Paul the Apostle

#226
#226
therealUT said:
I jumped the gun; most of the writings attributed to Clement were not written by him. Either way, it does nothing.



My bad; there are plenty of first century references to Christ (most of the New Testament). There are no first century references to Christ, as a historical figure, from individuals who were non-Christians. There are certainly references to Christians toward the very end of the century. Seeing as 1 Clement was almost put into the bible, it is on the same basis as every other book in the New Testament: an account from a non-eye-witness, written decades later.



It makes sense that after the Revolt, Jewish individuals would flock to this new sect in an attempt to distance themselves, in the eyes of the Romans, from Judaism and maybe save themselves.



The Roman Culture was not an oral culture; it was very record heavy and there were plenty of Romans and Roman historians around in Jerusalem. If Jesus was actually doing the things that are described in the gospels, I find it reasonable to expect that they would have been recorded by the Romans, as well as some wealthy Jews.



I am not the only person who thinks it is odd that the Romans never documented the Jesus phenomenon.



I have nothing against oral cultures; however, oral tradition is not historical record. And, just like the game of telephone, the stories can change in the retelling. This is why primary texts are so valuable to historians.



No, the burden is always on the person making the claim. You claim, and the individuals in the text claim, that they are retelling a historical fact; yet, there is nothing outside of their own society to corroborate their tale. There tale might be true; however, it might not. And, until evidence points me in the direction that it is, I will interpret it as non-historical.

If I tell you I saw a ghost, it is reasonable for you not to believe me. If I write down, "I saw a ghost on 8 June 2012" it is still just as reasonable for you not to believe me. You would ask for further evidence. If I tell you a story about a fox and a crow, and I write down that these two beasts are having a conversation, it is reasonable for you to believe that what I am saying is not historical. If I say, "no, it really happened" it is still reasonable for you to say that it did not; until I can provide corroborating evidence. In the meantime, you might pull some valuable insight from that story, though.



The message I take from the bible is that God is truth, Jesus is reason, and the Holy Spirit is conscience. You can take whatever message you like; I take the message that makes the most sense to me. If you want to believe that individuals are speaking with ghosts and walking on water, so be it.



I have not attempted to prove anything; I have stated that I do not believe that Jesus is either a historical figure or God. I have not stated that he definitely is not. Moreover, there are enough questions with the contradictions that I see in the bible itself (which, let's be honest, all it takes is one contradiction to say that it is not the literal word of God) and with history (the census; I am not letting that go without good reason) to make it reasonable that I question it.



I looked at the reference; and, it does nothing for your case. I told you to take a look at a Hebrew Interlinear bible, which you apparently did not do. I told you to take the actual Hebrew text to someone who speaks Hebrew. When you do so, and you chart the events, they do not reconcile (which is why the Catholic Church even states clearly that there are two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis; but, surely, you will not accept any conclusion from the Catholic Church as I am sure they have not employed Hebrew scholars to help them decipher anything).



How am I not seeking knowledge from whatever affords itself? I seek knowledge from the Catholic Church, you do not accept it. I seek knowledge from Augustine and Aquinas, you do not accept it. I seek knowledge from Kant, I imagine that you will not accept that either. I seek knowledge from individuals that actually speak Hebrew, you do not accept it.

You look at textual criticism and shrug it off because it is not "substantial" enough for you (of course, the possibility exists that a writer can drastically change their writing style within their work for a passage or two and then revert to their old writing style); you shrug off science because well God can just interject; you shrug off history (because while the Romans made a point to detail and record all the patriarchs and all the census around that time, they just made a huge clerical mistake and forgot to record what Luke refers to as a Roman census of "the whole world").

Look, you irrationally believe in Jesus; that is okay, belief is not supposed to be based in reason, it is supposed to be based in revelation. For those of us who have not received this revelation, we will continue to find allegories in the bible that make it very rich for us and provide some fundamental truths.
Click to expand...

You made the substantive claim that the Bible is filled with fanciful stories. That is a positive statement, not an agnostic one.

The burden of proof is yours. Go!

This is becoming tedious. As I said, I will respond only to your positive assertion that John was not an eye-witness to Jesus.

Go.
 
#234
#234
PKT_VOL said:
Please tell me I am interpreting this incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Nope. Apparently, all you need to do is discount history and textual criticism while also placing complete faith in the interpretation of Hebrew (maybe Hebrew, but the author never even states what language he is translating from or provides the text in said language) from some guy on a Creationist website and then tell others that if someone tells a ghost story, the burden of proof is on you if you decide not to believe in ghosts.

Funny, because the bible even states quite clearly that there must be two witnesses to testify; I would say it is reasonable to ask for two communities to testify, as well (i.e., the community of Christians plus an unbiased community that has no dog in the fight viz. the Romans).

Here is the bio on Paul F. Taylor (the author of the two-creation accounts article), from the Creation Today website; it says nothing about being trained in Hebrew:
Paul Taylor, who joined us on April 25th, 2011, as Director of Ministry Development, has been a trained musician, a high school science teacher, website programmer and ICT trainer and preacher. He has been speaking and writing on the subject of creation for more than 30 years and was the senior speaker and manager of Answers In Genesis (UK/Europe). He will aid in the further development of the ministry during this exciting time of growth and new outreach. Writing and research, TV and radio interviews, speaking, teaching, podcasts, and building relationships with new and existing ministry supporters are all on Paul’s to-do list.

