Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 241 of 321 (477579)
08-05-2008 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by autumnman
08-04-2008 9:58 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Am good to hear from you. I will let you respond to the majority of the post and I will respond after your completion.
It is good to know there was nothing serious wrong,I was beginning to wonder.
"You know, some part of a pine tree are eatable" Mr Gibbons
Catch you later.
D Bertot
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by autumnman, posted 08-04-2008 9:58 PM autumnman has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 242 of 321 (477641)
08-05-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2008 6:42 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
post 230 continued
bertot wrote in post #241:
Am good to hear from you. I will let you respond to the majority of the post and I will respond after your completion.
It is good to know there was nothing serious wrong,I was beginning to wonder.
"You know, some part of a pine tree are eatable" Mr Gibbons
Catch you later.
No, nothing seriously wrong, but thanks for your concern. I’m going to chew on various parts of a pine tree while responding to the remainder of post #230.
In Post #230 bertot wrote:
AM it is easy to fabricate fanciful theories about this or that, in this case about Paul. Your one main problem is the book of Acts, Peter himself in his epistles and Church History do not support you unsupported conjecture. Do you realize you have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence for this outlandish claim. You have not shared anything that I have not demonstrated to be a misunderstanding of scripture. Where in history could even a shred of what you are saying be supported, when the Apostles themselves accepted what he had to say and teach.
I would suggest that you read the book, “Beyond Belief”, by Professor Elaine Pagels, ISBN 0-375-50156-8. I think you will find much in Pagels’ book quite interesting and informative.
Now I have a choice I cantrust AM here or I can trust those closest to the events themselves, the book of acts, Peter and the rest of the NT writers, guess who i pick? Oh yeah that s right, this is where we switch gears and start talking about the nonexistence of Peter, the falsity of the book of Acts and the rest of the NT writers and the extreme prjudice of the early Chruch father. Darn it, I keep forgetting the rules, when AM quotes Jessus he is real and believable, when I quote Jesus, Paul or another NT writer, they are imaginary and undependable authors at best. I really should try anfd pay attention.
When either of us quote the New or Old Testament Scriptures we are both quoting documents that were copied, composed, and canonized amidst a very tumultuous time in the ancient Near East.
I have no idea if the Jesus I quote from the Four Gospels was real or not. I merely quote what the authors of the Four Gospels proclaim Jesus as having said. Furthermore, I have never asked anyone to “trust” what I say in this forum. Nor have I ever claimed that I am absolutely correct in my understanding of these Scriptures. I am a student of Scripture. I am learning as we discuss these issues. Whenever someone makes a valid and reasonable point, I am fully open to what that person is presenting. My principle purpose here is to learn. I would much rather learn from someone else’s perspective than to merely regard myself as being “Right”. I debate from the basis of what I have learned up to this point in my life, but I do not claim that what I have learned up to this point is all that can and should be considered.
Please try to keep what I have said above in mind as we continue our discussions. Keep in mind also that although we may disagree, I am listening and learning from what you have to say. Your responses are very important to me.
How do you know what is in my mind unless I reveal it to you. I do not "deny" the "possibilty" of it as a parable anymore than I do the book of Job or Luke 16. However, in my mind I see other evidence to the opposite, than your interpretation. The first of which is the author of the narrative, the same one that wrote the rest of the Torah, seems to think it was actual. This is not denying anything "absolutley", get your facts straight.
I am really trying to get my “facts straight.” However, that does not mean that I always accomplish this rather difficult task. I thought I heard you “absolutely deny” the idea that the Hebrew Eden Narrative was a “parable.” I must have heard you wrong. I apologize.
So, let’s review the Hebrew Eden Narrative in view of this “other evidence to the opposite.” What is some of this “other evidence”? Let’s discuss it.
And the National Enquier has some facts in it as well, but do you accept it as a realiable source AM. The facts are that earliest Christians, the Apostles, new what the truth was in a aritten form, this is why the gnostic gospels cannot be nearly reproduced in thier writings. Sorry AM that just the way it is.
Comparing the Gnostic Gospels to the National Enquirer is an unfitting comparison. The book, “Beyond Belief”, by Professor Elaine Pagels that I mentioned above might be something you would benefit from. Actually, according to historians, there were a number of early Christian sects. And the Earliest Apostles did not have the Gospels in written form because the Gospels were not composed until the mid to late first century CE.
OK, no problem. "Howbeit when he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into "all" truth, and will show you things to come."
