Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on November 06, 2017, 03:00:00 PM
-
deleted
-
He wasn't big on family, by all accounts.
-
Why didn't Jesus appear to his mother?
Why do you ask Floo? Is It important?
Regards ippy.
-
Whilst it is claimed Jesus appeared to his disciples after he supposedly resurrected, there is no suggestion he appeared to his mother. I wonder why that was?
I suspect him being dead is the answer to that one, Floo.
-
She means after he was dead I presume, either in spirit or physical form or in a dream, whatever.
Floo we don't know he didn't, the Bible only gives accounts of what were considered to be essentials.
-
She had a heart condition
-
she'd gone shopping when he came round.
-
She had a heart condition
Perhaps it was because he was the one with the heart condition. Either that, or he didn't want to be reminded that he had been a very naughty boy. ;)
-
Whilst it is claimed Jesus appeared to his disciples after he supposedly resurrected, there is no suggestion he appeared to his mother. I wonder why that was?
Assuming his mother was quite likely to have been among the many unnamed people to whom Jesus is said to have appeared: because the gospel writers wanted to make a point, and there didn't happen to be a reason to include his Mum.
For instance, Luke (ch.24) quotes Jesus as saying, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" Luke continues, "27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."
This suggests Luke intended to show that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
He also wanted to show that Jesus' resurrection was a bodily one, not just a ghost or hallucination:
"37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence." (Luke 24)
-
If Jesus did come back from the dead, why didn't he stay down here instead of disappearing up to heaven? I have never had a sensible answer to that question, which makes it more than likely Jesus stayed dead when he died, and the gospel writers fabricated the story of his resurrection.
Because he came from heaven?
-
Whilst it is claimed Jesus appeared to his disciples after he supposedly resurrected, there is no suggestion he appeared to his mother. I wonder why that was? You would have thought he would appear to his family first. It does seem that his family and those who knew him well weren't as impressed with him during his life as were his followers, I wonder why that was? Maybe they knew it was all make believe.
Mary the mother of Jesus knew his divinity. He did not need to prove it to her.
What was important was to prove it to others.
-
If the guy was divine it should have been obvious, it clearly wasn't, not to his family and those that knew him well.
I don't know why Catholics make a big song and dance about Mary, Jesus didn't seem to rate her much.
I am Orthodox, not RC. Ask one of them if they bother you that much.
-
I am Orthodox, not RC. Ask one of them if they bother you that much.
And also a Jewish person when going on about the OT God.
-
And also a Jewish person when going on about the OT God.
So Christians never invoke the OT then?
Such as when condemning homosexuality?
-
So Christians never invoke the OT then?
Such as when condemning homosexuality?
The Gospels quote the OT a great deal.
-
The Gospels quote the OT a great deal.
... then of course you get some Christians saying that the prophecies of the OT foretell Jesus.
IIRC Bashful Antony used to argue that Christianity was based on the NT alone, but in that I'm sure he was in a very small minority indeed.
-
Because he came from heaven?
That’s really quite sweet in a way.
Then I remember you are a grown up and this is the 21st century.
-
That’s really quite sweet in a way.
Then I remember you are a grown up and this is the 21st century.
Yes we are so wonderful in the 21st century aren't we.
-
Yes we are so wonderful in the 21st century aren't we.
I wouldn't be in another.
-
No he didn't he came out of his Mother's uterus!
But he didn't have a human father, so he must have come direct from heaven.
-
But he didn't have a human father, so he must have come direct from heaven.
Other gay clubs are available.
-
Other gay clubs are available.
This thread is turning into a comedy script ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes we are so wonderful in the 21st century aren't we.
Take your point, religiously motivated superstition is still terrorising the planet.
-
can you hear me mother?
Sandy POWEL Coventry 1930s :)
-
Take your point, religiously motivated superstition is still terrorising the planet.
As much as global warming or antibiotic resistance?
-
As much as global warming or antibiotic resistance?
Yes, from some quarters.
And the shit we are in with climate change and ab resistance is because of misuse of resources. Not s superstitious belief that it’s What God Wants. Although you could argue that out attitude towards raping the planet had its origins in monotheistic thought.
-
As much as global warming or antibiotic resistance?
Who cares about that shit, when there is the rapture to look forward to?
-
Mary the mother of Jesus knew his divinity. He did not need to prove it to her.
Why did she have such a hard time understanding what he did when he ran off to the Temple aged twelve then?
-
Who cares about that shit, when there is the rapture to look forward to?
A Blondie re-release?
-
Why did she have such a hard time understanding what he did when he ran off to the Temple aged twelve then?
He was meant to get the veg for dinner.
-
Who cares about that shit, when there is the rapture to look forward to?
The Rapture? Is that the name of Dawkins and Krauss's next world tour?
-
Who says he didn't?
-
Who says he didn't?
Uh oh ... ::)
-
Why did she have such a hard time understanding what he did when he ran off to the Temple aged twelve then?
It was athe moment when she realised whom he really was. Think of the moment when a mother realises that her son's voice is breaking.
-
A Blondie re-release?
Debbie Harry has said that she did not like the "rap" part which she felt spoiled the song.
Yes I know this is a derail.......
-
It was athe moment when she realised whom he really was. Think of the moment when a mother realises that her son's voice is breaking.
Which is a pretty normal and natural occurrence that all but terminally stupid mothers are aware in advance will happen at some point.
Try again.
-
The Rapture? Is that the name of Dawkins and Krauss's next world tour?
No.
This might be it though.
https://tinyurl.com/RaptureLessonsForVlad
Is there anything amiss with the content?
-
It was athe moment when she realised whom he really was. Think of the moment when a mother realises that her son's voice is breaking.
You men all the stuff with the angels and the gold, frankincense and myrrh didn't make the penny drop? She must have been as thick as two short planks.
-
I bet his Dad and Mum gave him a hard time over that piece of precocious stupidity.
That’d be pretty shit parenting if they did.
-
Ehhhhhh? My kids would have been grounded and had their privileges removed if they had pulled a stunt like that and rightly so.
So you think it’s advisable to stop children from learning from and debating with their elders?
Actually the bad parenting would be notvrealising he wasn’t with them. But it wouldn’t be fair to ground a child for the failings of the parent.
-
So you think it’s advisable to stop children from learning from and debating with their elders?
If your twelve year old went walk about without telling you where they were going, you'd presumably be pretty upset and maybe a bit angry (as well as relieved) when you found them again.
Actually the bad parenting would be notvrealising he wasn’t with them.
They had travelled for a day without realising Jesus was not with them. After that, it took them three days to find him.
But it wouldn’t be fair to ground a child for the failings of the parent.
I was made aware at a very young age (certainly less than twelve) that I did not go anywhere without telling my parents where I was going. If Jesus was under a similar admonishment, punishment was certainly required.
-
As I have previously mentioned I ran off to join the Pentecostal Church at the age of four on the promise of singing and cake, my parents were great about it, and we had an amicable discussion that should it happen again I should inform of my dalliances before hand.
For the record the singing was disappointing and the cake passable.
-
If your twelve year old went walk about without telling you where they were going, you'd presumably be pretty upset and maybe a bit angry (as well as relieved) when you found them again.
They had travelled for a day without realising Jesus was not with them. After that, it took them three days to find him.
