or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bible

post #1 of 82
Thread Starter 
This is a academic discussion into the basis and origins of the text we know today as the Bible and an examination of the extent to which that text conforms or differs to the original manuscripts and papyri.

As it is a big topic I shall divide into 3 brief sections: opinion of modern scholars, opinion of early scholars and the Church and lastly, specific examples. Each of these sections will essentially be brief quotes/points and provide references for those interested to check independently. Hopefully enough points will be raised to debate specific issues.

To avoid any bias I shall avoid partisan/atheistic or polemical sources and shall only cite established scholars and academics as well as Christian authors contemporary or modern.

Modern Scholars

One of the most respected Biblical translators is Eberhard Nestle. He has a specific text named after him - the Nestle text - and this text is approved and favoured by many Christians even today as the standard definitive version.

See Nestle - Aland text at Bible.org.

Here is what he has to say on the issue of corrupt Biblical texts:

Quote:
Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned.

(Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments)

Another leading expert Prof. Bart D. Ehrman reaches the same conclusions independently (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture):

Quote:
theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently orthodox and less susceptible to abuse by the opponents of orthodoxy

Dr. Vincent Taylor, yet another leading expert, agrees:

Quote:
The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and those which introduce into the Scriptures proof for a favorite theological tenet or practice

All leading experts, all accepted by the Church and leading Theologians. Google at will. But what about the early Church and the texts ?

The Church and early Scholars

The following is from the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and speaks of the King James Version which had been regarded as the previous standard:

Quote:
....yet the King James Version has grave defects... was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.

Differing texts....selective use of manuscripts. But there's more....

Celsus was not a Christian but a Epicurean philosopher liveing in the 2nd century CE. He stated the following:

Quote:
Certain Christians, like men who are overcome by the fumes of wine and care not in the least what they say, alter the original text of the Gospels so that they admit of various and almost indefinite readings. And this, I suppose, they have done out of worldly policy, so that when we press an argument home, they might have the more scope for their pitiful evasions.

This is important in itself as it shows that at an early stage there was already some suspicion of the Christians trustworthiness with their text BUT it is the counter-reaction and reply of Origen (a 3rd Century Church father) that is more instructional:

Quote:
Besides, it is not at all fair to bring this charge against the Christian religion as a crime unworthy of its pretended purity; only those persons who were concerned in the fraud should, in equity, be held answerable for it.

(Origen, Contra Celsus).

That is to say: he does not deny the charge - in fact he admits it - but rather absolves the Church as a whole from involvement.

This is a Church father speaking and one of the people involved in the compiling and promotion of the Biblical texts.

Here is another Church Father, Rufinus, accusing Origen himself of alterations in the Vulgate version of Jerome:

Quote:
Last of all I have shown that he has altered the sacred books which the Apostles had committed to the churches as the trustworthy deposit of the Holy Spirit, and that he who calls out about the audacity shewn in translating mere human works himself commits the greater crime of subverting the divine oracles.......The causes of these discrepancies I have more fully set forth in the Apology which Pamphilus expressly wrote for the works of Origen, to which I added a very short paper in which I shewed by proofs which appear to me quite clear, that his books have been in very many places tampered with by heretics and ill disposed men.

And while we're on the subject of Jerome's version, here is what the New Unger's Bible Dictionary has to say:

Quote:
Jerome had not been long in Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus asked him to make a revision of the current Latin version of the New Testament with the help of the Greek original. 'There were,' he says, 'almost as many forms of text as copies.' The gospels had naturally suffered most. Jerome therefore applied himself to these first. But his aim was to revise the Old Latin and not to make a new version. Yet, although he had this limited objective, the various forms of corruption that had been introduced were, as he describes them, so numerous that the difference of the old and revised (Hieronymian) text is clear and striking throughout. Some of the changes Jerome introduced were made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this respect. Others involved questions of interpretation. But the greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by which especially the synoptic gospels were disfigured.

Removal of interpolations......or perhaps insertion. It matters not. That is solid evidence one way or the other. AD 383.

Examples

There are many and I can supply more if necessary but I think one is enough. Consider the oldest Bible manuscript we have - the Codex Bezae.

Find out about it here

It has some very interesting features - remember, it is one of the oldest we have - such as: major differences in Matthew, a much longer and different ending of Mark, and John 5:4 is completely absent. The ending of Acts is likewise not in this version.

These are significant differences from later texts. Later texts that were based on this text.

Dr. Vincent Taylor again:

Quote:
It is characterized by a series of remarkable omissions in Luke, especially in chapters XXII and XXIV, and by many striking additions and variations in the Acts.

(The Text of the New Testament)

How is this possible ?

There is only one answer and it is what is called a 'smoking gun'.

Sources

Biblebelievers.com

Who wrte the Bible ?

The Old and New Testaments
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 82
Quote:
John 5:4 is completely absent.

