Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 11 2010 at 17:45
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
He explains why it does matter whether Jesus got crucified on the day before passover, or on the day of passover. You may shrug these things off by calling them minor, but they all form a consistent picture
Ehrman also explains thatdifferent Jews celebrate Passover in different days of the week (Page 27), because some groups believed that the Temple Jews had an incorrect calendar.
Then he GUESSES that this is impossible because all this issues happened inside Jerusalem and all the Jews there followed the Temple Calendar.....BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW IF THE SCRIBE THAT COPIED OR TRANSLATED MARK AND/OR JOHN'S NARRATIONS OF THE EVENTS WAS PART OF ONE OF THIS SECTARIAN GROUPS THAT REFUSED THE TEMPLE'S CALENDAR, AND FOR THAT REASON ADJUSTED THE DATE TO FIT THEIR BELIEFS.
Everything as two sides and several possibilities.
I'll give you an example, read a HISTORY book about Perú, Bolivia and Chile war written by a Peruvian and another wrote by a Chilean, you will find heroic acts where we find treason and abuse, this books seem written about two different wars....And we are talking about historical events that happened in the late 1800's, not 2,000 years ago.
But the mean point is that the Combat of Angamos happened and Miguel Grau died on it, in the same way, the important issue is that Jesus died in the previous or even next day of Passover depending on the beliefs of the writer.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
There's nothing special about Christianity. It started small, the central stories and concepts got beefed up over the decades, and centuries later it happened to be endorsed by the Roman empire. . .
Of course Mike, Jesus was the Messiah rejected and outlawed by his own people, few followed him, in a land where it was a risk to follow him, and this few spread the good news,
It's also important to know Jesus didn't even wanted to create Christianity, he was a Jew and he wanted to changed some bases of traditional Judaism, but despite all the problems he had to face;, his acts and words transcended this hostile environment and grew to be the largest(or one of the largest) religion in the world.
That's how religions, theories and knowledge start, at the beginning, only a few know the truth, remember, Darwin's theory started in Darwin's mind, and then spread to the rest of the world, the inverse process is very rare.
Yes, some data has been lost and other data has been added through bad copies and inaccurate translations, we all know that, but the essence of his message survived.
But this is only so contradictory for those who want to see each Gospel as a History text,....No, Christianity is the final product of all the Gospels and the events of the first centuries after Jesus death and resurrection.
At the end, who cares if Peter denied one, three or six times, that's only important for Peter, the fact is that Jesus announced that Peter would deny him and this happened, the rest is secondary.
Mr P¨rogFreak wrote:
Look at it this way: When seen from this perspective, all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. When seen from your perspective though, you'll have to construct a plethora of excuses and far-fetched explanations in order to make it all work - sort of. And you haven't even yet reached the really far out there ideas of Catholicism - or the principle of the holy trinity which was established centuries after the new testament had been written
Mike: The Holy Trinity is not a concept created centuries later, it's in the Bible:
The Farther: Luke 23: 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.
The Son: Luke 2: 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
The Holy Spirit: John20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
The three persons of the Holy Trinity are present in the Gospels, the Church later gave form to this mystery, but the concept is in the Bible.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And finally, the best evidence for the inconsistencies and their irreconcilable nature is the fact that even two millennia later the factions of Christianity remain - irreconcilable on major issues
Mike, that's a very complex problem that ivolves interpretation, schisms, politics and many different issues, this proves nothing except that The Bible is not a literal text that will be understood in the same way by everybody.
But at the end, if you read the different Bibles (King James, Catholic, etc) the central issues of our faiths are there.
And even if what you say what's true, the disagreements only prove that humans will hardly agree on anything.
But don't worry, soon Catholics, Orthodox, some Luterans and some groups of Anglicans will be closer than ever.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: August 11 2010 at 18:00
How do we judge what is safe practice in our jobs? If someone makes a mistake it's not about a culture of blame, but educating people and making sure the mistake isn't repeated. The question isn't whether to judge, but how to judge.
Do not judge so that you will not be judged... this is a warning against hypocrisy, that you should deal with your own sins before looking at other people's. The next paragraph makes the meaning clear... the parable of the log and the speck has already been discussed in this thread, so I won't repeat it. Basically it's about helping others, not condemning them in a prideful way.
Also in The Sermon On The Mount, Jesus reinforces this idea of judgement in the Our Father:
... and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
How do we judge whether behaviour is sinful? Clearly, we need to be able to make judgements. But there is a right way, and a wrong way, to judge.
