Paul the Apostle

[Orange_Crush]

Nope, you are a newbie.

Typical behavior, you will catch on.

Maybe. Guess we'll see.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Plato:Augustine::Aristotle:Aquinas

Yep

The problem of evil is about as tricky to get around as the liar paradox. I like Augustine's move, but then it does not solve the functional problem (just the semantics); Kant's move, however, is pretty brilliant (he just says good is not omnibenevolent).

I wouldn't necessarily say that it was brilliant. Anybody that implied that God had an impersonal relationship with his creation would be on par with Kant. I don't find his answer revolutionary or ingenious.

I like Leibniz's solution. Recent developments in quantum mechanics with particular emphasis on the multiple worlds interpretation of Schrödinger equation. A lot of food for thought there.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Maybe. Guess we'll see.

Entertaing for sure

 

[Orange_Crush]

And this is where Reason comes in (best exemplified by the Chariot Allegory in the Plato's Phaedrus; or in the storm that kicks up when the apostles realize Jesus is not there (when they are without Reason) but is quelled once Jesus walks up to them (when they embrace Reason)).

You are welcome to whichever philosophical worldview you choose, of course. But it seems "reasonable", when dissecting the written word to ascertain the author's intent, to go to that written word and the known written works of that author to seek out meaning.

Plato did not write the books of the Bible, so it is not "reasonable" to look to him for the keys of interpretation.

Since "reason" is never mentioned in the story of the storm, that can be nothing more than the insertion of your preferred interpretation, as opposed to a reasonable interpretation of the text.

Aquinas, not Ignatius. He argues that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity and that it is the Messenger of God, constantly with us and guiding us to act righteously; and, he presents a pretty solid argument that the Holy Spirit is manifested in each and every person's Conscience.

Sorry. My bad.

I will check out his arguments in more detail. I would not argue with many particulars to that. That is part of His job. However, the particulars of the koine Greek, as written, indicate that He does it from within for Christians and without for non-Christians. Other scripture also indicates that non-believers suppress this, war against God in their minds, and cannot ascertain the things of God.

That's just the way it goes. Until conversion, they just don't have the right receiver for it. Like trying to get XM radio on an FM receiver. More to the point, they would turn the channel even if they could hear it.

 

[therealUT]

I am hypocritical? You claim them as fantastical a priori, and I pointed that out. It's bad logic. That would make your claims to be "skeptical" hypocritical, no? Since you based your opinion before researching?

I, on the other hand, have done a detailed survey of the claims made by Luke, and how they match up to the historical record. I have gone as far as to look at the criticisms against Luke as a historian on a century-by-century basis, noting the startling rate at which Luke's supposed mistakes have been ratified by historical discoveries.

I have never denied science. As a matter of fact, I love science! I just make the logical statement that it is possible for the natural laws of science to be overcome by the Creator who established them, if He does indeed exist. And, isn't that what the Bible discussion is, really? When taken at face value?

So, in that light... Who has given the most credit to historians? By making no a priori assumptions about the natural laws, who has treated them most fairly?

Hypocritical... Such an ironic word for you to use.



Then your stance is better stated as:

I greatly dislike the God of the Bible. That dislike is exacerbated by the actions of some of the people who claim to follow Him.

Which is a far more honest response than your illogical dance with the Bible. It isn't any more logical than any of your other responses, since disliking someone does not in fact disprove that they exist. As a matter of fact, it agrees with what the Bible predicts about most people's response to Him.



No. You have not chosen history. You have hidden in one of the many areas where history doesn't speak, and ignored the many areas where it has spoken on this subject.

And please, do link out to your experts in Hebrew, and their dissection of the Hebrew tenses in question. I have. I'll provide more if you'll promise to actually go there this time, as opposed to discounting them out of hand Let's see what you have and compare notes.

Or was that just a smoke screen?




Non-skeptical? I've studied the Bible from beginning to end, circling back throughout seeking truth from history, the cultures in which it was written, what it has to say about itself, vast and immediate contextual cues... I've studied the historicity of the authors and players.

I've sought out and viewed archaeological inscriptions that prove the validity of the Exodus. I've parsed the Talmud and Mishna as written at the time of Christ. I've searched out archaeological details that prove the validity of Paul's missionary journey, as relayed by Luke in Acts.