I was made aware at a very young age (certainly less than twelve) that I did not go anywhere without telling my parents where I was going. If Jesus was under a similar admonishment, punishment was certainly required.
As a parent I would feel mortified that I'd left them behind and I know my kids well enough to know that my distress would be more than enough 'punishment' - this is what happens in families where you care about each other (I did something in my teens that scared my parents - only did it once, their fear for me haunts me to this day - no punishment needed on top, trust me)) As for the rest, yes, I would want to make it into something constructive and build on their passion for learning.
-
As a parent I would feel mortified that I'd left them behind and I know my kids well enough to know that my distress would be more than enough 'punishment' - this is what happens in families where you care about each other (I did something in my teens that scared my parents - only did it once, their fear for me haunts me to this day - no punishment needed on top, trust me)) As for the rest, yes, I would want to make it into something constructive and build on their passion for learning.
Jesus buggered off for three days without telling his parents where he was going. My brother aged six once went to his friend's house instead of going home from school. My mum was in pieces for the hour it took to track him down. He got a very strong talking to as a result.
Jesus went awol for days. His parents must have been absolutely going through the ringer. I think k he deserved a good strong talking to as well.
-
... then of course you get some Christians saying that the prophecies of the OT foretell Jesus.
IIRC Bashful Antony used to argue that Christianity was based on the NT alone, but in that I'm sure he was in a very small minority indeed.
And only the bits of the NT that he liked* - thus reducing his minority even further.
*Okay, maybe bits he thought were justified by 'scholarship'.
-
Good point.
-
Whilst it is claimed Jesus appeared to his disciples after he supposedly resurrected, there is no suggestion he appeared to his mother. I wonder why that was? You would have thought he would appear to his family first. It does seem that his family and those who knew him well weren't as impressed with him during his life as were his followers, I wonder why that was? Maybe they knew it was all make believe.
There is another question that interests me more, and that is why is he recorded as appearing to Mary Magdalen first (according to one gospel), and yet little is heard of her thereafter? Some apocryphal texts suggest that Peter and others got very upset that Jesus appeared to favour her all along, but no doubt the patriarchal elements in the society of the time made sure that Peter and James took over the show.
If she'd still been alive when Paul injected his take on the new religion, she'd have probably have fared better. I hope that such a suggestion still doesn't come as a shock to you.
-
Why would she have fared better with Paul's take on it? He didn't seem to value women very highly.
I thought you might still be saying that. Read the end of Romans. He was nasty in many ways, but not a misogynist.
-
What about other verses attributed to Paul, which tell women to be subservient to their husbands and silent in church?
hmmmm? there could be something in that
-
What about other verses attributed to Paul, which tell women to be subservient to their husbands ...
Citation needed.
Oh, by the way, regale us all about what Paul said about how husbands should treat their wives.
-
Citation needed.
Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
My emphasis, but otherwise exactly as printed.
-
Exactly, only a misogynist would come up with something like that. :o
Really. Ok, lets see what else this alleged misogynist wrote
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Do you know Floo that John 3 v 17 says that God did not send His Son into the world?
For God did not send his Son into the world
So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?
-
Really. Ok, lets see what else this alleged misogynist wrote
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Do you know Floo that John 3 v 17 says that God did not send His Son into the world?
For God did not send his Son into the world
So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?
Why did you ignore Shaker's post?
-
So why does biblical Christianity still exist if the Bible says that God did not send His Son into the world?
Easy-peasy - people.
You're confusing what the Bible says with how it has been used by people, especially in social and political terms.
-
Easy-peasy - people.
You're confusing what the Bible says with how it has been used by people, especially in social and political terms.
Smacks of a kind of fallacy of hind sight where of course it's obvious that something was going to happen.
How did atheism come about easy Peasy People. Unless you think of yourself as speshul.
-
Why did you ignore Shaker's post?
Because - I suspect - the injunction for husbands to love their wives doesn't override or contradict the previous passage where wives are told to submit to their husbands in everything as he would like to think. In the marriage service it's wives who vow to obey and to serve [sic] their husbands, not vice versa. This woman is enjoined to be faithful and obedient to her husband.
They are after all - from elsewhere in the NT, I would add - the weaker vessel who should learn in silence with all subjection [...]I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence; For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
And so forth.
-
Smacks of a kind of fallacy of hind sight where of course it's obvious that something was going to happen.
History does tend to involve hindsight, Vlad - else it wouldn't be history.
How did atheism come about easy Peasy People.
Just as easy-peasily, Vlad: just people recognising that the arguments to date offered in support of supernatural agency all fail.
Unless you think of yourself as speshul.
Not I: nothing 'speshul' about recognising crap arguments - lot's of people can (but not all people).
-
Why would she have fared better with Paul's take on it? He didn't seem to value women very highly.
Not true.
Have a read of Romans chapter 16. Paul names and praises several women as being important and active in the nascent church, including Junia, to whom he gives the title Apostle.
It's true that some of the later Pauline letters show a much less enlightened attitude, towards women, but Paul didn't write them.
-
Ephesians 5:22-24
My emphasis, but otherwise exactly as printed.
Ephesians was not written by Paul.
-
Ephesians are attributed to Paul.
So what?
A passage from Ephesians was given as an example of Paul being misogynistic. It doesn't matter how much you attribute the passage to Paul, he didn't write it, so the example is invalid.
-
So who did write it then?
Nobody knows.
There are thirteen letters in the NT that are traditionally attributed to Paul. Of these, most scholars accept that seven were actually written by the same person. The other six are effectively forgeries.
-
If nobody knows, surely it is speculation the others were forgeries.
Although nobody knows who did write the other six letters, there is a lot of evidence that they were not written by Paul.
-
Ephesians was not written by Paul.
Except the last bit, of course.
-
Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?
-
Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?
Perhaps it would be good for business.
-
Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?
Do you mean, why would a forger write in such a way as to make the reader think it was written by the person that the forger was trying to emulate?
I'm sure I can't figure that one out.
Can you?
-
Do you mean, why would a forger write in such a way as to make the reader think it was written by the person that the forger was trying to emulate?
I'm sure I can't figure that one out.
Can you?
Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.
Then you have the mention of Tychicus who would tell the church at Ephesus how Paul was doing so as to encourage them (6:21). In 2 Timothy 4:12 Paul says, 'But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.' Is 2 Timothy also forged?
-
Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.
That is exactly what a good forger would do.
Looks like he fooled the early church eh?
-
Would a forger write something like "pray that to me may be given [by God] a word in the opening of my mouth..." which agrees with what we read in the gospels, that the disciples were not to worry about what to say when brought before magistrates. The early church accepted that this letter was inspired by the Spirit and therefore that the claim of Pauline authorship in 1:1 and 3:1 is true.
Effective forgery only works if it passes for genuine, even though it isn't: would you say that it might be easier to con people who are already predisposed to accept the forgery at face value?
Then you have the mention of Tychicus who would tell the church at Ephesus how Paul was doing so as to encourage them (6:21). In 2 Timothy 4:12 Paul says, 'But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus.' Is 2 Timothy also forged?
Who knows: it is a risk though, and one that would have to be assessed - how would you go about doing that?
-
Ephesians are attributed to Paul.