Edited by seventhsojourn - August 11 2010 at 18:03
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 12 2010 at 01:32
Iván wrote:
But don't worry, soon Catholics, Orthodox, some Luterans and some groups of Anglicans will be closer than ever.
Please don't mind if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Iván wrote:
Yes, some data has been lost and other data has been added through
bad copies and inaccurate translations, we all know that, but the
essence of his message survived.
You really don't know whether the original essence of the message survived or if what you now see as the essence got added later by those who edited and compiled the books.
Iván wrote:
But this is only so contradictory for those who want to see each
Gospel as a History text,....No, Christianity is the final product of
all the Gospels and the events of the first centuries after Jesus death
and resurrection.
Sorry, but seeing these books as historical documents is the default position - it's you who want to make exceptions.
Iván wrote:
At the end, who cares if Peter denied one, three or six times, that's
only important for Peter, the fact is that Jesus announced that Peter
would deny him and this happened, the rest is secondary.
It's not a fact, it's just something that's written in the Bible. It also says that Jesus got resurrected - and as much as you want to believe it, the fact is that it is written, not that it actually happened. You can't use any document - scripture or otherwise - to prove that something happened.
BTW: Ehrman discusses the miracles, and the resurrection in particular - he offers several alternative explanations of what might have happened. If you say that these explanations are far fetched - maybe so, as Ehrman (and I) agree, but an actual resurrection is even more unlikely to have happened. Like it or not, as soon as miracles and supernatural events enter the discussion, you will always need faith to believe them - the texts can't support you there.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: August 12 2010 at 09:41
Again Mike, the most likely explanation does not mean that it should be THE explanation. Scriptures or not, you can't prove or disprove it, that's why faith is important. It has been discussed many times, what faith is, so I won't repeat myself... your last post Mike, doesn't say anything, only that you can't believe in the Bible, which is not a surprise, since I think none of the theist here want to convert you, but at least share something for the discussion, so we don't have to repeat ourselves again...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:34
Of course Mike, you avoided the proof that THE HOLY TRINITY IS IN THE BIBLE, despite you said it's an invention created centturies later.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
the principle of the holy trinity which was established centuries after the new testament had been written
Mike: The Holy Trinity is not a concept created after the New Testament was written::
The Farther: Luke 23: 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.
The Son: Luke 2: 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
The Holy Spirit: John20: 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
The three persons of the Holy Trinity are present in the Gospels, the Church later gave form to this mystery, but the concept is in the Bible.
You are like a politician, you claim something, you are proved wrong, and you never mention the issue again.
If you are proved wrong, at least accept it as we do when we say something not 100% accurate, but maybe that's asking too much from you.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:44
^ The texts don't mention the word "trinity" - and it took theologians several centuries to come up with the concept. You did not prove me wrong, you came up with some verses that, in hindsight, can be said to vaguely support the concept of the trinity.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:51
jampa17 wrote:
Again Mike, the most likely explanation does not mean that it should be THE explanation. Scriptures or not, you can't prove or disprove it, that's why faith is important. It has been discussed many times, what faith is, so I won't repeat myself... your last post Mike, doesn't say anything, only that you can't believe in the Bible, which is not a surprise, since I think none of the theist here want to convert you, but at least share something for the discussion, so we don't have to repeat ourselves again...
Why don't you have faith in the Qu'ran? Why don't you worship Zeus? All I'm saying is that you don't have a rational explanation for why you believe in the Bible. And by "rational" I mean that the explanation doesn't require faith. Please, think about it - maybe we both agree, at the core.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:54
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ The texts don't mention the word "trinity" - and it took theologians several centuries to come up with the concept. You did not prove me wrong, you came up with some verses that, in hindsight, can be said to vaguely support the concept of the trinity.
Dopn't want to e offensive Mike, but you are being ridiculous.
The Bible clearly mentions:three persons and one God
The Father
The Son
The Holy Ghost
The name to be used (Trinity, trilogy or Triumvirate if you want) is not important THE CONCEPT IS WHAT MATTERS, NEITHER OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE THOLOGISTS.
You are acting like the Amish...If it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: August 12 2010 at 11:11
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Again Mike, the most likely explanation does not mean that it should be THE explanation. Scriptures or not, you can't prove or disprove it, that's why faith is important. It has been discussed many times, what faith is, so I won't repeat myself... your last post Mike, doesn't say anything, only that you can't believe in the Bible, which is not a surprise, since I think none of the theist here want to convert you, but at least share something for the discussion, so we don't have to repeat ourselves again...