You've basically said to yourself, "I think miracles are impossible, and I don't like what the Bible says about God, so I will choose to ignore what the Bible says, ignore what its writers said I should get from reading it, and insert my own invented allegory as actual truth."

I'm not saying you have to believe the Bible is true. I'm saying you are doing incredibly poorly if your search is for truth and reason. You seem to mistake inference and a priori statements for reason, and you mistake comfort for truth.

The Talmud was not written at the time of Christ. I would expect someone who has gone through the history, to the level that you claim, would know that. You do not.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Talmud was not written at the time of Christ. I would expect someone who has gone through the history, to the level that you claim, would know that. You do not.

But the mishna was. My point being that Jesus is mentioned historically, specifically with details that pertain to the Biblical narrative, and most notably by his biggest enemies.

Harp if you will. But it seems to speak to your historical criticisms none-the-less, no?

 

[therealUT]

But the mishna was. My point being that Jesus is mentioned historically, specifically with details that pertain to the Biblical narrative, and most notably by his biggest enemies.

Harp if you will. But it seems to speak to your historical criticisms none-the-less, no?

The Mishna was not written at the time of Christ, unless you count the period between 100 A.D. and 200 A.D. as the time of Christ.

The point is, that Jesus is not mentioned historically until the Second Century, at the earliest. Moreover, you claim to have some great historical insight, yet you still do not know when it was that the Talmud began to be written and compiled.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Mishna was not written at the time of Christ, unless you count the period between 100 A.D. and 200 A.D. as the time of Christ.

The point is, that Jesus is not mentioned historically until the Second Century, at the earliest. Moreover, you claim to have some great historical insight, yet you still do not know when it was that the Talmud began to be written and compiled.

The Talmud -- Sanhedrin and Mishna was the collection of Jewish oral tradition, and was then expanded upon. It was written down in part because of the destruction of the temple in AD70, the dispersion/persecution of the Jews, and a fear that they would lose Jewish history and tradition.

So, while it was technically written later, it was writing down the knowledge of a culture built around oral tradition.

Technically, it was written post-Christ. But it was writing down the oral knowledge of Christ's time and before.

Now, with the clarification intact... Are you saying that the later writings on Christ are worthless? What would that mean about your insertions about him 2000 years later?

Shall we discount the quotations within the early church about Him within 70 years of His life? And again, you are claiming a lack of evidence as positive evidence. Is this good logic?

With that said, I haven't claimed to be a historian. I've claimed to do my research per historians. There is much more there than you either know about of admit.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Mishna was not written at the time of Christ, unless you count the period between 100 A.D. and 200 A.D. as the time of Christ.

The point is, that Jesus is not mentioned historically until the Second Century, at the earliest. Moreover, you claim to have some great historical insight, yet you still do not know when it was that the Talmud began to be written and compiled.

What is the Mishna?

In past installments we discussed the fact that at Mount Sinai the Jewish people received the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was the oral explanation of how the written laws should be executed and followed.

The Oral Torah passed from generation to generation and was never written down(2). Why? Because the Oral Torah was meant to be fluid. The principles stayed the same, but the application of those principles was meant to be adapted to all types of new circumstances.

This worked exceptionally well as long as the central authority—the Sanhedrin—remained intact, and the chain of transmission was not interrupted. (That is, teachers were able to freely pass on their wisdom to the next generation of students.) But in the days since the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin had been repeatedly uprooted and teachers had to go into hiding.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi realized that things would not get better any time soon. He saw that the Temple would not be rebuilt in his generation and possibly in many generations to come. He saw the Jews fleeing the land as a result of the constant persecutions and impossible living conditions. He saw that the central authority was weaker than ever and might cease altogether To make sure that the chain of transmission would never be broken, he decided that the time had come to write down the Oral Torah.(3)

This was a mammoth undertaking. Although much of the work may have already been done by previous generations of rabbis, the monumental task of editing, explaining and organizing this vast amount of material was left to Rabbi Yehudah. The end result of this massive undertaking was a definitive, yet cryptic (the basic principles were all there yet a teacher was still required to elucidate the material) version of the entire Oral Law called the Mishna. (Incidentally, the word Mishna means “repetition” because it was studied by repeating; mishna then, by extension, means “learning.”) Maimonides, in his introduction to his Mishneh Torah, explains it as follows:

