Spirituality
22 Apr 09
02 May 09
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…
[b]=================================
Correct -that’s because its irrelevant to the existence/non-existence of a God.
===================================
It is relevant that the people who invented the classification would disagree with you that it is irrelevant to the existence / non-existence of God. Other wise they would not have invented the at a more reasonable starting point to reason from?[/b]
=================================
Correct -that’s because its irrelevant to the existence/non-existence of a God. (my comment)
===================================
It is relevant that the people who invented the classification would DISAGREE with you that it is irrelevant to the existence / non-existence of God.
..… (my emphasis)
My above comment was in response to “….Now BC and AD as a division of world history shows the impact of Christ's life. This should be elimentary. It does NOT prove God's existence.
..…” (my emphasis)
And that is why I said “correct…” i.e. I was AGREEING with you that “BC and AD as a division of world history” does NOT, as you yourself said above “prove God's existence”. Then I added “-that’s because its irrelevant to the existence/non-existence of a God”. Ok -so if you don’t agree with the reason why I agreed with you then what is the reason why I should agree with you? Also, can you explain in exactly what way is “BC and AD as a division of world history shows the impact of Christ's life” is relevant to whether or not there is a God? (I am NOT asking here if there are/were people that think it IS relevant -I am just specifically asking here HOW it is relevant).
….Your saying "I don't recognize this Jesus Christ as MY Lord" doesn't make the non-existence of God somehow more rational. ..…
Where did I say/imply that line of reasoning?
….I haven't yet seen an alternative explanation for this impact from you.
…
Why would his “impact” require an “explanation” that specifically involves the existence of a “god“ as opposed to an “explanation” that does not involve the existence of a “god“ ?
What on earth has a persons “impact” got to do with the probability that there is a god?
Why would, for example, the “impact” of Darwin require an “explanation” that involves the existence of a “god“? -answer, it doesn’t. So why would the “impact” of anybody, no matter how great that “impact" may be, require an “explanation” that involves the existence of a “god“?
Here is my “alternative explanation” that you demand “influential people generally have a great impact on history” 😛 (this isn’t an intelligent assertion because it is TOO obvious) -cannot think what kind of “alternative explanation” you think is required but; no “God” mentioned there!
…. Do you use the same kind of logic for, say, Darwinism? Do you also say "Just because Charles Darwin convinced a lot of people that macro evolution occurred does that increase the probability of the existence of such a process?"
…
No. Where did I say/imply that I use that kind of "illogic"? I believe evolution occurred based on the evidence/reasoning but how many people are convinced/unconvinced of this is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is true.
…
I am saying that Christ Himself pursuaded a civilization of His Divine Lordship as Son of God.
…
Correct -I don’t disagree with you here.
….It is logically possible that He deceived so many.
…
Correct -although he may have deceived without knowing it.
….But I find such conspiracy theories less probable than the probability that He was truthful. …
I suppose he could have lied about that but somehow I think if he really said that he was “the son of God” then I think he probably actually believed it but, of course, in that case he was not lying but rather was merely mistaken -no “conspiracy theories” necessary!
…Most people who talk about Santa Claus do not speak with much conviction as if they really are believers in Santa. It is more like "Let's go along with this gimmick for fun."
Now grant, some people may treat Christ the same way. But I think not too much. I know of no "billions" who believe in Santa who are adults. I may know of millions who are kind of "playing along" with a "fun" imaginative scenario obviously designed to entertain the childish mind. …
This doesn’t answer my question. I wasn’t suggesting that five billion people plausibly COULD be convinced that there is a Santa! By question was:
“If five billion people were convinced by a man who claims to be “the son of Santa” that there was a Santa, would that make an EXISTENCE of a Santa any more probable? ”
- note the word “IF” as its first word:
….I think so indeed. RESURRECTION from the by Jesus, according to His prediction that this was an act that God would perform upon Him, is a strong logical case. … (my emphasis)
How do you know this “RESURRECTION” took place? merely some religious scriptures saying it happened is not a logical case that it did indeed take place. How do you know it isn’t just stores?
….And He did present Himself for empirical examination - "irrefutable proofs":
..…
How do you know this “presenting Himself for empirical examination ” took place? Again, merely some religious scriptures saying it happened is not a logical case that it did indeed take place.
02 May 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks for the invite, but I was aware of the definition and normal use of the word nebulous far in advance of this conversation. My application of the terms and concepts here have been in direct response to your use of the word, showing nothing but conflict to your assertions of either obscurity or faintness.
The bottom line here, whether eating the fruit created a new system of thought, or just gave the humans knowledge of concepts that already existed, is that you cannot hold someone morally culpable for an offense if they do not know their action is morally wrong.