Born near Manchester, England, Paul graduated with a degree in Chemistry from the University of Nottingham, and later obtained a Master’s degree from the University of Cardiff. Both are part of the Russell Group, the elite group of 20 British universities, approximately equivalent to the Ivy League colleges in the United States. He was a science teacher in state comprehensive schools for many years, the equivalent of U.S. public schools. He taught in the North-West of England and then in South Wales, eventually becoming a Head of Department. Later he ran a business that trained people in industry and government in general ICT skills and web development. Most recently, Paul was the senior speaker and manager of Answers In Genesis (UK/Europe), the United Kingdom branch of the creationist organization based in Kentucky. In his role at AIG–UK, Paul authored more than eight books, was an itinerant speaker around the country, appearing on radio and TV programs, including brief debates with atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones.
Click to expand...

Apparently, he is more qualified to make his declarative statements on Genesis than the Hebrew scholars and the Catholic Church (the latter, of which, has no reason not to attempt to prove that the bible is the word of God; the former, no reason to prove that the Torah is not the word of God).
 
#235
#235
therealUT said:
Nope. Apparently, all you need to do is discount history and textual criticism while also placing complete faith in the interpretation of Hebrew (maybe Hebrew, but the author never even states what language he is translating from or provides the text in said language) from some guy on a Creationist website and then tell others that if someone tells a ghost story, the burden of proof is on you if you decide not to believe in ghosts.

Funny, because the bible even states quite clearly that there must be two witnesses to testify; I would say it is reasonable to ask for two communities to testify, as well (i.e., the community of Christians plus an unbiased community that has no dog in the fight viz. the Romans).

Here is the bio on Paul F. Taylor (the author of the two-creation accounts article), from the Creation Today website; it says nothing about being trained in Hebrew:


Apparently, he is more qualified to make his declarative statements on Genesis than the Hebrew scholars and the Catholic Church (the latter, of which, has no reason not to attempt to prove that the bible is the word of God; the former, no reason to prove that the Torah is not the word of God).
Click to expand...

There is a difference between saying that you don't believe something and stating that something never happened. That is a positive statement that requires a burden of proof.

Just like saying that John the disciple/apostle was not an eyewitness to Jesus. I am still waiting for you to fulfill that burden of proof.

Go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#236
#236
OrangeEmpire said:
Tough from my phone, have to be individual posts

Father of Joseph

Mat 1:16

Luke 3:23
Click to expand...

Dang! I did not know that. How can it be that Joseph, husband of Mary, had two different fathers?

Who is correct, Matthew or Luke?
 
#237
#237
Danl said:
Dang! I did not know that. How can it be that Joseph, husband of Mary, had two different fathers?

Who is correct, Matthew or Luke?
Click to expand...

This is just juvenile sarcasm, but apparently Orange Crush is a self taught historian, he may know.

:)

Ok, back on topic, who do you trust more?

Tax collector or a Dr?
 
#238
#238
OrangeEmpire said:
This is just juvenile sarcasm, but apparently Orange Crush is a self taught historian, he may know.

:)
Ok, back on topic, who do you trust more?

Tax collector or a Dr?
Click to expand...

Umm, to collect taxes and keep records of people or to set a broken bone and keep records of people or ???
 
#240
#240
OrangeEmpire said:
The gospel writers have different styles, trut will kill me for this, but I have always preferred Luke.
Click to expand...

I'll leave the killin to trut. LOL

I would like to know how, according to the bible, Joseph had two fathers.

Hmm. That sounds like one of those "gay agenda" children's books.

BTW, the Dr vs tax collector thing went over my head. Nothing new about that.
 
#241
#241
Danl said:
I'll leave the killin to trut. LOL

I would like to know how, according to the bible, Joseph had two fathers.

Hmm. That sounds like one of those "gay agenda" children's books.

BTW, the Dr vs tax collector thing went over my head. Nothing new about that.
Click to expand...

You didnt know their occupations?

Luke was a trained observer, that is why I prefer Luke.
 
#247
#247
therealUT said:
Nope. Apparently, all you need to do is discount history and textual criticism while also placing complete faith in the interpretation of Hebrew (maybe Hebrew, but the author never even states what language he is translating from or provides the text in said language) from some guy on a Creationist website and then tell others that if someone tells a ghost story, the burden of proof is on you if you decide not to believe in ghosts.

Funny, because the bible even states quite clearly that there must be two witnesses to testify; I would say it is reasonable to ask for two communities to testify, as well (i.e., the community of Christians plus an unbiased community that has no dog in the fight viz. the Romans).

Here is the bio on Paul F. Taylor (the author of the two-creation accounts article), from the Creation Today website; it says nothing about being trained in Hebrew:


Apparently, he is more qualified to make his declarative statements on Genesis than the Hebrew scholars and the Catholic Church (the latter, of which, has no reason not to attempt to prove that the bible is the word of God; the former, no reason to prove that the Torah is not the word of God).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that feeling from y'all's exchange. It's hard to take scripture of any religion without context if you want to get to the truth. It also continually amazes me how close-minded most people are when it comes to their spirituality. You would think people would approach such a profound subject with due diligence.
 
#249
#249
PKT_VOL said:
Yeah, I got that feeling from y'all's exchange. It's hard to take scripture of any religion without context if you want to get to the truth. It also continually amazes me how close-minded most people are when it comes to their spirituality. You would think people would approach such a profound subject with due diligence.
Click to expand...

Context is everything. This is how we wound up with people believing the earth is only 10,000 years old when the Bible in context clearly doesn't teach that.

But I digress
 
#250
#250
orangeslice13 said:
Context is everything. This is how we wound up with people believing the earth is only 10,000 years old when the Bible in context clearly doesn't teach that.

But I digress
Click to expand...

Yep. However, the problem is that as soon as you concede that the Bible or any other scripture isn't the word of God, you have opened up a Pandora's box as far as theology is concerned.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top