He gathered together all the traditions, enactments, and interpretations and expositions of every position of the Torah, that either come down from Moses, out teacher, or had been deduced by the courts in successive generations. All this material he redacted in the Mishna, which was diligently taught in public, and thus became universally known among the Jewish people. Copies of it were made and widely disseminated, so that the Oral Law might not be forgotten in Israel

The History of the Talmud - What is the Talmud? What is Gemora? What is the Oral Tradition? Why Learn Torah?

 

[therealUT]

The Talmud -- Sanhedrin and Mishna was the collection of Jewish oral tradition, and was then expanded upon. It was written down in part because of the destruction of the temple in AD70, the dispersion/persecution of the Jews, and a fear that they would lose Jewish history and tradition.

So, while it was technically written later, it was writing down the knowledge of a culture built around oral tradition.

Technically, it was written post-Christ. But it was writing down the oral knowledge of Christ's time and before.

Right, it was not written down; therefore, there are no historical records referring to Jesus while he was still alive.

Now, with the clarification intact... Are you saying that the later writings on Christ are worthless? What would that mean about your insertions about him 2000 years later?

I am saying that they are worthless as historical records and, further, that there are historical inaccuracies and falsehoods contained within them. This leads me to believe that they are not the divine word of God (as a history); although, they certainly could be as allegory.

Shall we discount the quotations within the early church about Him within 70 years of His life? And again, you are claiming a lack of evidence as positive evidence. Is this good logic?

I have claimed that a lack of evidence is enough for me not to remain agnostic as to their historical accuracy (although, Luke's account is pretty inaccurate). In that vein, I will find something valuable in the texts (just like I imagine you would find valuable allegories in the Mahabharata if you read it; yet, by your standard of reading, you would have to accept Krishna, Vishnu, and Arjuna as God-men that are historical figures as well).

With that said, I haven't claimed to be a historian. I've claimed to do my research per historians. There is much more there than you either know about of admit.

I do my research per historians as well; I, on the other hand, do not try to argue that oral history is historical record.

By the way, you have still not responded to my post regarding the census. When you adamantly demanded that I present the evidence I have to believe that Luke is dead wrong regarding the census.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Mishna was not written at the time of Christ, unless you count the period between 100 A.D. and 200 A.D. as the time of Christ.

The point is, that Jesus is not mentioned historically until the Second Century, at the earliest. Moreover, you claim to have some great historical insight, yet you still do not know when it was that the Talmud began to be written and compiled.

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

(That would be 1st Century, by the way.)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."

(1st Century)

And that's not including the Biblical writings, which you can only discount based on a priori reasons.

 

[therealUT]

The History of the Talmud - What is the Talmud? What is Gemora? What is the Oral Tradition? Why Learn Torah?

Are you really going to rely on oral history as a historical record? Seriously?

We are done here.

 

[therealUT]

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

(That would be 1st Century, by the way.)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."

(1st Century)

And that's not including the Biblical writings, which you can only discount based on a priori reasons.

The textual criticism of both their writings has shown that it is highly doubtful that the texts with which they refer to Jesus were written by them. What's next, are you going to quote Pliny, as well?

Of course, if you want to discard textual criticism, then let us throw the gospel of Barnabus into the debate where he claims that Jesus is not God. Using textual criticism, we can see that the styles, grammar, and vocabulary that this author employs are radically different from the writings in and around the Mediterranean in the First Century (the same criticisms lobbed at the passages you cite; moreover, the style is different in those passages than elsewhere in those texts, while the gospel of Barnabus appears to have been compiled by one author).

 

[Orange_Crush]

Right, it was not written down; therefore, there are no historical records referring to Jesus while he was still alive.

Since His death was what finally made Him ultimately noteworthy, this is a concern, why? We have the entirety of the Biblical record. We have sources outside the Bible within a generation of His life. We have official documentation of the practices of his followers from the 1st century church.