As is 1Timothy, which Shaker quoted and contains some of the worst misogynistic sentiments in the NT. As Jeremy has pointed out, the authorship of a lot of these is to say the least highly suspect. In fact, no scholars except died in the wool fundamentalists think the Pastoral Epistles (inc 1Timothy) were written by Paul (though you seem to have a stubborn desire to claim them for Paul yourself - gawd knows why). The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching.
Both I and Jeremy have mentioned the last chapter of Romans - now ask yourself this: would an out-and-out misogynist send a woman to a distant congregation of the Church, entrusting her to hand on his teaching? (Phoebe) And ask for her to be received 'as befits one of the saints', forsooth?
Not to mention Junia....
-
OKAY Floo,
what's the punch line ?
-
Effective forgery only works if it passes for genuine, even though it isn't: would you say that it might be easier to con people who are already predisposed to accept the forgery at face value?
Who knows: it is a risk though, and one that would have to be assessed - how would you go about doing that?
The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:
Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.
Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2372634-christians-its-time-you-knew-truth-6.html#ixzz4ynABY33X
?
-
The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:
Unable to: I have no basis to check if what is said in these letters contains mistakes or lies.
Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.
Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger. [/size]
Nope - this 'reasoning' fails on more than one front. The basis given for rejecting the letter is a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw and then there is the appeal involving what Thessalonians 2 says followed, again, by another presumption about what 'the church at Ephesus' would or wouldn't accept.
Of course forgery isn't the only risk - even if this letter wasn't forged it could contain mistakes or deliberate lies: so how would you eliminate these risks?
-
The basis given for rejecting the letter is a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw
I don't quite follow this.
Do you mean, 'The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
Or, 'The basis given for accepting the letter as genuine is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
? Thanks.
I'd say the second sentence makes more sense if you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say.
-
I don't quite follow this.
Do you mean, 'The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
Or, 'The basis given for accepting the letter as genuine is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw'
? Thanks.
The former, since that is what he seems to be saying.
I'd say the second sentence makes more sense if you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say.
Then you'd be wrong, since I'm saying the risks of lies or mistakes are far bigger issues.
-
The former, since that is what he seems to be saying.
I see, I'm with you now. Sorry, I'm a bear of very little brain.
-
:-X
-
The basis given for rejecting the letter as a forgery is dependent on making a presumption of what 'the church at Ephesus' heard or saw
Presumably if they hadn't seen 'Mr T' and received his news about Paul (hence verifying that Paul wrote the letter), they would have said something about it and we would know, because the letter would have been rejected. Unless they were out to deceive as well.
-
Presumably if they hadn't seen 'Mr T' and received his news about Paul (hence verifying that Paul wrote the letter), they would have said something about it and we would know, because the letter would have been rejected. Unless they were out to deceive as well.
You're presuming, and you could presume wrongly, as could the people living in antiquity you are referring to and presuming about: and even then there is the problem of being confident that these ancient reports you are presuming about are free of mistakes or lies.
Put simply, and even if you find this kind of stuff interesting, in view of the risks of mistakes or lies this kind of stuff it seems indistinguishable from fiction - so not to be taken seriously.
-
That could be right, but you stated it as fact instead of a reasonable conjecture.
It's pretty much the consensus amongst scholars who have studied the text and the evidence, which we could talk about, is fairly conclusive.
-
Why would a forger ask readers to pray for him?
To convince people like you that it is not a forgery.
-
The four letters in which Tychicus is mentioned show it is clear that he was well known. Would you not agree with this:
Who was Tychicus? Tychicus was not a stranger to the Ephesians. In fact, he is mentioned five times in the New Testament in Acts 20:4, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7, Titus 3:12 and 2 Timothy 4:12.
Now, in order to accept the argument that this letter is a forgery, we would have to accept that the church at Ephesus never heard from Tychicus or saw him ever again! Not only that, but we know from 2 Thessalonians that authenticity of Paul's letters was very important and the church at Ephesus would certainly not accept a random letter from an unknown messenger.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2372634-christians-its-time-you-knew-truth-6.html#ixzz4ynABY33X
?
What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.
Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).
-
As is 1Timothy, which Shaker quoted and contains some of the worst misogynistic sentiments in the NT. As Jeremy has pointed out, the authorship of a lot of these is to say the least highly suspect. In fact, no scholars except died in the wool fundamentalists think the Pastoral Epistles (inc 1Timothy) were written by Paul (though you seem to have a stubborn desire to claim them for Paul yourself - gawd knows why). The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching.
Both I and Jeremy have mentioned the last chapter of Romans - now ask yourself this: would an out-and-out misogynist send a woman to a distant congregation of the Church, entrusting her to hand on his teaching? (Phoebe) And ask for her to be received 'as befits one of the saints', forsooth?
Not to mention Junia....
"The reasons why they are considered spurious are several, but one very obvious one is that they deal with developments in the Church which we know weren't established until many decades after Paul was preaching."
Which developments in particular, Dicky?
-
What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.
Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).
I read somewhere that they did in fact read the letter but decided it was nonsense . It was then passed to a child who proceeded to fold it into a paper aeroplane and played with it for many hours until it landed in the water that Jesus waked on .
The child was then credited for inventing the first human made flying glider but when the bible was created the scribes decided to leave that bit out as it was considered too revolutionary and who an earth would believe such a claim anyway.
-
Which developments in particular, Dicky?
Gnosticism
The structure of the church (there were no priests or hierarchy when Paul was around)
The timing of the second coming of Christ (e.g. in 1 Thessalonians, it is at hand and will come like a thief in the night, in 2 Thessalonians, it's not at hand, in fact there will be identifiable events that signify its coming).
-
who an earth would believe such a claim anyway.
They were right to do so. I certainly am sceptical.
-
They were right to do so. I certainly am sceptical.
No, it's true , it must be true, it's written in someone's diary many hundreds of years ago . The idea was later stolen by the Chinese people who turned the idea into a kite which they controlled by stings .During times of conflict with other tribes they would send small monkeys up the strings with note pads and pencils to record what the enemy was up to .
I mean , you couldn't make it up!
-
Gnosticism
The structure of the church (there were no priests or hierarchy when Paul was around)
The timing of the second coming of Christ (e.g. in 1 Thessalonians, it is at hand and will come like a thief in the night, in 2 Thessalonians, it's not at hand, in fact there will be identifiable events that signify its coming).
Got it in three! Thanks for those Jeremy.
-
What if the forger was Tychicus? How do you know the Ephesians ever read the letter? Just because it says it is to the Ephesians doesn't mean they got it.
Three of the four books that mention Tychicus in your link are probably forgeries. The authorship of the other one (Acts) is unknown (I don't call Acts a forgery because it makes no claim as to who wrote it).
So if Acts isn't a forgery, and it mentions Tychicus, then it's more likely that he wasn't himself a forger.
-
Have a read of this, you guys:
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/
PS it's from your favourite website.
-
And:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp065-075_JETS.pdf
-
Have a read of this, you guys:
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/
PS it's from your favourite website.
This is my favourite bit from them....
http://tinyurl.com/AIG6000WTF
-
Have a read of this, you guys:
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/were-new-testament-books-forged/
PS it's from your favourite website.