The chapter starts with mention of a helaing pool; this verse attributes its healing occasions to the pool being stirred up by an angel. The verse is a footnote in the NIV: the variation of source texts is freely admitted by the translators.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #3 of 82
First of all I'm not going to chase ANY links. I can find links that conclusivly prove that Dick Cheny's evil clones piloted the suicide planes on 9/11. As for googling, I dislike that -- the bijou dmz library should suffice.

If you have examples of the 'tampered' text just post them. However, as for passages that are FOOTNOTED as to the fact they "do not appeare in the more authoritative manuscripts" -- parts of John's gosple Ch 7&8 come to mind -- I don't have time for using inuendo as a retorical tool. When the "insertions" and "ommisions" are noted as such, and are common knowledge to the Christian community, this ceases to be an issue. Twisting "errors of ommision" and genuine manuscript differences into "tampering" is disingenuous.

But you choose to quote Celsus. Celsus has no place in this conversation. I know who Celsus was -- his work refutes itself. He maintained, among other things that Mary committed adultery with a soldier named Panthera -- making Jesus a bastard, that the first disciples were a band of sorcerers, and that Jesus learned the art of magic in Egypt -- the guy was a crank. His work is the first intellectual self-concious assualt on Christianity. No, he "wasn't a Christian", as you say. He did however, make extensive references to the new testament including the Gosples of Mark, Luke, and John -- inadvertantly guaranting they were not manfuactured at a later date. And OF COURSE Origen new this -- which makes how you're twisting who Celsus was as bad as how you're twisting Origen's answer.


Your use of Celsus makes me wary that you're other examples are equally contrived and mendacious.

Let's make this more straightforward, why don't you just post an accepted text that has been tampered to produce a desired effect: more money to Rome, a key turn on the doctrine of Christ, perhaps something on moral issues -- somehting other than inuenndo directed at accepted literary wrangling -- as evidence of this "tampering".

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #4 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
First of all I'm not going to chase ANY links. I can find links that conclusivly prove that Dick Cheny's evil clones piloted the suicide planes on 9/11. As for googling, I dislike that -- the bijou dmz library should suffice.

If you have examples of the 'tampered' text just post them. However, as for passages that are FOOTNOTED as to the fact they "do not appeare in the more authoritative manuscripts" -- parts of John's gosple Ch 7&8 come to mind -- I don't have time for using inuendo as a retorical tool. When the "insertions" and "ommisions" are noted as such, and are common knowledge to the Christian community, this ceases to be an issue. Twisting "errors of ommision" and genuine manuscript differences into "tampering" is disingenuous.

But you choose to quote Celsus. Celsus has no place in this conversation. I know who Celsus was -- his work refutes itself. He maintained, among other things that Mary committed adultery with a soldier named Panthera -- making Jesus a bastard, that the first disciples were a band of sorcerers, and that Jesus learned the art of magic in Egypt -- the guy was a crank. His work is the first intellectual self-concious assualt on Christianity. No, he "wasn't a Christian", as you say. He did however, make extensive references to the new testament including the Gosples of Mark, Luke, and John -- inadvertantly guaranting they were not manfuactured at a later date. And OF COURSE Origen new this -- which makes how you're twisting who Celsus was as bad as how you're twisting Origen's answer.


Your use of Celsus makes me wary that you're other examples are equally contrived and mendacious.

Let's make this more straightforward, why don't you just post an accepted text that has been tampered to produce a desired effect: more money to Rome, a key turn on the doctrine of Christ, perhaps something on moral issues -- somehting other than inuenndo directed at accepted literary wrangling -- as evidence of this "tampering".

Why ?

I don't regard you as a serious student. There is nothing that anyone can say that will turn you from a believer into a researcher. The facts are there if you choose to look at them, if not , then that is your God-given right.

Fair enough. Nothing will turn me from a researcher into a believer either.

The only mystery is how we keep meeting up on the road when we are clearly going in opposite directions. It puzzles me - I have no agenda to protect any 'belief' - in fact i adjust my beliefs every time a conclusive piece of knowledge is added to the field.

If you want to stand in the way of that you can try - but you're born too late. You've had nearly two millennia of ascendency, now it's getting dark and the curtain is slowly coming down.

This kind of faith-driven religion is dead in the water - what we see now is the last panicking screams and yells of the fundies who backed the wrong horse and even now, claw wide-eyed and hopeless at the bitter sides of the ark while the rain lashes down and the truth-seekers watch mounfully from the wind-blasted railings.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #5 of 82
Believe me, I do appreciate a challenge. But the Christian community is 1000 times as sensitive to "errors" in the Bible as you are -- to deny this, and to thereby assert that The Church is operating in terms of a badly damaged and generally poorly reasearched work, smacks of bigotry and prejudice.

You should be more sensistive to the fact that you deny even the possibility of God revealing Himself in terms of any fixed revelation. This is the real problem you have with the Bible, not that there structural flaws in that body of work. Only a few passages of one chapter of John's Gosple need to be true to establish Christ as who the Christians know Him to be. But even those few passages could be true and you still wouldn't believe it -- you see, you can't allow for ANY of the Bible to be accurate. You're still warring against the same truth that Celsus was, who did within living memory of Christ what you're doing now 1900 years later.