I am saying that they are worthless as historical records and, further, that there are historical inaccuracies and falsehoods contained within them. This leads me to believe that they are not the divine word of God (as a history); although, they certainly could be as allegory.

We're talking about historical documents, on this one. Not the Bible. So, your logic is that the farther we get from the historical event, the more we should trust one's interpretation of the events?

I have claimed that a lack of evidence is enough for me not to remain agnostic as to their historical accuracy (although, Luke's account is pretty inaccurate). In that vein, I will find something valuable in the texts (just like I imagine you would find valuable allegories in the Mahabharata if you read it; yet, by your standard of reading, you would have to accept Krishna, Vishnu, and Arjuna as God-men that are historical figures as well).

Oh, but you have not remained agnostic. You have made the positive assertion that they are incorrect. Right?

And you are yet to show how Luke's account is historically inaccurate. (See? That's not agnostic. You do know what that word means, no?) So again, show where Luke is inaccurate? I can link you to several places where he is, so your argumentation from a lack of evidence is in no way proof of inaccuracy.

And, please feel free to seek allegory. By all means... Just don't couch it as a reasonable, rational process.

I do my research per historians as well; I, on the other hand, do not try to argue that oral history is historical record.

Then you are showing your bigotry against oral cultures. That's cool.

By the way, you have still not responded to my post regarding the census. When you adamantly demanded that I present the evidence I have to believe that Luke is dead wrong regarding the census.

I'm sorry. I must have missed your post about the census. I will go back and find it. Did you find a document stating that it didn't happen? That's what I'm looking for. Hand waving that states we should expect to find records of a back-water occupied district, after 2000 years, in the records of a crumbled empire, isn't necessarily what I was looking for.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Are you really going to rely on oral history as a historical record? Seriously?

We are done here.

No. That's not the central premise of my argument. What about the resources I quoted from the 1st century? Oh, that's right... When that was provided, you changed your standard to "when Jesus was alive".

We have a historical figure accounted by those who followed His life. He was further documented down through history since that time.

Not sure what your beef is.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The textual criticism of both their writings has shown that it is highly doubtful that the texts with which they refer to Jesus were written by them. What's next, are you going to quote Pliny, as well?

Of course, if you want to discard textual criticism, then let us throw the gospel of Barnabus into the debate where he claims that Jesus is not God. Using textual criticism, we can see that the styles, grammar, and vocabulary that this author employs are radically different from the writings in and around the Mediterranean in the First Century (the same criticisms lobbed at the passages you cite; moreover, the style is different in those passages than elsewhere in those texts, while the gospel of Barnabus appears to have been compiled by one author).

I am yet to see anything that seeks to attribute these to anyone else. I would be interested in seeing that. Seriously.

I do know some question the specifics of what Josephus said about Jesus. But I have seen no one that seeks to attribute it to anyone but Josephus, nor deny that he spoke of Jesus.

So, as a historical document to the historicity of Jesus as an actual person, I think it still stands up.

Edit: I am researching the textual criticism of Josephus. I am currently finding nothing substantial, except people claiming "surely Origin would have", and "surely Josephus would have", and "surely scribes could have inserted..."

I have found little of substance but will get back with you as I study.

Other than that, surely you are not questioning Clement of Rome's writing on Jesus?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Are you really going to rely on oral history as a historical record? Seriously?

We are done here.

OK... Let's revisit other subjects then...

Have you linked to your experts in Hebrew per the tenses of your supposed contradictions?

Do you still feel that it is good logic to dismiss possibilities a priori?

Do you still feel it appropriate to reinterpret the writings of eye witnesses because you don't like what it says-- i.e. I don't like that God, so I'll invent my own history?

Do you still think that a lack of evidence proves that something didn't happen?

Do you still think that a priori reinterpretation 2000 years later trumps the plain words of an author?

Do you still think John didn't write 1, 2, 3 John, even though his pupil quoted the works in very short order?

Do you still think Clement of Rome didn't write about Jesus?

 

[therealUT]

I am yet to see anything that seeks to attribute these to anyone else. I would be interested in seeing that. Seriously.

I do know some question the specifics of what Josephus said about Jesus. But I have seen no one that seeks to attribute it to anyone but Josephus, nor deny that he spoke of Jesus.