It's obvious that you don't know what the word 'nebulous' means. I invite you to look it up, and then try responding again.
Instead, it appears that I need to find out what the term "morally culpable" means, as your use of it is so alien to my understanding that I cannot help but think we are thinking of two completely different terms.
How, exactly, were the man and the woman held morally culpable? Man was not capable of doing anything "wrong" while in the Garden; neither were there any morals or standard of moral behavior by which he could have been judged. With no right or wrong from which to choose, he had but one forbidden action: don't eat from this tree--- it represents your death.
02 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…What would they gain for concocting a fantasy, wealth, fame, prestiege?
[b]=================================
No “CONSPIRACY theories” are necessary to “explain” why the Gospel says God exists if God doesn’t exist -if God doesn’t exist then those parts of the Gospel that says God exists can be “explained” simply by saying “they are incorrect” -no “CONSPIRACY” theories needed!
Therefore, there is nothing "hard to explain" here. y Someone outside of it and preexistent to it, willed it into existence.
..…[/b]
I didn’t say nor imply that it was a “concocted fantasy”! -nor do I think this. I am saying they probably never made the claim that they all saw him alive after his death -read my post again -one thing I said was:
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in…”
….I'll come back to this latter. The EVIDENCE is that the New Testament that we possess today is about 98 or 99 percent free from substantial copiest errors
.…
What “EVIDENCE” shows this to be the case?
Is the first ever Bible ever written still in existence so that we can scientifically verify this? ( + can we know that the stories were accurately recorded or passed on verbally accurately before the first formal Bible was even written about it!? )
….=======================
….Do you have a better explanation how a man was tortured to death and after burial appeared alive to five hundred disciples at one time?
…
Yes -it didn’t happen
==============================
On your say so?
…
Nope. You asked me for a better explanation so I gave one (the simplest one).
02 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonRegrettably, your "simplest" explanation is not only full of holes, it suffers from the unfortunate malady of requiring the most complex convolutions imaginable in order to keep it sustained.
…What would they gain for concocting a fantasy, wealth, fame, prestiege?
..…
I didn’t say nor imply that it was a “concocted fantasy”! -nor do I think this. I am saying they probably never made the claim that they all saw him alive after his death -read my post again -one thing I said was:
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these y so?
…[/b]
Nope. You asked me for a better explanation so I gave one (the simplest one).[/b]
First, the holes. The accounts were not passed on for generations prior to being commited to pen and paper. The oldest manuscripts in our possession are, for the most part, in line with the Bible available at any random bookstore. "For the most part" is a caveat for the differences one will always find whenever translations are made to the common venacular of any given language.
Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient manuscript, there has not been one significant difference between what we held prior to said discoveries. Not once.
To suggest that perhaps politics had some sway in these imagined changes reveals a complete lack of any interface with the content of any part of the Bible--- regardless of any timeframe, Old or New Testament.
Organizations have gained power through their claims of authority vesting gained via the Bible; however, when time was taken to actually read what the Bible says, said authority and power quickly dissapated... at least, for thinking people.
And to the complexity. The conspiracy and collusion required to pull-off exactly a scenario as the Bible speaks against is one which requires much, much more than suspended belief; it requires an uncritical view of reality which would make 'simplicity' beg the opportunity to offer a clue to the one so woefully self-deluded.
03 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, your response [aside from the silly personal attacks] only proved my point. "Something less than desirable" is a vague standard, not a clear one.
Thanks for the invite, but I was aware of the definition and normal use of the word nebulous far in advance of this conversation. My application of the terms and concepts here have been in direct response to your use of the word, showing nothing but conflict to your assertions of either obscurity or faintness.
Instead, it appears that I need to find ...[text shortened]... ose, he had but one forbidden action: don't eat from this tree--- it represents your death.
Man and woman were held accountable by all those who call the eating of the apple the first sin, and blamed them for corrupting the world and all their descendants by sinning.
03 May 09
9 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==============================
…What would they gain for concocting a fantasy, wealth, fame, prestiege?
..…
I didn’t say nor imply that it was a “concocted fantasy”! -nor do I think this. I am saying they probably never made the claim that they all saw him alive after his death -read my post again -one thing I said was:
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these y so?
…[/b]
Nope. You asked me for a better explanation so I gave one (the simplest one).[/b]
I didn’t say nor imply that it was a “concocted fantasy”! -nor do I think this. I am saying they probably never made the claim that they all saw him alive after his death -read my post again -one thing I said was:
=======================================
Okay. We can eliminate the concocting of a fanciful story.