You should ask yourself why, after all these years, why a silly religion based on the bastard son of an adulterous wife, a religion based on magic tricks and doctored and forged documents still bothers you today. How does a relgion based on a silly forged document offer a comprehesive system of truth and be the only world religion to do so? This something not even the best postmodern philosophers have been able to do.

No, the curtain continues to go up, the world continues to be evangelized at an alarming rate, and the forces of good and evil are becoming more and more selfconsious. That is why we keep meeting on the same road.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 82
Haha, a Biblical call-out.

Unless you're just so far gone, you're going to acknowledge that it would be a miracle if the writings of 2000 years ago completely avoided change. If you have to argue about that, well it just isn't going to be fruitful. But the evolution-creationism threads may be up your alley.

But my question is this: What does it mean for our understanding of original Christianity? I'm sure some changes didn't have much of an agenda, but for those that did, how did they change the religion? It probably can't be summarized succinctly, but maybe there's a pattern. Jesus' bodily resurrection? His divinity?
post #7 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Believe me, I do appreciate a challenge. But the Christian community is 1000 times as sensitive to "errors" in the Bible as you are -- to deny this, and to thereby assert that The Church is operating in terms of a badly damaged and generally poorly reasearched work, smacks of bigotry and prejudice.

I shall address these points individually - as I have done may times before but hey, I'm bored so what the hell....

As an academic, I have spent my life in pursuit of 'truth'. I have not always found it, it is a difficult path and at times I have glimpsed it but realised I myself am incapable of the necessary honesty.

As I get older, I realise ore and more one thing: it is not the arriving but the travelling - there may not even ever be an 'arriving'. God cannot be comprehended, known or labelled. Much less pigeonholed or spoken for.

It is the easiest of tasks to disprove people who try to do all these things (and there are more of them by the day) but it is not academic excellence, it is not truth and it is not 'spirituality'. It is merely a sad measure of how fart human consciousness has fallen (and continues in freefall) that stupidity needs pointing out again and again and again.

And that's before and in place of what could be a 'satisfying search for truth' - something I believe is our purpose on this earth.

Sad. I'm very often glad I shall be gone from this vale of tears before it reaches its nadir.

Quote:
You should be more sensistive to the fact that you deny even the possibility of God revealing Himself in terms of any fixed revelation.

I do not and have never denied this. In fact I am convinced He does. I really don't know where you get this stuff.

You see, that comment is a sad example of how far you are from truth. You claim something as true n no evidence - does it even occur to you to check before making such a statement ? What is based on ? Nothing.

We have fallen so far. And again, this is all BEFORE the possibility of meaningful discussion.

Quote:
This is the real problem you have with the Bible, not that there structural flaws in that body of work. Only a few passages of one chapter of John's Gosple need to be true to establish Christ as who the Christians know Him to be. But even those few passages could be true and you still wouldn't believe it -- you see, you can't allow for ANY of the Bible to be accurate. You're still warring against the same truth that Celsus was, who did within living memory of Christ what you're doing now 1900 years later.

Again, untrue.

It is not the problem with the Bible that I have as I believe Jesus to be a messenger of God. My problem is that sick people hijacked his message, perverted it beyond recognition and went on a killing spree that cost millions of lives.

This is an existential problem for me as the reason that I was drawn to 'Christianity' in the first place was as a response to people such as these. But then I find that the very people Jesus spoke against are now claiming him as one of their own. ANd carrying oin doing all the things I first saw him as a solution to: killing, lying, deceiving, money-grabbing etc.

SO it is a spiritual problem.

Of course I am a hypocrite because Jesus himself faced the same issues, nothing's changed, and his solution was simple: turn the other cheek, become as little children.....I know it is true - just as I know that the history of the Church is the opposite of this - but I can't make that leap.

You see I am the same as the people I decry - I just want to kick some butt, to break some heads and enforce some justice.

I know it is the wrong way but I can't help myself - the least I can do is to actually tell it like it is. I am not going to justify myself and I'm not going to justify the Church.

We're all lost and the benchmark is too high too live up to. It's just that I admit it and you are still in denial.

Quote:
You should ask yourself why, after all these years, why a silly religion based on the bastard son of an adulterous wife, a religion based on magic tricks and doctored and forged documents still bothers you today.

See my points above - I find that offensive btw and if I believed in Jesus being the son of God I would see it as blasphemous. It puzzles me you should say that.

Quote:
How does a relgion based on a silly forged document offer a comprehesive system of truth and be the only world religion to do so?

It doesn't.

You need to ask yourself why you are incapable of questioning this limiting belief. There is far more that you could attain to - you think you have it but all you have is a paltry coin. You cling so tight that you cannot open your hand (or heart) to receive more.

Quote:
This something not even the best postmodern philosophers have been able to do.

Not surprisingly - because they are dickheads. Don't give them any credit. Empty vessels.

Quote:
No, the curtain continues to go up, the world continues to be evangelized at an alarming rate, and the forces of good and evil are becoming more and more selfconsious. That is why we keep meeting on the same road.