Spud
From your link:
If higher criticism had long passed the age of constructive achievement in 1954, we can be sure that it is far beyond any constructive achievement in our day. Yet liberal critics will continue to attack the Word of God because that has been Satan’s modus operandi since the Garden. It has been an effective technique in our culture, and our only reliable response must start by taking a firm stand on the Word of God from its very first verse.
"If higher criticism" Well, it hadn't. Liberal critics will still see what can be revealed by critical methods. If fundamentalists choose to consider this ' attack', that is their problem.
The alternative you offer is apparently a belief in talking snakes and taking ancient myths as literal truth. No thank you.
-
Spud
From your link:
"If higher criticism" Well, it hadn't. Liberal critics will still see what can be revealed by critical methods. If fundamentalists choose to consider this ' attack', that is their problem.
The alternative you offer is apparently a belief in talking snakes and taking ancient myths as literal truth. No thank you.
Actually I think the two links provide a very good summary of why there are no forgeries in the New Testament.
-
So if Acts isn't a forgery, and it mentions Tychicus, then it's more likely that he wasn't himself a forger.
I say Acts isn't a forgery because it makes no claim to authorship. Not being a forgery is not the same as being reliable.
-
Actually I think the two links provide a very good summary of why there are no forgeries in the New Testament.
Except there are.
-
I say Acts isn't a forgery because it makes no claim to authorship. Not being a forgery is not the same as being reliable.
And Acts is not reliable because it directly contradicts what Paul tells us about his own actions in his letters*. Paul may not have been entirely truthful, but he was writing closer to the events he describes. If Acts says Paul was somewhere, when Paul himself says he wasn't there till months or years later, then in these instances I'm inclined to believe Paul.
e.g. Galatians 1 16-20.
-
Take your point, religiously motivated superstition is still terrorising the planet.
I think ignorance Terrorises the planet more than religion. Especially when it is a chosen ignorance due to lack of education and knowledge.
FOR MOD
Can someone set the language on the forum to UK English and not the USA English. Thank you
-
Can someone set the language on the forum to UK English and not the USA English. Thank you
What symptoms are leading you to believe we are using US English?
Probably best to PM me with your answer and I'll look into it.
-
I may have said this before on this thread - I can't be arsed to check - but who says he didn't? We're not specifically told that he did, but, as the man said, " And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
-
(emphasis mine)
I may have said this before on this thread - I can't be arsed to check - but who says he didn't? We're not specifically told that he did, but, as the man said, " And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
Saved me a post there! Great points.
-
I thought the same.
I googled and found this:-
Who are the three Marys at the tomb?
At various points of Christian history, some of these women have been conflated with one another.
Mary, mother of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene.
Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:38–42; John 12:1–3)
Mary (mother of James the Less) (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 24:10)
Mary of Cleopas (John 19:25)
-
(emphasis mine)Saved me a post there! Great points.
Glad you like it!
-
I may have said this before on this thread - I can't be arsed to check - but who says he didn't?
I say he didn't.
Jesus didn't appear to anybody after he was crucified because he was dead.
-
I say he didn't.
Jesus didn't appear to anybody after he was crucified because he was dead.
Well, over 200 people suffered a mass hallucination at the same time, then.
-
Well, over 200 people suffered a mass hallucination at the same time, then.
just because its written in a book called the bible doesn't mean it actually happened you know. ::)
-
just because its written in a book called the bible doesn't mean it actually happened you know. ::)
I quite agree, and there's plenty in the Bible I don't accept. However, Paul said that the risen Christ had appeared to a crowd of over 200 on one occasion, and added that most of them were still alive, implying that if anyone didn't believe him, they could go and ask them. Still not hard-and-fast proof, of course.
-
I quite agree, and there's plenty in the Bible I don't accept. However, Paul said that the risen Christ had appeared to a crowd of over 200 on one occasion, and added that most of them were still alive, implying that if anyone didn't believe him, they could go and ask them. Still not hard-and-fast proof, of course.
I wouldn't take it as gospel either .
-
Well, over 200 people suffered a mass hallucination at the same time, then.
Or Paul made them up.
It's 500 btw.
-
implying that if anyone didn't believe him, they could go and ask them. Still not hard-and-fast proof, of course.
Well they couldn't could they because Paul doesn't identify any of them.
By the way, 501 people saw me beat Roger Federer at tennis at my local tennis club last week.
-
I wouldn't take it as gospel either .
Well, since it isn't in the gospels, you would be quite right not to.
Jeremyp - so it is. I wonder why I thought it was 200.
-
In the great scheme of things, I fail to see what relevance Jesus appearing to his mother really has?
It would appear that if he was with the disciples and others, then at some point Mary must of seen the risen Jesus.
As all were lead by the Spirit and accepted Jesus had risen, I fail to see any relevance as to why it would be of important.
-
In the great scheme of things, I fail to see what relevance Jesus appearing to his mother really has? It would appear that if he was with the disciples and others, then at some point Mary must of seen the risen Jesus. As all were lead by the Spirit and accepted Jesus had risen, I fail to see any relevance as to why it would be of important.
I'd agree with Sass here. (Don't faint, Sass!) Mary was chosen for a very specific role - a role in which she ws unique, and blessed - See Luke. That role ended. At Calvary, Mary was a grieving mother, no more, no less - and all the more heartbreaking for that. She was an 'ordinary' believer after that; there was no need for specific one-on-one relvelation. We are not told whether she was with the disciples at the other occasions when the Lord appeared - because parchment was expensive in those days, and only the relevent facts were written down.
-
must of seen .
HAVE! >:( >:( >:(
-
Well, since it isn't in the gospels, you would be quite right not to.
Jeremyp - so it is. I wonder why I thought it was 200.
Still waiting for your congratulations. It was a pretty hard match.
-
Still waiting for your congratulations. It was a pretty hard match.
That would be Roger Federer (68), retired accountant, from 35, Sebastopol Terrace, Cheam, I take it...
-
As Mary was the mother of Jesus, surely appearing to her first would have been the decent thing to do.
As has previously been asked on this thread, how do you know he didn't?
-
As Mary was the mother of Jesus, surely appearing to her first would have been the decent thing to do.
Why?
-
Why?
Because Littlenoses says so. She never misses an opportunity, however tenuous, to slag of God, Christ, or Christianity.
-
Surely a parent comes before a bunch of sycophants?
Aren't you projecting your twenty-first century mindset onto the events of the first century?
-
Please explain what you mean by that remark?
OK: I don't claim to know the mind of Christ, but, from ther Gospwel - if we are to accept it (and I do):
Jesus, on the Cross, had already surrrendered the care of His mother into the hands of John.
Thay was a bit out of the norm - becayse the child was responsible for the vare of a widowed mother in His day; His brothers (Joseph's sons, one of them would become the leader of the Jerusalem Church in time - were still arounf, but He chose John - perhaps because John was the only one who turned up.
That made Johm legally responsible for Mary's caere in Jewish law, tradition and custom - in eggect, CHrist was surrendering his relationship with his mother.
He knew what was ahead of Him, so in his agony, He dtill had time to get things done and dusted before the end-and the beginning.
-
YAWN! ::)
Or to make one of her adolescent posts.
-
What evidence is there that John was his brother?
James. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus
-
That is speculation not evidence.
The gospels call him the brother of Jesus. Unless you've got evidence that they were wrong, that is evidence.