What we have as your theory is that the original document went through a long series of alterations, like the children's game "Pass the Secret". And what we have now today as the New Testament is vastly different from what was originally written.
The evidence is against this from textural critics who care enough to pour over the thousands of fragments and whole copies of the document to carefully catalog and give likely chronological organization to the known variants of copying scribes.
To quote Norm Giesler:
"How significant are the variants? It is easy to leave the wrong impression by speaking of 200,000 "errors" which have crept into the text by scribal mistakes and intended corrections. It was already mentioned that there are only 10,000 places where these 200,000 variants occur. The next question is: "How significant are these 10,000 places?" Textural critics have attempted to answer this question by offering the following percentages and comparisons.
a. Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above "trivialities," or can in any sense be called "substantial variations." Mathematically tjos wpi;d compute to a text that is 98.38 percent pure.
b. Ezra Abbot gave similar figures, saying that about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and 19/20 (95 percent) of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection makes no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage.
c. Philip Schaff surmissed that of the 150,000 variations known in his day, only 400 affected the sense; and of these only 50 were of real significance; and of this total not one affected "an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching."
[A General Introduction to the Bible, Geisler and Nix, Moody, pg. 365,366]
[b]=======================
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in…”
============================ [/b]
The above quotes demonstrate generations of typos and errors has not seriously altered the meaning of the most ancient known texts of the New Testament.
More samples of research on this can be provided.
03 May 09
2 edits
===========================
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in…”
============================
Again quoting Giesler and Nix:
"A.T. Robertson suggested that the real concern of textural criticism is of a "thousandth part of the entire text." This would make the reconstruction of the New Testament 99.9 percent free from substantial or consequential error. Hence, as Warfield observed, "the great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no variations," At first, the great multitude of variants would seem to be a liability to the integrity of the Bible text. But, just the contrary is true, for the larger number of variants supplies at the same time the means of checking on those variants. As strange as it may appear, the corruption of the text provides the means for its own correction."
[A General Introduction to the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, pg. 366]
Now, what political motives do you attribute to the following tenets of the New Testament:
1.) The incarnation of God in Christ
2.) His sinless life of 33.3 years on earth.
3.) His death on the cross for the redemption of sinners all over the world.
4.) His resurrection from the dead.
5.) His indwelling as the Holy Spirit for their sanctification and the gift of eternal life.
6.) His coming again to establish a kingdom upon the earth.
7.) The resurrection and judgment of all mankind
8.) His building of New Jerusalem from sanctified and transformed sons of God.
What political motives do you associate with these concepts ? And demonstrate how they were invented to further the causes of some political movement.
03 May 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…
Regrettably, your "simplest" explanation is not only full of holes, it suffers from the unfortunate malady of requiring the most complex convolutions imaginable in order to keep it sustained.
First, the holes. The accounts were not passed on for generations prior to being commited to pen and paper. The oldest manuscripts in our possession are, for the ...[text shortened]... make 'simplicity' beg the opportunity to offer a clue to the one so woefully self-deluded.
The oldest manuscripts in our possession are, for the most part, in line with the Bible available at any random bookstore.
..…
Exactly how old are these “oldest manuscripts in our possession”? exactly how many centuries do they date from after Christ?
….Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient manuscript, there has not been one significant difference between what we held prior to said discoveries. Not once.
..…
According to the “oldest manuscripts in our possession”, did Christ claim that he was the “son of God”? -I clearly remember mentioned from a documentary on TV I saw a few decades ago (hosted by a devout Christian) that the oldest version of the Bible known actually had no mention of Christ claiming this! This showed that this part was put in later.
….And to the complexity. The conspiracy and collusion required to pull-off exactly a scenario as the Bible speaks against is one which requires much, much more than suspended belief; it requires an uncritical view of reality which would make 'simplicity' beg the opportunity to offer a clue to the one so woefully self-deluded.
…
What is so “complex” about an insertion of a lie? Or a mistake? Or a misinterpretation?
03 May 09
Originally posted by jaywill…What we have as your theory is that the original document went through a long series of alterations, like the children's game "Pass the Secret". And what we have now today as the New Testament is vastly different from what was originally written.
[b]==============================
I didn’t say nor imply that it was a “concocted fantasy”! -nor do I think this. I am saying they probably never made the claim that they all saw him alive after his death -read my post again -one thing I said was:
=======================================
Okay. We can eliminate the concocting of a fanciful sto ...[text shortened]... xts of the New Testament.
More samples of research on this can be provided.[/b]
The evidence is against this from textural critics who care enough to pour over the thousands of fragments and whole copies of the document to carefully catalog and give likely chronological organization to the known variants of copying scribes.