Alarming rate is right.

I suppose you never really ask yourself about the morality of 'evangelizing the world'. Perhaps you are incapable of seeing how deeply sick, twisted and patronising such an attitude is.

As a historian (although it is not my field) I often used to wonder about the Aztecs - how they lived, what they believed, what kind of people they were.

We know very little about them - and you know why ? Because their entire history of perhaps a thousand years was written on gold blocks and gold leaf. For them its primary value was that of a writing material and an adornment rather than currency.

The whole history of an advanced civilization - one of God's wonders - think of that.

Then one day they met with evil. Real evil - not the kind you continually make light of. This evil not only killed them all it could not even see the value of the culture and writing on the gold - all it saw was gold, gold, gold,.

So after killing the people, wiping out the race and destroying the civilization, this evil melted down all the records - well, so much easier to transport really.

But it was no big deal. It happened all the time, all over the globe. It wasn't unusual.

You see my friend, that is real evil.

And that is the same people who serve 'your' God, who were the Guardians of 'your' Bible and who are still playing you for a fool.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #8 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Haha, a Biblical call-out.

Unless you're just so far gone, you're going to acknowledge that it would be a miracle if the writings of 2000 years ago completely avoided change. If you have to argue about that, well it just isn't going to be fruitful. But the evolution-creationism threads may be up your alley.

But my question is this: What does it mean for our understanding of original Christianity? I'm sure some changes didn't have much of an agenda, but for those that did, how did they change the religion? It probably can't be summarized succinctly, but maybe there's a pattern. Jesus' bodily resurrection? His divinity?

Well, a miracle is just what they are arguing so you have to give them that.

The generally accepted academic position on this issue is that the pagan forces were too politically powerful at the time of the rise of Christianity and there was a consequent 'split' between the 'radicals' who spoke out against the pagans (and caused a virtual war with themselves on the receiving end of pogroms and persecution) and the 'accomodators' who sought to gain power not through challenging but by presenting the new religion in a light acceptable to pagans.

Of course these latter won because they rapidly gained the support of the pagans who already had a power base. And as in any coup, they first set about suppressing the opposition or any dissent.

Even if we did not have evidence for this (and we do - plenty) we could deduce it from the observable policy of the Church in relation to the amalgamation of pagan elements:

Mary as virgin mother of God, robes and incense, siting of Churches on pagan sites, absorption of pagan saints into Christianity, the trinity, Christmas dating....

All these are pagan elements incorporated into the new religion in order to facilitate the easy conversion of the pagan dominant hegemony.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #9 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But my question is this: What does it mean for our understanding of original Christianity? I'm sure some changes didn't have much of an agenda, but for those that did, how did they change the religion? It probably can't be summarized succinctly, but maybe there's a pattern. Jesus' bodily resurrection? His divinity?

I think you would have to doctor the passages in John that dealt with procession of the Holy Ghost, and the onness of the the Son with the Father.

The concept of the incarnation is so damaging to greek thought, and fact that people like Augustine didn't understand those ramifications make it even less likely that the texts were doctored with a self-sufficient metaphysic that no one yet understood. There was a bombshell of a metaphysic just lying there, that no one wrapped their heads around until much later.

It would HAVE to be divine revelation.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #10 of 82
segovious I have to work, but I will read your last post.

I did notice the Aztec thing, I'm reading on the Mayans -- the Spanish basically (with the help of a tratious faction) conquored them and attempted to erase their history.

I guess looking back at that period history, was the Church more or less destructive than anyone else at that time? You may hold "native" cultures on a pedistal, but all the peoples of the world lived a much more violent existence in general.

I'm running late. I'll read your post.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #11 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think you would have to doctor the passages in John that dealt with procession of the Holy Ghost, and the onness of the the Son with the Father.

The concept of the incarnation is so damaging to greek thought, and fact that people like Augustine didn't understand those ramifications make it even less likely that the texts were doctored with a self-sufficient metaphysic that no one yet understood.

It would HAVE to be divine revelation.

So, we're down from 'no tampering' to 'John hasn't been tampered with'.

Despite your earlier unfounded and erroneous suppositions, I do not have an anti-Bible agenda and would agree with you here (up to a point).

Indeed, current scholarly opinion holds that John may well be an eyewitness account (I would tend to agree based on the evidence) and that it is the only Gospel that can be so described (again this is fairly beyond dispute).

I would also agree with your analysis of the spiritual heights expressed in the book (actually it is also regarded as a precursor of modern literary technique - in that respect at least, John was a literary genius without doubt) but I would ascribe this to the author's closeness to Jesus who was one of humanity's greatest thinkers, rather than from the mind of John himself.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #12 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Indeed, current scholarly opinion holds that John may well be an eyewitness account (I would tend to agree based on the evidence) and that it is the only Gospel that can be so described (again this is fairly beyond dispute).

