sources speak of another John, known as the elder, who lived at Ephesus, and suggest that he was the author. And so the evidence is inconclusive. The gospel may have been written by a disciple of the disciple John; it may have been written by the other John the elder, who was perhaps some kind of follower of the disciple John; or it may have been written by an unknown teacher of Ephesus who himself felt that he possessed a strong apostolic authority."
I have to back up a bit, because I equated "none of the authors met Christ" with "none of the Gospels are authored by the persons their attributed to." My mistake, based on an assumption I was working with (Luke's gospel attributable to Paul, Mark's to Peter).
Anyway, nothing you wrote looked real new to me. I'm pretty friendly with the writings of the second century, and I may attribute too much authority to Irenaeus as concerning John's Gospel, which I believe John wrote. As it is, it appears to me that Luke and Mark were likely the authors of their Gospels, even according to your sources. Matthew I knew didn't write that one. He is occasionally suggested as the author of Q, although I can't imagine how anyone would be able to know that, either.
Of course, if a scholar is going to quote Eusebius and Irenaes (Papias' writings don't exist; we only have Irenaeus' and Eusebius' quotes of him) to agree that Mark wrote his Gospel, then wouldn't that suggest that Matthew wrote a Gospel, too, since they are just as firm about Matthew having written one?
quote:
Get off the subject? Even more funny. Seems we've been discussing biblical accuracy and it is a concern.
Well, I apologize. One more time I got people mixed up. It was Brian Johnston who first threw out a bunch of complaints about things I never addressed and specifically said I didn't want to address. I only stuck with this thread, because I felt you were constantly reading my posts differently than I put them up, and you were asserting things authoritatively that just aren't so cut and dry as you made them out to be. The combination of addressing a subject I didn't bring up, and then throwing out the things you threw out did irritate me, but now I see that it was two people. Brian apparently dropped it when I asked him to.
I guess I'd better get a lot more careful about reading the names on the posts. That's embarrassing.
Like I said. I apologize, but I still am quitting this thread that I never wanted to talk about, anyway.
Either way, this is still my last post on a subject I care very little about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 02-19-2003 11:15 PM John has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 11 (34245)
03-13-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
02-18-2003 1:37 AM


This topic is not really aimed at the way that you
accept, interpret, and are inspired by the Bible.
There are those (often vocal anti-evolutionists)
who actually believe that the Bible is the word
of God and that every single word is the literal
absolute truth exactly as written (except for the
parts that aren't ).
This flavour of believer then uses this wild assumption
as evidence against evolution!
You are the kind of christian (I assume you ARE christian)
that christains should aspire to become. You are rational,
genuinely inquisitive, and have arrived at your faith through
conscious decision and choice. For what it's worth I admire
that even though I do not share all of your beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 02-18-2003 1:37 AM truthlover 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