..…
Read my last post in answer to FreakyKBH post.
03 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…What political motives do you associate with these concepts ? And demonstrate how they were invented to further the causes of some political movement.
[b]===========================
“…-it would be perfectly plausible that as these stories were passed-on from one generation to another they were not copied accurately and errors (some accidentally made and probably some deliberate made for political reasons) crept in…”
============================
Again quoting Giesler and Nix:
"A.T. Rob ? And demonstrate how they were invented to further the causes of some political movement.
..…[/b]
Simple: I just point out the fact that any political leader X, that uses the religion to persuade Christians that he rules over that the political leader X should be supported and never opposed, would want to make what the Bible says as dramatic as possible to have maximum psychological effect. After all, many political leaders claim to have the Christian “God” on their side and could have done so to persuade as many people (specifically, Christians) as possible to support them and to give more support.
There was an earlier version of the Bible discovered a few decades ago that never claimed that Christ claimed that he was “the son of God” but, instead, claimed that Christ claimed that he was merely “a holy man” -which doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic doesn’t it! -the motive to change “a holy man” to “the son of God” by a political leader would be that it would enhance the psychological power of the Bible and thus the use of the Bible to persuade Christians to support the “God” of THAT political leader as well as the political leader himself.
03 May 09
I very clearly remember mentioned from a documentary on TV I saw a few decades ago (hosted by a devout Christian -don’t remember the name) that the oldest version of the Bible known actually had no mention of Christ claiming that he was the “son of God“ but merely claimed that he claimed that he was “a holy man“.
I don’t remember the name of this documentary on TV but I have been trying to find a web link that gives some info on this oldest version of the Bible but so far my goggle searches have drawn a blank.
Can anyone give us a link to this? -I would appreciate this a great deal. 🙂
03 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWouldn't it be a good idea to know at least a little bit about the topic prior to making such profoundly baseless charges?
…
The oldest manuscripts in our possession are, for the most part, in line with the Bible available at any random bookstore.
..…
Exactly how old are these “oldest manuscripts in our possession”? exactly how many centuries do they date from after Christ?
….Moreoever, in each and every single instance of new discovery of ancient man b]
What is so “complex” about an insertion of a lie? Or a mistake? Or a misinterpretation?
03 May 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit"Silly personal attacks?" I think you should look back at your own posts, especially wherein you accuse me of not knowing the definitions of fairly basic words.
No, your response [aside from the silly personal attacks] only proved my point. "Something less than desirable" is a vague standard, not a clear one.
Man and woman were held accountable by all those who call the eating of the apple the first sin, and blamed them for corrupting the world and all their descendants by sinning.
The Bible is written in language of accomodation. Specifically, the understanding of a concept from one time period and/or culture is translated for the benefit of those from a different time period and/or culture. In other words, the concepts of "forbidden" and "death" were as clear to Adam and the woman as they are to anyone who now hears and understands the same two words. There was no equivocation on the part of God in relaying the consequences to man.
Anyone who blames those two are simply attempting to shift the blame from themselves. We all have culpability for choosing the wrong system of thinking on a daily basis.
03 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt wasn’t me that made these “charges“ but rather devout Christian and historian (so he must have had ‘prior’ knowledge) and “charges“ is perhaps the wrong word here for he didn’t see this as ‘anti-Christian‘.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to know at least a little bit about the topic prior to making such profoundly baseless charges?
I (like he did) am just pointing out the historical fact that can be deduced from the older version of the Bible and which he, a devout Christian and historian, deduced.
This deduction didn’t make him less of a Christian (at least as far as HE was concerned) nor turn him into an atheist so this deduction shouldn’t necessarily be perceived as an ‘attack’ on the Christian faith -unless, of course, you take every word of the Bible as not only to be taken literally but as the absolute irrefutable truth no matter what despite certain logical contradictions in the Bible -but as far as I am aware, most Christians don’t do this so they wouldn’t be worried about this evidence that the Bible was altered.
you haven't answered my questions:
Exactly how old are these “oldest manuscripts in our possession” you spoke of?
exactly how many centuries do they date from after Christ?
03 May 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSince your Google-themed education has so miserably failed you, I suggest you try an alternate cirriculum.
It wasn’t me that made these “charges“ but rather devout Christian and historian (so he must have had ‘prior’ knowledge) and “charges“ is perhaps the wrong word here for he didn’t see this as ‘anti-Christian‘.
I (like he did) am just pointing out the historical fact that can be deduced from the older version of the Bible and which he, a devout Chris ...[text shortened]... s in our possession” you spoke of?
exactly how many centuries do they date from after Christ?