My understanding is that there's a consensus that John was the last to be written. How could it have been more of an eyewitness account than, say, Mark, which is generally agreed to have been the first? Are you saying that it was based on an eyewitness account that the synoptic Gospels are not based on? That I could understand (though I'd disagree).

In addition, John is the most consistent with later Christian theology, focusing on Jesus' status as son of God. I personally would prefer that John was the least accurate Gospel. Mark, for example, doesn't say anything about the virgin birth. [edit: Just remembered that John doesn't say anything about the virgin birth either.] But John definitely has a different style than the others, that's for sure. And it does have gnostic elements that the others don't have.
post #13 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
My understanding is that there's a consensus that John was the last to be written. How could it have been more of an eyewitness account than, say, Mark, which is generally agreed to have been the first? Are you saying that it was based on an eyewitness account that the synoptic Gospels are not based on? That I could understand (though I'd disagree).

In addition, John is the most consistent with later Christian theology, focusing on Jesus' status as son of God. Mark, for example, doesn't say anything about the virgin birth. But John definitely has a different style than the others, that's for sure. And it does have gnostic elements that the others don't have.

I cannot personally believe that the three synoptics are eyewitness accounts - in fact they make several historical mistakes that virtually prove they cold not have been - Luke's deadly error regarding the governor of Syria Quirinius for example when he claims he was alive at the same time as Herod. We now know this was not the case but the author of Luke did not know.

Here is a more detailed account of the problem.

Certainly it suggests that the writer was working at a later date.

Re John - I think it is agreed he wrote late in life but the actual chronology is not so important. the others could be earlier and still not eyewitnesses.

The argument for John centres around him being 'the disciple Jesus loved' whom he mention on several occasions.

I think Robin Lane Fox is the champion of this view (and he is an atheist) but it is a long time since I read him so I would need to catch up on the details.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #14 of 82
Oh I definitely don't think the other Gospels are eyewitness accounts, and I didn't mean to imply that (though I see how it sounded that way). I'm just saying that if John came later than the synoptics, it couldn't possibly have been an eyewitness account.
post #15 of 82
last disk is getting e2fsck -f -p right now, then off to the vault. I have a minute.


I did read the longer post sergoviuos, some it seems downright Barthian, but I don't see how you get ahold of what's going on in John and not end your search for the self identifying Christ there.

If you have a God who can self-identify, though I don't believe that makes you Barthian -- so it doesn't look like you've settled down, (although Barth's use of "revelation" is not the same as when a fundie like me use that term.)

(Also, we can put Quirinius in the ME at the time of the Nativity -- althought that issue is not solved definitly, it is close enough for a probable solution.)

I can't take Credit for this -- here is something a friend of mine emailed me this week on self identifying truth, comments on a book by Robert Prisig Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:


Quote:
For the past year or so, I have been thinking how the philosophy of Idealism relates to Christianity._ As I'm reading the_part of ZAMM where Pirsig is contemplating the "two-horned deliemma"_put to him by his collegues_of how Quality cannot_be both subjective and objective thought; and how he dodges both horns by saying that Quality itself produces the subjective and objective data that we receive; I realized that, in a way, the book is a sham.

The Quality way of looking at things is pretty much the same as Idealism._ He could have told us that in the beginning, but he decided to go all cryptic on us and act like he paved the way for a whole new philosophy. I sort of felt like I had been had._Anyway, He grabs the now famous hand-copied, cardboard covered book of the Tao and went the mystic route...and lost HIS FREAKIN' MIND!_

He,_of course, should have grabbed the Book of God, and simply read the first chapter of the Gospel of John.__The Word_, the logos_, is the true Quality._ The Ideal. _But then he would have to submit._ So actually, in the end he still refuses to define Quality.


anyway, must go


shutdown -h now

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #16 of 82
i am satan

oops, sorry. Happy New Year everyone.
post #17 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
i am satan

Dash and Blast --and you were right there under my very nose the whole time. Quick! Populate the barricades!



Recommendation for the holidays: Kentucky Burbon and a box of 7.25 x 46 Dunhills.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #18 of 82
Thread Starter 
I saw a documentary last night on St Nicholas and how he gave rise to the figure of Santa Claus. Some of it was quite interesting and relavant here re the topic of 'evil' and the nature of the Church.

Apparently 'Saint' Nicholas was so enraged when he met Arius (persecuted for the 'Arian heresy' which is actually a quite logical statement of belief) that he punched him repeatedly in the face ! At the Church council ! Because Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other !

Not exactly the imitation of Christ. No matter, sanctify him and no-one will question it - or if they do (or anything else) then they can be branded disbelievers or whatever.

So here we have, already in the 4th Century, behaviour that is the very opposite of the teaching of Christ, not only being conducted in a Church council but incurring no rebuke, censure or sanction and subsequently being airbrushed from history and the perpetrator elevated to semi-divine status.

Later on, after Saint Nick was safely dead and interred in his mausoleum at a monastery in Turkey, the citizens of Bari, in Italy, felt they needed to have some 'Holy Relics' to rival those of the spurious 'bones of Mark' and the 'true cross' that were doing the rounds and making millions (literally) for their host churches.