Why don't you have faith in the Qu'ran? Why don't you worship Zeus? All I'm saying is that you don't have a rational explanation for why you believe in the Bible. And by "rational" I mean that the explanation doesn't require faith. Please, think about it - maybe we both agree, at the core.
Because I can't believe in a god that ate his own children and has many many sons with different mortal women and have to fight against another equal gods in a place called Olimpus. It's just dommie to believe in human represented in gods actions like the greek mithology. It's pretty much different to what happen in NT and the life of Christ... sorry, I don't see why it should be a problem to believe in the God of the Bible, rather than Zeus, a complete human being represented with lightenings and stuff like that...
Oh, and I forget it: Zeus as a god just can't control his HUMAN needs like lust, anger and vengance, so, if he would be a god, don't you think he won't be controlled by his emotions? sorry, doesn't work to me...
Edited by jampa17 - August 12 2010 at 11:16
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: August 12 2010 at 12:46
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ The texts don't mention the word "trinity" - and it took theologians several centuries to come up with the concept. You did not prove me wrong, you came up with some verses that, in hindsight, can be said to vaguely support the concept of the trinity.
Dopn't want to e offensive Mike, but you are being ridiculous.
The Bible clearly mentions:three persons and one God
The Father
The Son
The Holy Ghost
The name to be used (Trinity, trilogy or Triumvirate if you want) is not important THE CONCEPT IS WHAT MATTERS, NEITHER OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE THOLOGISTS.
You are acting like the Amish...If it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist.
Iván
Clearly not all three can be divine "persons" for the monotheist religion to survive, especially when the jealous god has already said "worship no other god but me", so it was logical for the early christians to embody all three into one entity, but the OT and the NT do not maintain that they are "one" ... or even "three" in any concrete unambiguous terms:
God is called the father in judaism (and in other religions) because they believe he is the father of all men. "Father" is referred to in this form in the OT. When Jesus called god his father he could have been using the word like any other jewish person did at the time. The disciples could have interpreted what he said literally rather than metaphorically. [edit: for example: Jesus gave the Pater Noster as a prayer for all men, so the "Our father" refers to the father of all men, not of the father of Jesus himself)
The Son is not directly reference in the OT - the prophesies of Daniel refer to a son of man sitting with god, not a son of god - though it could be argued that if god is the father of all men, then all men are the sons of god, hence Jesus can logically be called a son of god without being divine. In many instances in the NT when Jesus referred to himself as the son of god or as one with god, it could be that he is being metaphoric and is again misunderstood by the disciples.
It's a huge conceptual leap from the holy spirit mentioned in the Old Testament to the personification of a separate entity in the trinity. The OT has many mentions of the spirit of the lord (or the breath of the lord in the Greek or divine inspiration in Hebrew), yet no one ever considered it to be a separate "being" ... the OT also differentiates between "god" and "the lord" but few (and certainly no christians or jews) think of that as a duality-god even when god uses the personal pronoun "we" when referring to himself. In that respect the holy spirit is not a seperate entity with a will of its own, but a manifestation of god on earth.
Now, I accept, as you maintain, that not all christianity doctrine can be found in the bible, and I also understand (and agree with Mike) that much of it came after without divine inspiration.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 12 2010 at 12:52
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ The texts don't mention the word "trinity" - and it took theologians several centuries to come up with the concept. You did not prove me wrong, you came up with some verses that, in hindsight, can be said to vaguely support the concept of the trinity.
Dopn't want to e offensive Mike, but you are being ridiculous.
The Bible clearly mentions:three persons and one God
The Father
The Son
The Holy Ghost
The name to be used (Trinity, trilogy or Triumvirate if you want) is not important THE CONCEPT IS WHAT MATTERS, NEITHER OF THE EVANGELISTS WERE THOLOGISTS.
You are acting like the Amish...If it's not in the Bible, it doesn't exist.
Iván
Just for the record: My initial claim was that the holy trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible. Of course the father, the son and the holy ghost are mentioned, but the trinity is about how these three can be reconciled with the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion.
So I'm in fact saying "if it's not in the bible, then it's not in the bible".
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: August 12 2010 at 12:58
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Again Mike, the most likely explanation does not mean that it should be THE explanation. Scriptures or not, you can't prove or disprove it, that's why faith is important. It has been discussed many times, what faith is, so I won't repeat myself... your last post Mike, doesn't say anything, only that you can't believe in the Bible, which is not a surprise, since I think none of the theist here want to convert you, but at least share something for the discussion, so we don't have to repeat ourselves again...