-
The gospels call him the brother of Jesus. Unless you've got evidence that they were wrong, that is evidence.
No, it's a claim.
Where is the evidence to support the claim?
-
What evidence is there that John was his brother?
None, I hope.
The brother in question - the future leader of the Jerusalem Church - was James; presumably the oldest surviving child of Mary and Joseph after the resurrection.
My post referred to the fact that James would have been the natural choice to commit the care of Jesus' mother to, but he wasn't there - and possibly wasn't Christian - at the time. John, James (the younger)'s brother, was.
-
No, it's a claim.
Where is the evidence to support the claim?
The gospel writers were there, they knew Jesus and James, and they had no obvious ideological reason for claiming that James was jesus' brother if he wasn't.
-
Sigh. If I pay £10,000 to Oxfam, will you do a permanent flounce?
-
Maybe he was related, maybe not. The gospels aren't evidence, they were written well after Jesus was dead, much of what they record is less than credible. As I have said boringly often, truly dead people don't come back to life, but if Jesus did resurrect, why didn't he stick around down here instead of flying off up to heaven?
Well after? Then you might as well dismiss Tacitus, Setonius, etc as sources of Roman history; the earliest manuscripts we have of them date from the eighth century. However, we have a fragment of papyrus reused as packing for an Egyptian mummy mask dating to around AD 90. Note, "Re-used" - that means the papyrus had to have been written before AD 90 - since it was worn out, probably a number of years before. It's from Mark's Gospel, by the way. How near to the events would you consider reliable? six centuries or less than five decades? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/
-
Well after? Then you might as well dismiss Tacitus, Setonius, etc as sources of Roman history; the earliest manuscripts we have of them date from the eighth century. However, we have a fragment of papyrus reused as packing for an Egyptian mummy mask dating to around AD 90. Note, "Re-used" - that means the papyrus had to have been written before AD 90 - since it was worn out, probably a number of years before. It's from Mark's Gospel, by the way. How near to the events would you consider reliable? six centuries or less than five decades? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/
Stop confusing her with facts, you bully!
-
But I don't regard the gospel accounts as reliable. Nothing was apparently written down when Jesus was alive, so the gospel writers were recording hearsay many years later, which is often not factual.
Whether you believe them is not relevent, but you cannot disregard them as documents written within an acceptable time of the alledged facts occurng.
Were you to do this, you might as well dismiss Manetho, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Bede, etc - all of whom are core resources - to a point - for historians ov various disciplines, all writing after the events they describe, and three of them only available to us in copied manuscripts which are many centuries after the events themselves.
The fragment I described above - and to which I gave you a link - had to have been written before 90 AD.
I'd contend, knowing how strong papyrus can be, that the fragment was so degraded through use that it might have been a decade or more in circulation before it was incorporated into the cartonage mask...that meansbetween 70-80 AD.
Let's assume this fragment was a copy of a copy of the original MSS. That puts the original between 65-70 AD - thirty or so years after the events it contains.
Why do you dismiss this as history, but accept Tacitus, Suetonius, Bede - or, for that matter, Shauma, Starkey, Beard - modern historians, not all of them to my taste, who nevertheless write on things which happened tens, hundreds or thousands of years ago?
-
The link says the text hasn't been published but is thought to be from the Gospel of Mark. Is that still the case?
Also it says the papyrus used for such masks was often reused. Often being key.
Of course the situation could be as you suggest but the article seems less strong on it than you are. Do you know more than is included in the article?
-
Maybe he was related, maybe not. The gospels aren't evidence, they were written well after Jesus was dead, much of what they record is less than credible. As I have said boringly often, truly dead people don't come back to life, but if Jesus did resurrect, why didn't he stick around down here instead of flying off up to heaven?
So,if we replace credible with possible (from another thread) surely the whole point is that Jesus did things which are not possible for normal human beings. Miracles. The argument that people don't come back to life so Jesus couldn't surely misses the point.
-
But the miracles he is reported to have performed aren't likely, anymore than those that are claimed by that scam merchant Benny Hinn.
How can you judge how likely miracles are?!!?
-
Oh come on, Jesus is supposed to have raised Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the five thousand and lots lot more which don't ring true.
They wouldn't for a normal human being but if Jesus was divine or similar then of course they could be possible. That's the point.
Hinn has claimed amputated limbs have regrown during his healing hocus pocus. My husband's brother and sister-in-law, who are evangelical Christians, went to watch Hinn in action when they were in the US a good few years ago. They said he was entertaining but they didn't believe for one minute he was the genuine article.
Hinn isn't Jesus so irrelevant.
-
Jesus was no less human than Hinn, imo. Even the Bible doesn't paint him as a perfect person.
Of course that is your opinion (not a fact) but that doesn't make the 'not credible, not possible' argument any better. It is a flawed argument which misses the point.
-
My opinion yes, but as there is no evidence, which can be substantiated that Jesus did the things claimed for him I reckon the default position is to be very sceptical.
If yoh make a claim you need evidence of course. To be skeptical is fine. To argue that things considered mirsvles ard not credible or possible because they don,'tnormally happen is a flawed argument and misses the point about miracles.
-
Have you actually witnessed a so called 'miracle' for which there was no natural explanation?
No. So?
-
So how do you know they have any validity, which is what you appear to be arguing?
No I'm not.,please read what I said again.
-
The link says the text hasn't been published but is thought to be from the Gospel of Mark. Is that still the case? Also it says the papyrus used for such masks was often reused. Often being key. Of course the situation could be as you suggest but the article seems less strong on it than you are. Do you know more than is included in the article?
There are a few papers on the Academia site on the fragmeent, Maeght. And, yes, papyrus was used as filling for cartonage in Romano-Egyptian funerary masks and coffins...we've gleaned quite a lot of stuff - legal docmens, shopping lists and love letters - from them. Papyrus is strong stuff - newly made, it takes a bit of effort to tear it. No-one would destroy a newly written papyrus and use it as cartonage - for starters, because it would be relatively new, it would require to be pulped to break it down and help it absorb the water and gum. Used papyrus - papyrus that has been handled a lot; in other words, scrap paper, makes far better base material for cartonage. Therefore, given thatthis mask cannot be dated after AD90, it had to have been composed of papyrus which had seen better days...papyrus which was no longer fit for purpose. Wouldn't you say that puts an earlier date on when the actual papyrus was copied?
-
There are a few papers on the Academia site on the fragmeent, Maeght. And, yes, papyrus was used as filling for cartonage in Romano-Egyptian funerary masks and coffins...we've gleaned quite a lot of stuff - legal docmens, shopping lists and love letters - from them. Papyrus is strong stuff - newly made, it takes a bit of effort to tear it. No-one would destroy a newly written papyrus and use it as cartonage - for starters, because it would be relatively new, it would require to be pulped to break it down and help it absorb the water and gum. Used papyrus - papyrus that has been handled a lot; in other words, scrap paper, makes far better base material for cartonage. Therefore, given thatthis mask cannot be dated after AD90, it had to have been composed of papyrus which had seen better days...papyrus which was no longer fit for purpose. Wouldn't you say that puts an earlier date on when the actual papyrus was copied?
I'd say it is possible yes. What do the papers on the Academia site say?
-
Anyway as far as I am concerned Jesus died 2000 years ago and stayed dead, end of story.