So they did it the easy way - some 'pilgrims' headed to Turkey, threatened the monks with death at swordpoint and, after smashing open the tomb with pickaxes, stole the bones and reinterred them in Bari.

Of course they built a lavish church and more 'pilgrims' came by the hundred thousand to see the 'Holy Saint', spend thousands on souvenirs and pay tribute to the noble 'Christians' that had done the 'will of God' and brought the Saint's bones home. Despite the fact that Nicholas had never been Italy.

This is one example of hundreds you could pick at random.

He who has ears to hear let him hear I think someone once said.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #19 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I saw a documentary last night on St Nicholas and how he gave rise to the figure of Santa Claus.

That's fascinating. So even Santa was in the anti-heretic justice league. Fighting over an iota.
post #20 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's fascinating. So even Santa was in the anti-heretic justice league. Fighting over an iota.



Sad but true !

He (Santa) also is another pagan adaptation apparently - the reindeer and all that are the wild hunt that passes across the sky at midwinter and his red robes are a shamanistic reference. Apparently they are the skin of an animal that has just been slaughtered (ie it is inside out and the red is the blood - the white cuffs are the fur protruding) and which the shaman wears to induce a trance.

According to the programme Coca Cola picked up on this and were responsible for it's mass popularity but it had been a motif before then. Don't know how true it is.

The 'stocking' seems a genuine Christian tradition though, it said that it derived from nuns in France who used to anonymously leave goodies in sacks for the poor in the name of St Nicholas.

Of course 'old Nick' is also the Devil but it didn't go into that.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #21 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Believe me, I do appreciate a challenge. But the Christian community is 1000 times as sensitive to "errors" in the Bible as you are --

I don't find that to be the case at all. I find most "true believers" to take the bible as the word of God, no if, ands or buts about it.
post #22 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
I don't find that to be the case at all. I find most "true believers" to take the bible as the word of God, no if, ands or buts about it.

Maybe, but they would have to ignore alot of bracketed and footnoted references in the meantime.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #23 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I saw a documentary last night on St Nicholas and how he gave rise to the figure of Santa Claus. Some of it was quite interesting and relavant here re the topic of 'evil' and the nature of the Church.

Apparently 'Saint' Nicholas was so enraged when he met Arius (persecuted for the 'Arian heresy' which is actually a quite logical statement of belief) that he punched him repeatedly in the face ! At the Church council ! Because Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other !

Not exactly the imitation of Christ. No matter, sanctify him and no-one will question it - or if they do (or anything else) then they can be branded disbelievers or whatever.

So here we have, already in the 4th Century, behaviour that is the very opposite of the teaching of Christ, not only being conducted in a Church council but incurring no rebuke, censure or sanction and subsequently being airbrushed from history and the perpetrator elevated to semi-divine status.

Later on, after Saint Nick was safely dead and interred in his mausoleum at a monastery in Turkey, the citizens of Bari, in Italy, felt they needed to have some 'Holy Relics' to rival those of the spurious 'bones of Mark' and the 'true cross' that were doing the rounds and making millions (literally) for their host churches.

So they did it the easy way - some 'pilgrims' headed to Turkey, threatened the monks with death at swordpoint and, after smashing open the tomb with pickaxes, stole the bones and reinterred them in Bari.

Of course they built a lavish church and more 'pilgrims' came by the hundred thousand to see the 'Holy Saint', spend thousands on souvenirs and pay tribute to the noble 'Christians' that had done the 'will of God' and brought the Saint's bones home. Despite the fact that Nicholas had never been Italy.

This is one example of hundreds you could pick at random.

He who has ears to hear let him hear I think someone once said.

....and then we had the Reformation. Bloodless, no, but still part of the overall maturation of the Church. Moving forward, getting it's act together more and more as time goes by.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #24 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Maybe, but they would have to ignore alot of bracketed and footnoted references in the meantime.

They ignore a lot of the coloured text in the red-lettered versions so they shouldn't have a problem with that.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #25 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's fascinating. So even Santa was in the anti-heretic justice league. Fighting over an iota.


Trinitarian doctirne is a knife's edge for Christianity. It's metaphysic hinges on on the incarnation.


BTW do you guys know how Arius met his end? "Ironic" doesn't even BEGIN to cover it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #26 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
....and then we had the Reformation. Bloodless, no, but still part of the overall maturation of the Church. Moving forward, getting it's act together more and more as time goes by.

You see, that's the point - 'getting it's act together as time goes by' doesn't cut it if you're claiming divine revelation and/or inspiration.

Ok, if you're merely human and a human system then I'll buy it but if something is perfect to start off with then I'm gonna want to know at what point did it get ***ed up and who was responsible....

Also I don't see anything ironic in someone dying in a public toilet by a bizarre form of disembowelment. Perhaps you do ?

Btw - what exactly in your opinion is heretical about Arius's philosophy ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #27 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
You see, that's the point - 'getting it's act together as time goes by' doesn't cut it if you're claiming divine revelation and/or inspiration.