So, as a historical document to the historicity of Jesus as an actual person, I think it still stands up.

Edit: I am researching the textual criticism of Josephus. I am currently finding nothing substantial, except people claiming "surely Origin would have", and "surely Josephus would have", and "surely scribes could have inserted..."

I have found little of substance but will get back with you as I study.

Other than that, surely you are not questioning Clement of Rome's writing on Jesus?

Why do I need to discount Clement's writings? What could they possibly do for your argument?

So, a guy who never knew Jesus, listens to the oral stories of these new Christians, reads some of Paul's epistles, and writes his own letter some sixty years after Jesus has supposedly died.

You do not find it very odd that there are no documents written regarding Jesus while he was still alive? None. None are even referred to in the writings of the authors of the gospels. I find that antithetical to human nature as I know it. It might be possible, but the burden of proof is on those trying to convince me that Jesus is a historical figure who was God and that the bible is the divine word of God.

Oh, and Josephus has been routinely criticized. I like how you are now trying to defend him by simply turning to the "interwebz" which you mocked earlier (but have now used twice to support your points).

 

[therealUT]

OK... Let's revisit other subjects then...

Have you linked to your experts in Hebrew per the tenses of your supposed contradictions?

Linked? Sorry, I can point you to the actual Hebrew text but I cannot link you to individuals that I speak to in person (I am not sure how that is possible).

Genesis 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Do you still feel that it is good logic to dismiss possibilities a priori?

You keep saying that I have dismissed possibilities and, moreover, that I have dismissed them a priori. I will say that I completely dismiss the possibility that Luke's account of the census is anywhere near correct; I did not dismiss that apriori. I dismissed it after reading the footnote in my bible (I read the bible daily and have for several years) attached to Luke 2:1-2. I was not out searching to prove Luke incorrect, it just so happens that I read footnotes; and, well, the footnote in the bible that is the official English translation for the Catholic Church calls into serious question Luke's account. You have said you are not a historian; so, do you have something against the Catholic Church using a whole handful of biblical scholars and historians and still coming to the conclusion that Luke's account of the census still appears absolutely indefensible?

Do you still feel it appropriate to reinterpret the writings of eye witnesses because you don't like what it says-- i.e. I don't like that God, so I'll invent my own history?

Who says I do not like God?

Second, who are these eye-witnesses you speak of? They certainly are not the authors of the gospels; Paul might be the only eye-witness but I do not believe in ghosts (and, yes, this is dismissing the possibility outright).

Do you still think that a lack of evidence proves that something didn't happen?

Not at all; but, a lack of evidence certainly does not prove that something did happen.

Do you still think that a priori reinterpretation 2000 years later trumps the plain words of an author?

If the authors meant their works as allegories, then I have not trumped anything. You know as little about their intent as I do. Further, these authors were not eye-witnesses to any of the events and do not point to any primary documents for me to check. There are no corroborating witnesses to any of the things they claim; so, I feel that my interpretation is just as valid.

Do you still think John didn't write 1, 2, 3 John, even though his pupil quoted the works in very short order?

It is highly unlikely, according to the styles in which they are written, that the author of the gospel of John is the same person who wrote the letters. It is quite possible; but, again, highly unlikely.

Do you still think Clement of Rome didn't write about Jesus?

I do not know why this matters. He never knew Jesus; he certainly was not an eye-witness; he was privy to the same information that we are; and, he did not write that letter until 60 years after the death of Jesus. Why does that count as historical evidence for you?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why do I need to discount Clement's writings? What could they possibly do for your argument?

Um... Because you inferred that textual criticism was questioning his writing...? Because when I quoted he and Josephus, you responded:

The textual criticism of both their writings has shown that it is highly doubtful that the texts with which they refer to Jesus were written by them. What's next, are you going to quote Pliny, as well?

What it does for my argument is answer your assertion that there were no first century references to Christ.

So, a guy who never knew Jesus, listens to the oral stories of these new Christians, reads some of Paul's epistles, and writes his own letter some sixty years after Jesus has supposedly died.