Do you accept that that is your opinion and not a fact?
Do you accept that the 'not credible, not possible' argument is flawed?
-
Of course it is my opinion. It is MY opinion a truly dead person doesn't come back to life again, and it will stay my opinion until there is verifiable evidence to the contrary.
Not a fact was the key part of the question.
And do you accept that the 'not credible, not possible' argument is flawed? It appears not since you have repeated it above.
-
I'd say it is possible yes. What do the papers on the Academia site say?
I take it, then, that you retract your earlier assertion - in the light of evidence - that the earliest accounts of Jesus were written, as you put it, "Hundreds of years" after the events?
-
I take it, then, that you retract your earlier assertion - in the light of evidence - that the earliest accounts of Jesus were written, as you put it, "Hundreds of years" after the events?
Not me your honour :-)
-
Not me your honour :-)
Dammit!
Pressed my quote link at the wrong bit....I've just reconfigured the layout of this thin g on my computer, and I'm still shouting at it.
Please ignore that bit....
....on the other hand....
Littleroses, it was meant for you!
-
Dammit!
Pressed my quote link at the wrong bit....I've just reconfigured the layout of this thin g on my computer, and I'm still shouting at it.
Please ignore that bit....
No probs.
-
March 10, 2018, 12:04:19 PM in reply to Anchorman on this thread:
LR:But I don't regard the gospel accounts as reliable. Nothing was apparently written down when Jesus was alive, so the gospel writers were recording hearsay many years later, which is often not factual.
-
Precisely, I said many years later, I didn't say hundreds of years.
So how many years is 'many'? 290? 30? 50?
I wouldn't say my memory's that bad....I can easily remember the events of thirty five or so years ago quite well.
That's well within the scope of the original writer of Mark, if the Egypt example is a very used copy of a copy datingonly 60 or so years after the event.
-
I seem to remember being taught the gospels were written between sixty and a hundred & something years AD. More info regarding dates may have come to light since then though.
-
I seem to remember being taught the gospels were written between sixty and a hundred & something years AD. More info regarding dates may have come to light since then though.
Yep. But until this fragment turned up, the earliest fragment we have dates from the mid-late second century.
This scrap of throw-away papyrus simply confirms what we already suspected; that Mark was probably down in papyrus less thanfifty years after the Resurrection.
-
Do you accept that that is your opinion and not a fact?
Do you accept that the 'not credible, not possible' argument is flawed?
Well it is a fact unless he didn’t exist at all.
-
I can also remember events going back to my birth 68 years ago, however, I certainly can't remember the exact words that were said to me even last week. So if nothing was written down when Jesus was supposed to have said it, which apparently it wasn't, it is unlikely they were able to write down word for word what he said, or even interpret it correctly. As for the events attributed to Jesus, how do we know they weren't highly exaggerated, or made up?
".....which apparently it wasn't".
Oh?
Do you have some knowledge the rest of us don't?
Sorry, LR, rhat's simply speculation with no evidence.
We simply don't know whether anyone was writing down the events.
To speculate or assume here simply muddies the waters.
All we can do here is deal with the evidence - a very early genuine fragment of a Gospel, rather than evedince we don't know exists - or did not exist.
-
What evidence is there that anyone wrote up what that guy was saying and doing while he was still breathing? The gospels were written well after he died. And even if so called eye witnesses fed them the information, how do we know they didn't exaggerate it, were mistaken or lied? Just because people were followers of Jesus doesn't necessarily mean they were upright citizens who wouldn't tell a porky if it furthered their own interests.
I was merely pointing out that you cannot assume no such accounts were written down at the time; that's bad history.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
All we CAN do is work with the available evidence, citing it and adding any slant we care to put on it.
As I pointed out, -in my opinion, which I'm willing to accept isn't evidence, the fragment dating from AD 90 puts the original MSS somewhere between Ad 55-665, assuming this fragment is a copy of a copy, taking into account usage, wear and tear, etc.
-
You have your opinion about Jesus, to which you are entitled, I have mine based on my experience of Christianity when I was a believer as a kid. It Jesus was all that is claimed for him in the Bible why didn't I ever have a sign he existed when I begged and prayed for him to be there for me?
What has that to do with evaluating the evidence we have before us? Isn't that a separate thread?
-
Well it is a fact unless he didn’t exist at all.
What?
-
HAVE! >:( >:( >:(
AND? When you have the life and responsibilities I have and walked a mile in my shoes then you would not write such petty and unimportant posts.
-
As Mary was the mother of Jesus, surely appearing to her first would have been the decent thing to do.
Come on Roses you are better than that?! :o
-
Maybe he was related, maybe not. The gospels aren't evidence, they were written well after Jesus was dead, much of what they record is less than credible. As I have said boringly often, truly dead people don't come back to life, but if Jesus did resurrect, why didn't he stick around down here instead of flying off up to heaven?
Well, if you had read the BIBLE you would not be asking such questions... but then again what evidence is there you have read the bible?
Because you don't have the wisdom to work things out for yourself, you should not judge those who do. :)
-
No, it's a claim.
Where is the evidence to support the claim?
Why doesn't the gospel record count?
-
Why doesn't the gospel record count?
Evidence really needs to be facts. We cannot consider the reports in the Bible to be facts.
-
What?
That Jesus died 2000 years ago.
If Jesus existed, he lived and died 2,000 years ago. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't die 2,000 years ago.
-
That Jesus died 2000 years ago.
If Jesus existed, he lived and died 2,000 years ago. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't die 2,000 years ago.
But what was said was '...... Jesus died 2000 years ago and stayed dead ...' You're post seems to refer to the first part but to ignore the second.
-
But what was said was '...... Jesus died 2000 years ago and stayed dead ...' You're post seems to refer to the first part but to ignore the second.
If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option. That is a fact.
-
If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option.
Unless a miracle takes place
That is a fact.
No its not.
-
If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option. That is a fact.
That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?
-
That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?
He doesn't.
-
That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?
It's an observed fact.
Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.
Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.
-
He doesn't.
As far as it's possible to be certain, we know dead things do not come back to life. If Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, he also died 2,000 years ago, just like everybody else who lived at that time.
-
It's an observed fact.
Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.
Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.
Indeed, but then no one is claiming that the resurrection is a natural phenomenon.
-
It's an observed fact.
Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.
Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.
Irrelevant if a miracle occurred.
-
Irrelevant if a miracle occurred.
EVERYTHING is irrelevant if MAGIC happens.
We do not accept the claim of magic, just because someone proposes it.
-
EVERYTHING is irrelevant if MAGIC happens.
We do not accept the claim of magic, just because someone proposes it.
I'm not asking anyone to accept it but to argue that a miracle couldn't happen because they don't normally happened is a flawed argument.
-
Indeed, but then no one is claiming that the resurrection is a natural phenomenon.
Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?
Regards ippy
-
Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?
Regards ippy
Eh?
-
Eh?
Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?
Explain the anything else involved with this coming back to life you speak of only at the moment believers seem to think the idea of supposedly coming back to life is perfectly acceptable, almost normal, why?
Regards ippy
-
Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?
Explain the anything else involved with this coming back to life you speak of only at the moment believers seem to think the idea of supposedly coming back to life is perfectly acceptable, almost normal, why?
Regards ippy
It is something we accept by faith, with that faith being approved by the life of the Church and its saints.