Ok, if you're merely human and a human system then I'll buy it but if something is perfect to start off with then I'm gonna want to know at what point did it get ***ed up and who was responsible....

Also I don't see anything ironic in someone dying in a public toilet by a bizarre form of disembowelment. Perhaps you do ?

Btw - what exactly in your opinion is heretical about Arius's philosophy ?


We carry these truths in "Earthen vessels" -- I don't see room for much else than a lot of screwing up over the years. Even the Apostles did not understand what was up, even after the ressurrection. It's going to take time for the creation to work what Christianity is all about -- and to become truly selfconcious in what it does and sancitons.

Arius was quite the bad boy. Basically he held that God had no final word. Pretty darn Barthian/Kantian -- with no final or definite revelation. The fact that God put Arius in a Latrine is almost certainly commentary, or at least a very dry sense of humor.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #28 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The fact that God put Arius in a Latrine is almost certainly commentary, or at least a very dry sense of humor.

No, it is not a fact. It is a belief. A belief of yours - a small insignificant non-entity in the face of eternity - as am I, as are we all.

And double no, God does not murder people in latrines.

Not even your version of God - your version slaughters 120,000 Midianites because they were not circumcised, He wipes out whole cities at a whim, He kills all the first born of a whole people.

He does not fanny around in toilets.

And even then, it is not funny, so no, He apparently does not have a sense of humour.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #29 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
No, it is not a fact. It is a belief. A belief of yours - a small insignificant non-entity in the face of eternity - as am I, as are we all.

And double no, God does not murder people in latrines.

Not even your version of God - your version slaughters 120,000 Midianites because they were not circumcised, He wipes out whole cities at a whim, He kills all the first born of a whole people.

He does not fanny around in toilets.

And even then, it is not funny, so no, He apparently does not have a sense of humour.

hmmmmmmm..... Don't flip sergovious, it's just a theory.

(Be careful penetrating the mind and purposes of God.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #30 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
hmmmmmmm..... Don't flip sergovious, it's just a theory.

(Be careful penetrating the mind and purposes of God.)

It's ok - I stipulated your God so I can retain a clean conscience.

Since you won't address the 'tampering' issue (and to be fair, I can understand why not) I have another theological morsel we can wiseacre over if you like.

It's quite a simple one:

Is God (your God - or, if you prefer, the being depicted in the Old Testament which some Christians claim is the same entity Jesus referred to) capable of evil ?

I'd be interested in your views.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #31 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Is God.......capable of evil ?

I'd be interested in your views.


That's not possible to say without stepping into whatever realm God exists, and then Judging ultimately if God is evil. God is, by definition, not part of what we precieve or can comprehend. Since evil for us is disobedience to His will, technically speaking, God can't be disobedient to Himself. We know that Christ did not commit evil, while among us -- but I don't think he TRULY was capable of commiting evil, since he would have to turn into the opposite of himself. Barth and others were all for an activistic God who could turn into the opposite of himself if He chose to, but since I believe a fixed revelation of God, I have to say no.

Now, in reductionist way, or deterministic way of thinking about God, there all sorts of human intellectual motifs we can copy-and-paste on Him:

"if God knew Satan (even preordained it) was going to rebel why the frell didn't he stop him?"

,,,but I don't think the purposes of God are open for us to truly or esstianlly inspect. At some point, with an all-powerfull/knowing God you have to let go and accept that "For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
God is, by definition, not part of what we precieve or can comprehend.

But you must believe that you can comprehend God. That's what religion is, a specific "comprehension" of God. You comprehend what he did in giving his son, you comprehend through prophets, through Jesus, etc. I'd almost be with you if you really said "we don't know, we can't comprehend, we just muddle through." But you have very specific beliefs about God and his intentions. That suggests to me that you think you can comprehend it.
post #33 of 82
You cannot have a definition of God which effectively states that God cannot be defined unless you are trying to say that God is all things that cannot be defined, which I find to be an unbelievably interesting idea.

Edit: However this introduces the complexity that God is not God.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #34 of 82
There is no God, sorry.

Anyway, when's the "Historical Inaccuracies, Ommissions and Mendacious Tamperings of the Qur'an" thread start?

A little balance?
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #35 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But you must believe that you can comprehend God. That's what religion is, a specific "comprehension" of God. You comprehend what he did in giving his son, you comprehend through prophets, through Jesus, etc. I'd almost be with you if you really said "we don't know, we can't comprehend, we just muddle through." But you have very specific beliefs about God and his intentions. That suggests to me that you think you can comprehend it.

Um, you are supposed to FEAR God and never even try to comprehend him (or even say His name!). This is why you speak to Him through Jesus Christ.

Don't dare pray to God directly or ask for things or question His methods or motives.

But that's if you believe in such things. I don't. Never did or could.

I see "your" God as neither good nor evil, just commanding forces, setting things in motion. It is an individual's reaction to life's ups and downs that creates good or evil.