Ah, but how could one not ask why there were such oral traditions of Jesus... eh? And how could they have lasted those 60 years? Why were there these fanatical Christians, getting kicked out of the synagogue, having their lives ruined for the oral tradition and their worship, and then spreading out into the empire like wildfire?

Wouldn't that be the question?

You do not find it very odd that there are no documents written regarding Jesus while he was still alive? None.

Not at all. Haven't we established already that it was an oral tradition culture? There are no thumb drives with Napolean's battle plans on them. Is that odd? Does that mean he didn't do what history claims?

None are even referred to in the writings of the authors of the gospels. I find that antithetical to human nature as I know it.

That doesn't surprise me since you have shown your nature to reinterpret 2000 year old literature with your own thought. And since you have already shown a bigotry for oral cultures. And since you refuse to use proper hermeneutical concepts, such as to interpret things through the eyes of the culture it was created in...

It might be possible, but the burden of proof is on those trying to convince me that Jesus is a historical figure who was God and that the bible is the divine word of God.

No. Since you are the one claiming a historical document doesn't mean what it says, unfortunately the burden of proof is on you, friend. I don't care if you believe it or not. It's obvious you don't-- it is plain to the casual observer. Remember, what is in question is what the message of the Bible is. Since you claim it allegory, the burden of proof is on you, the one trying to change 2000 years of history and plain interpretation.

You come with postmodern claims and a priory discomforts, and nothing more. You have failed the burden of proof.

Oh, and Josephus has been routinely criticized. I like how you are now trying to defend him by simply turning to the "interwebz" which you mocked earlier (but have now used twice to support your points).

No. I didn't mock the interwebz earlier. I mocked your refusal to look at references that trouble your failed argument. (By the way, I am still waiting your Hebrew scholars per the tenses of your supposed contradictions.)

Unlike you, I am seeking knowledge from whatever affords itself. I will admit that the "textual criticism" I am seeing of Josephus is baseless so far. But I'll keep at it.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Are you really going to rely on oral history as a historical record? Seriously?

We are done here.

Isn't all history oral until it is recorded (i.e. written down? What "authentication" does writing something down add?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Linked? Sorry, I can point you to the actual Hebrew text but I cannot link you to individuals that I speak to in person (I am not sure how that is possible).

Genesis 1 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Great. Not much help there. I linked to Hebrew scholar that explained the tenses, and the troubled translation. Thanks tho...

You keep saying that I have dismissed possibilities and, moreover, that I have dismissed them a priori.

Yes. I will find you a quote:

You want me to believe in fantastical stories in the bible while you choose not to give any credit to actual historical and/or scientific record.

I will say that I completely dismiss the possibility that Luke's account of the census is anywhere near correct; I did not dismiss that apriori. I dismissed it after reading the footnote in my bible (I read the bible daily and have for several years) attached to Luke 2:1-2. I was not out searching to prove Luke incorrect, it just so happens that I read footnotes; and, well, the footnote in the bible that is the official English translation for the Catholic Church calls into serious question Luke's account. You have said you are not a historian; so, do you have something against the Catholic Church using a whole handful of biblical scholars and historians and still coming to the conclusion that Luke's account of the census still appears absolutely indefensible?

Quite the leap of logic, there eh? From questionable to indefensible? So, one publisher questions the census, and you take that as gospel, and now Luke's account is "indefensible"? Not sure how to ascertain how your brain works.

Who says I do not like God?

I guess I just made an inference since you called Him an *******, and such...

Of course, star charts mean nothing because God would have stepped in and just put that star there. Fine; in that case, your God is an ******* because he steps in to set up a pretty star and sits idly by while millions of individuals are massacred, raped, tortured, imprisoned, etc. (and, a whole lot of that **** all happened "in his name" by Christians).

Second, who are these eye-witnesses you speak of? They certainly are not the authors of the gospels; Paul might be the only eye-witness but I do not believe in ghosts (and, yes, this is dismissing the possibility outright).

John, Peter, James... This is another area where you a priori dismiss? If you deny them, then please bring data and evidence to the contrary.

Not at all; but, a lack of evidence certainly does not prove that something did happen.

You are correct. The burden of proof is on the one screaming, "Liar, liar, pants on fire".