Why don't you have faith in the Qu'ran? Why don't you worship Zeus? All I'm saying is that you don't have a rational explanation for why you believe in the Bible. And by "rational" I mean that the explanation doesn't require faith. Please, think about it - maybe we both agree, at the core.
Because I can't believe in a god that ate his own children and has many many sons with different mortal women and have to fight against another equal gods in a place called Olimpus. It's just dommie to believe in human represented in gods actions like the greek mithology. It's pretty much different to what happen in NT and the life of Christ... sorry, I don't see why it should be a problem to believe in the God of the Bible, rather than Zeus, a complete human being represented with lightenings and stuff like that...
Oh, and I forget it: Zeus as a god just can't control his HUMAN needs like lust, anger and vengance, so, if he would be a god, don't you think he won't be controlled by his emotions? sorry, doesn't work to me...
You're arguing from the perspective of a Christian. Nothing wrong with that, but it can hardly be called objective. Remember that I'm basically only saying that your reasons for believing in the Christian God are subjective (faith is also subjective, as are revelations). I'm simply not interested in subjective reasons - and I'm sure you can understand that your subjective reasons may appear very different than how you preceive them when you examine them from the perspective of an Atheist who isn't biased towards or against a specific religion. Well, maybe to a small extent, since - as I pointed out earlier - nobody is 100% rational. But in terms of argumentation I see no fundamental difference between the Judeo/Christian God, Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:05
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You're arguing from the perspective of a Christian. Nothing wrong with that, but it can hardly be called objective. Remember that I'm basically only saying that your reasons for believing in the Christian God are subjective (faith is also subjective, as are revelations). I'm simply not interested in subjective reasons - and I'm sure you can understand that your subjective reasons may appear very different than how you preceive them when you examine them from the perspective of an Atheist who isn't biased towards or against a specific religion. Well, maybe to a small extent, since - as I pointed out earlier - nobody is 100% rational. But in terms of argumentation I see no fundamental difference between the Judeo/Christian God, Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Trying to discuss religion while saying "I'm not interested in subjective reasons" is like trying to discuss physics without being interested in objective science. Religion is inherently subjective. Of course it doesn't make sense when examined through the lens you're using. It's not built like that.
Personally, I think there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your science.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: August 12 2010 at 13:48
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Again Mike, the most likely explanation does not mean that it should be THE explanation. Scriptures or not, you can't prove or disprove it, that's why faith is important. It has been discussed many times, what faith is, so I won't repeat myself... your last post Mike, doesn't say anything, only that you can't believe in the Bible, which is not a surprise, since I think none of the theist here want to convert you, but at least share something for the discussion, so we don't have to repeat ourselves again...
Why don't you have faith in the Qu'ran? Why don't you worship Zeus? All I'm saying is that you don't have a rational explanation for why you believe in the Bible. And by "rational" I mean that the explanation doesn't require faith. Please, think about it - maybe we both agree, at the core.
Because I can't believe in a god that ate his own children and has many many sons with different mortal women and have to fight against another equal gods in a place called Olimpus. It's just dommie to believe in human represented in gods actions like the greek mithology. It's pretty much different to what happen in NT and the life of Christ... sorry, I don't see why it should be a problem to believe in the God of the Bible, rather than Zeus, a complete human being represented with lightenings and stuff like that...
Oh, and I forget it: Zeus as a god just can't control his HUMAN needs like lust, anger and vengance, so, if he would be a god, don't you think he won't be controlled by his emotions? sorry, doesn't work to me...
You're arguing from the perspective of a Christian. Nothing wrong with that, but it can hardly be called objective. Remember that I'm basically only saying that your reasons for believing in the Christian God are subjective (faith is also subjective, as are revelations). I'm simply not interested in subjective reasons - and I'm sure you can understand that your subjective reasons may appear very different than how you preceive them when you examine them from the perspective of an Atheist who isn't biased towards or against a specific religion. Well, maybe to a small extent, since - as I pointed out earlier - nobody is 100% rational. But in terms of argumentation I see no fundamental difference between the Judeo/Christian God, Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I know that's your point but you can't denied that that's Zeus description in Greek Mythology. The difference I see is the example and guidence of Jesus. Mohammad was a false prophet, according to what Jesus said about prophets. You can analyse his preaching and you will find that the difference is on the figure Jesus. Can't say about another religions, since my focussing is the Abrahams God, but Jesus made a complete different preaching and is true... I mean, the practice of his advises are still 2000 years after, believable and real. The rest, can be considered myth if you want to...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Thor 
