Originally posted by FMFYou're dishonest.
I repeat: are you serious about the Sun and the Earth?
Because you can clinch this whole debate we've had, right now, for what it's worth, if you say yes.
You make an accusation that Revelation alters Christian ethic. You cannot demonstrate it.
So you want to divert the argument to be about the autismic behavior of your child, something with which you of course have more direct knowledge of than anyone posting here.
I have seen your tactics. "You remind me of my son" bit? Nice bait. Sorry it didn't take.
Now you want to argue astronomy and say the whole question settles on the earth or the sun as the center of the solar system.
Well, that may be a safer point to dispute for you than the accusation of Revelation altering Christian ethic as it is presented in Matthew.
Can you point out to me in Revelation where a heliocentric solar system is positively DENIED ?
You probably won't because you are loath to have to read and quote.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat I did was compare the "intellectual" nature of the parroted 'routines' you drop into, to the nature of my autistic son's way of coping with the world. The comparison is valid - and perhaps I should know, as you yourself suggest - and I can assure you no offence is intended.
So you want to divert the argument to be about the autismic behavior of your child, something with which you of course have more direct knowledge of than anyone posting here.
I repeat: are you serious about the stuff you suddenly came out with about the Sun and the Earth earlier?
Originally posted by jaywillNo it doesn't. The question that 'settles' on it is whether or not I am going to continue this disussion with you.
Now you want to argue astronomy and say the whole question settles on the earth or the sun as the center of the solar system.
Are you serious about the Sun and the Earth?
Originally posted by jaywillThis is what you truly believe? Please tell me.
For all practical purposes to that day and age, and in fact in many ways in our own day, it is acceptable to say that the earth is flat. For many practical purposes there is a level of perfectly acceptable truth in saying that the sun is going around the earth.
Giesler and Nix:
"The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170). Aside from Marcion's heretical canon (A.D. 140), the earliest canonical list is in the Muratorian Fragment. This coincides exactly with the Old Latin, omitting only Hebrews, James, and I and II Peter. Westcott argues for the probability of a break in this manuscript that may once have included these books .... [A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Brooks Foss Westcott 7th Edition, pp 249-250 ] "
[General Introduction to the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, pg.191]
Around that time ( A.D. 90 - 200,) do you have a record of Revelation's canonicity being disputed ?
Originally posted by FMFYou're picking the easier arguments and deathly silent on the real theological and substantive ones.
This is what you truly believe? Please tell me.
To my surprise you are not even addressing the ones of church history of the canon. I thought maybe that was your heavy.
Originally posted by FMF================================
No it doesn't. The question that 'settles' on it is whether or not I am going to continue this disussion with you.
Are you serious about the Sun and the Earth?
No it doesn't. The question that 'settles' on it is whether or not I am going to continue this disussion with you.
=======================================
I advize you to discontinue.
I myself am getting embaressed for your sake.
Originally posted by FMFI am serious that I once read an argument that the miracle discribed in the book of Joshua implied a heliocentric solarsystem.
Were you serious about the Sun and the Earth?
I have no strong opinion on the matter. Long ago I read an argument for it.
I will only say this. A high school science teacher did say that many people look down on Ptolemy because of his predictions of an earth centered universe. However, his mathematical equations were quite sophisticated for that time.
Point being that he did not say that the earth was the center of the universe on a hunch. He had math to demonstrate it.
Copernicus just had better calculations and the benefit of more time to contemplate the retrograde motions of planets and what that might mean.
Without reviewing the motions of planets and moons as they appear on the earth, I could not debate about it.
I am serious that I read what I read.
Where in Revelation is it positively taught that Ptolemy's model of the universe was correct as opposed to helio centricity ?
Chapter ? Verse ?
Do I have to answer for you ?
You're probably refering to something in the opening of the sixth seal.
Chapter 6:12-17 perhaps ?
================================
I am serious that I once read an argument that the miracle discribed in the book of Joshua implied a heliocentric solarsystem.
====================================
The argument may have been that if the earth was the center of the universe, the cessation of the sun's ark across the sky should have no effect on the rising and setting of the moon.
The point was that more sunlight was provided by Divine miracle. In an earth centered unverse that the sun could stay in position theoritically the moon would not be effected as it continued to circle the earth.
The stillness of the sun in a earth centered solar system would imply the cessation of the rotation of the earth. Since one side of the moon always faces the earth probably the moon should stop in its tracks also.
Anyway, Revelation belongs in the 27 New Testament books as the church fathers recognized.
That's the main point here.
Originally posted by jaywillYou have no strong opinion on whether the Earth is flat. You have no strong opinion on whether the Sun goes round the Earth. You have a strong opinion that says the Book of Revelation was divinely inspired. Your opinions are noted.
I have no strong opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by FMFYour distortion of what I wrote is noted.
You have no strong opinion on whether the Earth is flat. You have no strong opinion on whether the Sun goes round the Earth. You have a strong opinion that says the Book of Revelation was divinely inspired. Your opinions are noted.
What I said I had no strong opinion ABOUT is whether or not Joshua's long day is scientifically indicative of a heliocentric solar system.
That is what I meant.
Originally posted by jaywillI mean you no illwill, jaywill. But you make your own bed and then lie in it. As we all do. Ultimately you can offer little more than the strength of your own beliefs. And it doesn't work on me. For two or three hundred years, the early Christian ethic was directly linked to the teachings of a man called Jesus who walked on the earth and died. But organized religion - technocrats - were busy wrestling control of Jesus' legacy away from his followers. Canonizing books is a technocratic, authority-affirming process, and forms a part of technocratic institution building. The reason I have some vestige of fondness for the 4 Gospels is because, embelished warts and all, they tell the brilliantly simple, empowering story that formed the basis for early Christian enthrallment and belief. But then those who saw potential status, careers, power, corporatist control unfolding before them started shaping the legacy for different ends altogether. They had the audacity to add letters from one technocrat to another to the canon and declare them divinely inspired! The crowning glory was the Book of Revelation. And to quash all dissent and hoover up the intellectual faculties of those among us who have a proclivity towards having their intellectual faculties hoovered up, they declared that this carefully layered, hyper-referencing - and hugely manipulative - text was "authored" by Christ. "Smell the glove all those who disagree... Jesus told me to tell you that I speak for him..." and organized religion has been doing that ever since - having hijacked Jesus' legacy - they fully and finally cut themselves adrift from the early Christian ethic by about AD400 or so. My belief in this is every bit as strong as your belief is in what you believe, so to speak. I actually do not have a very strong desire to change your mind. And you have absolutely no chance of changing mine with quotes from a Book I see as nothing more than a tool of corporatism.
Your distortion of what I wrote is noted.
What I said I had no strong opinion ABOUT is whether or not Joshua's long day is scientifically indicative of a heliocentric solar system.
That is what I meant.