-
Just because the church approves of it doesn't give it any credibility.
Which isn't, of course, dealing with the flaw in the argument that dead people don't come alive based on naturalistic induction,does not preclude some for of non naturalistic resurrection.
ETA - it doesn't actually preclude a naturalistic happening either due to the problem of induction
-
I'm not asking anyone to accept it but to argue that a miracle couldn't happen because they don't normally happened is a flawed argument.
If you are claiming God can do magic, there's no point in having a discussion at all. You have just destroyed the basis of rational discourse. As Stephen Law would say, you invoked the nuclear option.
-
Irrelevant if a miracle occurred.
Or to put it another way, if God can do magic, how do you know that he didn't just place illusions into his followers' heads so they just believed Jesus rose from the dead when he didn't.
Perhaps Jesus never existed at all and everything about him was manufactured last Thursday and our memories altered to make us believe the whole of fabricated Christian history really happened.
As soon as you invoke "God can do miracles" all of the above possibilities become just as plausible as each other and there is no way to argue for or against any particular one.
-
Jeremy is quite right. The supernatural has no limits. You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.
-
Jeremy is quite right. The supernatural has no limits. You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.
He's correct in that, just it's irrelevant to Maeght's position. You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning which is what Maeght has been pointing out.
-
If you are claiming God can do magic, there's no point in having a discussion at all. You have just destroyed the basis of rational discourse. As Stephen Law would say, you invoked the nuclear option.
I'm not claiming God can, but you can't rule it out. And as I said before though, if the conclusion from that is that you can't have a logical discussion then so be it. You shouldn't discount that just so you can have a discussion.
-
Jeremy is quite right. The supernatural has no limits. You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.
Agreed.
-
He's correct in that, just it's irrelevant to Maeght's position. You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning which is what Maeght has been pointing out.
Absolutely.
-
Does A B know about this, oh hang on a minute I forgot he thinks he's on the blower to him 24/7, must be because thinks his god thingy of his makes him, oh no, hang on again, could be A B thinks he's been assigned free will, could be?
-
Does A B know about this, oh hang on a minute I forgot he thinks he's on the blower to him 24/7, must be because thinks his god thingy of his makes him, oh no, hang on again, could be A B thinks he's been assigned free will, could be?
Know about what?
-
Know about what?
Keep up Maeght, read a few of the previous posts, two or three should do it.
Regards ippy
-
How has this trivial and pointless thread made it to 10 pages?
-
How has this trivial and pointless thread made it to 10 pages?
A miracle, perhaps?
-
Keep up Maeght, read a few of the previous posts, two or three should do it.
Regards ippy
Easier if you explained yourself.
-
Jealous? ;D The 'Searching for God' thread has reached well over 500 pages! Why have you posted on this thread if you think it is pointless? ::)
The 'Searching for God' thread is neither trivial nor pointless. Otherwise, touche.
-
Steve H,
The 'Searching for God' thread is neither trivial nor pointless. Otherwise, touche.
Just out of interest, as all AB has there is "it's magic" too (plus some very bad arguments) why do you think that?
-
I'm not claiming God can, but you can't rule it out.
Yes you can. I rule it out, not because it's impossible, but because it makes it impossible to reason about the Universe.
-
Jealous? ;D The 'Searching for God' thread has reached well over 500 pages! Why have you posted on this thread if you think it is pointless? ::)
On the standard number of 25 messages per page, it has reached 1118 pages. The last reply was 27,943.
-
A miracle, perhaps?
Don't look at me.
-
Yes you can. I rule it out, not because it's impossible, but because it makes it impossible to reason about the Universe.
That's not a reason to rule it out.
-
That's not a reason to rule it out.
Yes it is.
-
You rule it out because it stops you reasoning about the Universe. So basically you rule it out because you want to.
-
God,
Don't look at me.
Hello God - nice to see you take time out from giving brain cancer to babies finally turn up here. I have lots for questions for you if that's OK, starting with:
1. How do you explain bad things happening to good people (ie, the problem of "evil")?
2. Why have you been hiding all this time?
3. Why have you given the people who've asserted your existence such terrible arguments to do the job?
Thanks
-
You rule it out because it stops you reasoning about the Universe. So basically you rule it out because you want to.
Yes, that's a pretty good reason to rule it out. I want to reason about the Universe, I do not want to be sitting around saying "godidit".
Notice that, by ruling it out, we have made really good progress in understanding the Universe. I'd say that's good evidence that the Universe does not have miracles in it, but of course, God could have designed it to look like there are no miracles.
-
Maeght,
You rule it out because it stops you reasoning about the Universe. So basically you rule it out because you want to.
No, you can rule it out because there's nothing to rule in - it's incoherent, white noise etc so not truth apt.
-
Maeght,
No, you can rule it out because there's nothing to rule in - it's incoherent, white noise etc so not truth apt.
Nonsense.
-
Easier if you explained yourself.
Even easier if you explained why you seem to not understand what seems obvious to others.
I think it's you that needs to do the explaining why you don't understand, unless you're one of the posters that doesn't understand anything short of a multi paged thesis.
Regards ippy
-
Yes, that's a pretty good reason to rule it out. I want to reason about the Universe, I do not want to be sitting around saying "godidit".
So you can decide not to consider it but you can't rule it out of any discussions if others are happy to rule it in.
Notice that, by ruling it out, we have made really good progress in understanding the Universe. I'd say that's good evidence that the Universe does not have miracles in it, but of course, God could have designed it to look like there are no miracles.
Indeed, it is possible.
-
Maeght,
Nonsense.
Fine, so perhaps you'd like to be the first person ever to provide a coherent definition for "God" then so we'd finally have something that at least conceptually could be an answer to something.
-
Even easier if you explained why you seem to not understand what seems obvious to others.
I think it's you that needs to do the explaining why you don't understand, unless you're one of the posters that doesn't understand anything short of a multi paged thesis.
Regards ippy
It wasn't clear what you wondered Alan might or might not know about.
That 'You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning'
That 'The supernatural has no limits. You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.'
That 'Or to put it another way, if God can do magic, how do you know that he didn't just place illusions into his followers' heads so they just believed Jesus rose from the dead when he didn't.'
All points made in posts before yours.
-
Maeght,
Fine, so perhaps you'd like to be the first person ever to provide a coherent definition for "God" then so we'd finally have something that at least conceptually could be an answer to something.
What relevance does that have to whether or not you can discount miracles on the basis of such things not normally happening?
-
So you can decide not to consider it but you can't rule it out of any discussions if others are happy to rule it in.
If you want to have a discussion using reason and evidence, you have to rule out the possibility that there is a God behind the scenes just making stuff up. As soon as you say "for God, all things are possible", that's the end of the conversation.
Although I have to ask, if all things are possible for God, why was it necessary to have Jesus crucified?
-
If you want to have a discussion using reason and evidence, you have to rule out the possibility that there is a God behind the scenes just making stuff up. As soon as you say "for God, all things are possible", that's the end of the conversation.
So you are ruling something out just so you can have a discussion?
Although I have to ask, if all things are possible for God, why was it necessary to have Jesus crucified?
No idea. As a theologian perhaps. I'm sure they'll come up with something.
-
So you are ruling something out just so you can have a discussion?