Why does God inspire awe? Because God has always meant "that which we don't or cannot know". Awe is a reflection of one's own ignorance. An appreciation of complexity beyond your comprehension. We experience awe in day to day life, as well as in science related discoveries. However, religions use ignorance (your awe over a given phenomena) and craft fairy tales to keep you in a perpetual state of awe/ignorance. Science and reason acknowledge awe but also educate you, which leads to new discoveries and more awe but not at the expense of your intelligence or freedom.

I do believe in good and evil as basic frameworks for behavior, both individual and group, but this "God thing" is simple historic ignorance of natural phenomena taken advantage of those few that were more knowledgeable of that phenomena than the rest. Religions are all structures of control over masses of people.

Once the "knowing" elite are in charge, seldom do they educate the masses. Instead they perpetuate their myths to their advantage, ensuring the process continues. Religion is the most obscene form of government because it relies on ignorance of the masses. There does exist (and always has existed) a basic need to govern people. However it is far less likely for one to lead people or calm a mob if the leader is merely human.

But if one can show a form of "magic" (do something the mob can't understand) or proclaim to be speaking for a particular god, then they are far more likely to listen to you and do as you command. But we have less primitive forms of government now, and the less specific they are with regard to a particular religion or culture, the better.

I despise religion's control over modern mankind.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #36 of 82
Gott ist tot
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #37 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
There is no God, sorry.

Anyway, when's the "Historical Inaccuracies, Ommissions and Mendacious Tamperings of the Qur'an" thread start?

A little balance?

Hahaha - I really so wish someone would, please....make my day

The 'is God capable of evil' thing is interesting, not just because in the OT He is running around murdering innocent people with impunity but because He knows it is wrong:

Quote:
and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah 3:10

God also repents elsewhere several times, notably at Exodus 32:14, Samuel II 2:16 and Jeremiah 18:8.

This is very interesting theologically - it shows God is self conscious of his actions, that He can in effect 'do wrong'. It is not that HE is sinless or perfect it is merely that HE is God. He can do whatever He likes.

This is the Judaic God and essentially He is us humans writ large. The point being that the OT conception of God has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the NT God (one of love) and especially not with Jesus who although God (in their view) is also perfect, sinless and blameless.

The Judaic God is none of these things - He doesn't need to be. It is enough that He is God.

It is interesting form another angle also - it shows that God changes His mind. Something fundies deny. In fact this denial is the fatal undermining of their beliefs.

Their view of an unchanging God is a non sequtur for they have to admit that He changed often in the BIble, the Bible is the proof and they cannot deny this. However if you ask them whether God could change His mind again (today for example) they get all confused and if pressed, angry.

The fact is that of God can do anything (one of God's attributes we would all probably agree) and of He can change His mind, then what is to stop him saying Right Now, something like:

Quote:
All this Christianity hasn't worked - here's a new religion. Christianity is repealed. I've changed the rules.

Or even.....

Quote:
None of it has worked. All religion is finished for a while - stop the train. You all have an amnesty, no laws, no limits, do whatever you want - I'm on vacation.

But they would deny the possibility of this with some wiseacring about sin....but if God makes the rules then God can change the rules.

I'm not saying He has or He will - just that ruling it out as a possibility which you cannot contemplate not only is a hypocrisy but it is a denial of the very religion that fundies claim to follow - for God clearly did act in this way historically and could do again.

That's what the New Testament was about -- a new covenant that replaces the old. If He decides to do it again the fundies will be on a first-class ticket to somewhere very hot because they sure as hell are incapable of accepting it.

And that is a denial of the faith they claim to profess.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But you must believe that you can comprehend God. That's what religion is, a specific "comprehension" of God. You comprehend what he did in giving his son, you comprehend through prophets, through Jesus, etc. I'd almost be with you if you really said "we don't know, we can't comprehend, we just muddle through." But you have very specific beliefs about God and his intentions. That suggests to me that you think you can comprehend it.

That is where the incarnation comes in. You effectively have God coing to Earth and making definitive statements -- being the truth, truth as a person -- so we can know God truly without knowing Him exhaustivly.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
There is no God, sorry.

Anyway, when's the "Historical Inaccuracies, Ommissions and Mendacious Tamperings of the Qur'an" thread start?

A little balance?


I think that discussion comes with it's own fatwa, free of charge. Between Scotch and Cigars last night someone remarked on the intense pressure the Bible has had to endure for centuries, everything from linguistic tests and searching for Chariot wheels at the Bottom of the Red Sea to Running finite element analysis on various disigns of the Ark.

I would hate to think of the effedct to Islam if that level of pressure was applied to the Quran. I guess the Mormons just found out that the American Indians AREN'T the lost tribes of Isreal through DNA analysis.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Hahaha - I really so wish someone would, please....make my day

Well, I really meant I wish you would someday. Surely Islam has the same types of problems as would any religion over the ages.

Note well, that I'm neither anti-Islam nor pro-Christianity/Judaism.

But it might show a nice bit of honesty and variety on your part to be, on occasion, as critical of Islam as you are of Christianity, at least here on AI. But it's your thread, so I'll shut up about it now.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bible