If the authors meant their works as allegories, then I have not trumped anything. You know as little about their intent as I do. Further, these authors were not eye-witnesses to any of the events and do not point to any primary documents for me to check. There are no corroborating witnesses to any of the things they claim; so, I feel that my interpretation is just as valid.

(a) My interpretation does not differ from the plain reading of they works. Your do. The burden of proof is yours.

(b) They wrote their intent in the writings themselves. John went as far as to explain his intent and doctrine in detail, through three separate letters.

(c) You claim that a lot that the writers are not eye witnesses. John and James definitely were. To claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

It is highly unlikely, according to the styles in which they are written, that the author of the gospel of John is the same person who wrote the letters. It is quite possible; but, again, highly unlikely.

According to the styles? That's a riot! Feel free to give examples. I am all ears-- er... eyes. Remember, the burden of proof is yours. You have claimed he is not. This soft-peddling is insightful to your position.

I do not know why this matters. He never knew Jesus; he certainly was not an eye-witness; he was privy to the same information that we are; and, he did not write that letter until 60 years after the death of Jesus. Why does that count as historical evidence for you?

He never knew Jesus? This is another huge claim that carries a burden of proof. Go. I'm all ears. I will refrain from posting until you have proven this point, short of asking questions or pointing out issues with your argument.

Go for it.

 

[therealUT]

Um... Because you inferred that textual criticism was questioning his writing...? Because when I quoted he and Josephus, you responded:

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

What it does for my argument is answer your assertion that there were no first century references to Christ.

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.

Ah, but how could one not ask why there were such oral traditions of Jesus... eh? And how could they have lasted those 60 years? Why were there these fanatical Christians, getting kicked out of the synagogue, having their lives ruined for the oral tradition and their worship, and then spreading out into the empire like wildfire?

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.

Not at all. Haven't we established already that it was an oral tradition culture? There are no thumb drives with Napolean's battle plans on them. Is that odd? Does that mean he didn't do what history claims?

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.

Now at the time in question, there already was among the people who ruled over the Jews and had spread in their very homeland (among the Romans) a learned public from whom the history of the political events of the time has been transmitted to us through an unbroken series of writers, and this people, though little concerned with the religious faiths of their non-Roman subjects, was not at all unreceptive to public miracles allegedly occurring among them; yet its writers made no mention, neither of the miracles nor of the equally public revolution which caused (with respect to religion) among that people subjected to them, though they were contemporary witnesses. Only later, after more than one generation, did they institute research into the nature --but not into the history of the origin-- of this change in faith which had hitherto remained unrecognized by them (and had occurred without public commotion), in an effort to find it in their own annals. Hence, from its origin until the time when Christianity developed a learned public of its own, its history is obscure.

Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason 6:130
Immanuel Kant

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

That doesn't surprise me since you have shown your nature to reinterpret 2000 year old literature with your own thought. And since you have already shown a bigotry for oral cultures. And since you refuse to use proper hermeneutical concepts, such as to interpret things through the eyes of the culture it was created in...

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. Since you are the one claiming a historical document doesn't mean what it says, unfortunately the burden of proof is on you, friend.

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.

I don't care if you believe it or not. It's obvious you don't-- it is plain to the casual observer. Remember, what is in question is what the message of the Bible is. Since you claim it allegory, the burden of proof is on you, the one trying to change 2000 years of history and plain interpretation.

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.

You come with postmodern claims and a priory discomforts, and nothing more. You have failed the burden of proof.

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.

No. I didn't mock the interwebz earlier. I mocked your refusal to look at references that trouble your failed argument. (By the way, I am still waiting your Hebrew scholars per the tenses of your supposed contradictions.)

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).

Unlike you, I am seeking knowledge from whatever affords itself. I will admit that the "textual criticism" I am seeing of Josephus is baseless so far. But I'll keep at it.

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.

 

[therealUT]

What "authentication" does writing something down add?

It is incredibly valuable in determining specific times and locking in details of events. Oral tradition is, and has always been, very prone to automatic mutation. The written word is not nearly so prone to automatic mutation (translation being the only time it so prone), as it actually requires the intent to alter and the means to destroy all previous versions.

 

[MSUDuo]

Well, that was fun...