Essentially yes, although it goes much further than that. All of science relies on the implicit assumption that there is God does not perform arbitrary miracles.
-
Maeght,
What relevance does that have to whether or not you can discount miracles on the basis of such things not normally happening?
It's relevant because "miracle" is incoherent so isn't "not normally happening" apt.
-
Essentially yes, although it goes much further than that.
Trouble is I really don't see much discussion going on anyway. Rather each 'side' makes its arguments from different world view pints and we go round and round. To me the only point of this forum is to point out mistaken ideas on evolution, science,and what atheism is. The rest is generally pointless.
All of science relies on the implicit assumption that there is God does not perform arbitrary miracles.
I don't think Science does God. It makes observations on the natural world but doesn't rule out other stuff.
-
Maeght,
It's relevant because "miracle" is incoherent so isn't "not normally happening" apt.
Which has nothing to do with a definition of God does it?
Could you explain why this is incoherent and what you mean.
-
Maeght,
Which has nothing to do with a definition of God does it?
Could you explain why this is incoherent and what you mean.
It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).
"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".
In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.
-
It wasn't clear what you wondered Alan might or might not know about.
That 'You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning'
That 'The supernatural has no limits. You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.'
That 'Or to put it another way, if God can do magic, how do you know that he didn't just place illusions into his followers' heads so they just believed Jesus rose from the dead when he didn't.'
All points made in posts before yours.
Ref j p's post 226, how can the suggestion offered in post 226 be ruled out of a selection of possibilities?
When you look at the things A B persistently adheres to throughout all of his posts, why this needs to be explained I don't know, it's hardly surprising he manages to attract some flack, there are several posters giving him some flack, now do you understand or are you completely without humour, does everything have to be written as though we are writing a watertight legal document? There are times when you're allowed to lighten up Maeght.
Regards ippy
-
Maeght,
It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).
"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".
Don't see what it has to do with it, but there you go.
In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.
They do. One of the many unspoken games on here.
-
Ref j p's post 226, how can the suggestion offered in post 226 be ruled out of a selection of possibilities?
Who ruled it out?
When you look at the things A B persistently adheres to throughout all of his posts, why this needs to be explained I don't know, it's hardly surprising he manages to attract some flack, there are several posters giving him some flack, now do you understand or are you completely without humour, does everything have to be written as though we are writing a watertight legal document? There are times when you're allowed to lighten up Maeght.
Regards ippy
I'm not without humour thanks. Just couldn't see any in your post or really understand the point you were trying to make. Suggesting people don't have a sense of humour and telling them to lighten up when they don't get a post you made is a common defensive mechanism and a disappointing one to see you use.
-
Maeght,
It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).
"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".
In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.
A lot of the time the discussions are around what the concept of God means to individual theists - other theists seem to not really have a problem understanding what the concept means to the theist who is using the term, even though every theist might not share the same concept, because there is a shared understanding that God is expressed through ideas and stories, rather than something to be measured and tested.
For example, in Islam the concept involves monotheism and Allah is described as the eternal, the absolute, who begets not, nor is begotten (which is just another way of saying eternal) and that there is nothing else like Allah.
-
Who ruled it out?
I'm not without humour thanks. Just couldn't see any in your post or really understand the point you were trying to make. Suggesting people don't have a sense of humour and telling them to lighten up when they don't get a post you made is a common defensive mechanism and a disappointing one to see you use.
You say you're not without humour, nor am trying to write watertight legal documents here.
Regards ippy
-
You say you're not without humour, nor am trying to write watertight legal documents here.
Regards ippy
Have never asked you to.
-
A lot of the time the discussions are around what the concept of God means to individual theists - other theists seem to not really have a problem understanding what the concept means to the theist who is using the term, even though every theist might not share the same concept, because there is a shared understanding that God is expressed through ideas and stories, rather than something to be measured and tested.
For example, in Islam the concept involves monotheism and Allah is described as the eternal, the absolute, who begets not, nor is begotten (which is just another way of saying eternal) and that there is nothing else like Allah.
I think after stating that God isn't defined or definable Hillside then goes on to define God as that which is logically contradictory. He then uses his usual ruse of reeling of examples of the logical contradictory as proof of his assertion. Shoddy I know but he thinks he has covered his bases.
-
I think after stating that God isn't defined or definable Hillside then goes on to define God as that which is logically contradictory. He then uses his usual ruse of reeling of examples of the logical contradictory as proof of his assertion. Shoddy I know but he thinks he has covered his bases.
The stupidity is deep with this one.
1. I have no idea what I mean by “leprechauns”.
2. Leprechauns are musical.
3. Leprechauns are tone deaf.
-
The stupidity is deep with this one.
1. I have no idea what I mean by “leprechauns”.
2. Leprechauns are musical.
3. Leprechauns are tone deaf.
Now Hillside is chasing the Base by entertainingly plucking Leprechauns out of his philosophical spiv's overcoat and making them do tricks.
-
4. Leprechauns are the real gods. ;D
Hillside is a devotee.
-
Now Hillside is chasing the Base by entertainingly plucking Leprechauns out of his philosophical spiv's overcoat and making them do tricks.
The random word generator is working well this morning.
-
They are as likely, or not, to exist as god.
Now there's a novel contribution to the discussion. Never heard that point made before.
-
They are as likely, or not, to exist as god.
You are talking about the Hillsidean Leprechaun. A philosophical shapeshifter which starts off in a Hillsidean argument as a jolly little figure of ridicule and ends up having created the universe, being the platonic One, the supreme entelechy and ground of being while still maintaining his ridiculous nature.
Indeed the Hillsidean Leprechaun is so definitionally flexible they are thinking of using them in chewing gum.
-
You are talking about the Hillsidean Leprechaun. A philosophical shapeshifter which starts off in a Hillsidean argument as a jolly little figure of ridicule and ends up having created the universe, being the platonic One, the supreme entelechy and ground of being while still maintaining his ridiculous nature.
Indeed the Hillsidean Leprechaun is so definitionally flexible they are thinking of using them in chewing gum.
In which Vladdo:
1. Continues to lie about the point of the leprechaun analogy - ie, that arguments that produce with equal facility "god" and leprechauns are probably bad arguments; and
2. Misses entirely the jaw-dropping irony of his own explanations of what he means by "God" changing more often than he changes his socks.
Priceless!
-
The Biblical god is no more credible, it is anything you wish it to be, hence all the different doctrines, dogmas sect and cults associated with it.
Hillside doesn't believe in Leprechauns LR they are his party piece for the easily pleased on this board. The philosophical equivalent of being able to jiggle your ears at a birthday party.
-
Hillside doesn't believe in Leprechauns LR they are his party piece for the easily pleased on this board. The philosophical equivalent of being able to jiggle your ears at a birthday party.
The lying is strong today. What "they" - ie, the point in logic they illustrate - are actually equivalent to is more like Russel's teapot. It's a point in logic, not about the properties that leprechauns (or orbiting teapots) might have.
Sadly Vladdo has never understood (or has always lied about) the meaning of "analogy", so the point is forever lost on him.
-
I am good at repetition, as my husband keeps informing me. ;D
You need to work on that I feel.
-
Really. Ok, lets see what else this alleged misogynist wrote
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
None of which alters the fact that he told women to be subservient to their husbands.