If they did not have all truth it follows that more was to come. Changing a method of doing something does not constitue alteration of the truth or nulification of its precepts. Expansion of truth is not alteration, either. And you are accusing me wanting to argue the most innocuous items of the English language. None of Jesus' spiritual truths changed by application of the Holy Spirit only the method of application. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.
As I have tried to state earlier, I perceive the alterations imposed by Paul as being more than just pertaining to “method of application. Your explanations have not made their point, in my opinion. You go on to say:
The gifts given by the HS, AM, were not themselves spiritual truth but the item they related or communicated. The "method" of application faded, the truth remained in a different fashion. This does not constitute alteration of spiritual truth. Wow I cant believe you cant see that. The Comforter altered nothing of Spiitual truth, or altered any of Jesus' truths. God , Christ and the Holy Spirit are in ONE purpose an understanding, how in the world would that happen anyway, that they would contradict eachother
Yes! I perceive them as contradicting each other. That is the point I have been trying to convey.
"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
Ok! I am familiar with this particular quote. However, as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing; this pertains to what someone will day while being questioned by the authorities; what we are discussing is the conveying of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.
I’ve got to go, but I hope to respond to the rest of post #230 this evening.
And in the future it would be really great if we could keep our posts a little more concise. It is extremely difficult to respond to so much written material.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2008 6:42 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2008 10:18 AM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 243 of 321 (477673)
08-06-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by autumnman
08-05-2008 2:44 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
I’ve got to go, but I hope to respond to the rest of post #230 this evening.
And in the future it would be really great if we could keep our posts a little more concise. It is extremely difficult to respond to so much written material.
Thats because your are a feeble minded dork, with no energy and even less ability to debate, ha ha. Understood. Also, I have started mounting a response to your last post/s, I will complete them in Word Pad and post them when I am completed. In the meantime your are welcome to finish the other.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by autumnman, posted 08-05-2008 2:44 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 244 of 321 (477728)
08-07-2008 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by autumnman
08-04-2008 9:58 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
AM writes
There are certain things that the authors of the NT claim that are nonsensical and idiotic, and that defy objective or rational reasoning. Jesus being born of a virgin, him walking on water, raising a four day old rotting corpse from the dead, to name a few, are nonsensical, idiotic, objectively ludicrous, and irrational literary proclamations. For one Gospel writer to state Jesus saying, “love your enemies...and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” and “be therefore merciful as your Father as” (Luke 6:35/6). And then another Gospel writer describes Jesus saying, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16) certainly gives the appearance of contradiction. It is a little hard to be “kind to the unthankful and the evil” and at the same time “damn the nonbelievers.”
It is simply ludicrous to attribute any statement or statements to a person in a particular source and claim that some but not all of those things were said of that person, weather they conform to reality or not, weather they appear to be rational from a human standpoint or not, this is simply not how you establish the reliability of the source in question. However one does not need to involve these types of evidence when strickly examining verse for verse or writer for writers comments to see if there is obvious contradiction.
Secondly, what we do in reagard to Gods commands in being forgiving, kind, merciful is seperate from what God does from an eternal justice standpoint. Why would we expect God to be merciful, kind, forgiving but NOT impune Justice and retribution when the time warrents such.. His nature is more than your perceptions of what you thinkhe should be. In a human context how much respect would have for a judge that forgave all incorrect and unconsconable behavior, you would throw him out of his position in a week. What would you expect to happen AM to a person that murdered you child, do we just let it pass?. Come on AM, this is elementary theology.
So, you are saying that what is written in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was only meant for the Apostles? Only the Apostles were to be able to take up serpents and drink deadly things? No one after the first century CE or even the second century CE and on through the centuries were to read these passages at the end of the Gospel of Mark and understand these passages as literally speaking to them personally?
No. the passage says those that are saved will be able to do these things. I do not know the exact time these things faded, I suspect as I have indicated before that they faded with the passage of the Apostles and those that had recieved the Laying on of hands of the Apostles. Also, in those unique situations, where the Lord gave the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to others than the Apostles, Cornelius in Acts 10 and others.
Paul's injunction or spirit guided declaration in 1Cor 13 and the obvious fact that these gifts through men would have not been recognizable after a certain point, would have been a clear indication to the Church that these were no longer present. Again, you are missing the point. the medium is less important than the result or the affect of the gift. Consider a parallel in Acts chapter 2:1-47, a slightly more expanded explanation of Mark 16:15-18. Here the Apostle Peter sets out exacally what it means for God to pour out his spirit on all flesh. Most people that read the passage equate the miraculous or poring out of the Spirit only with the gifts involved. This, so totally misses the point involved. Actually the expression "pour out my Spirit on all flesh", is exacally that which is in involved in the statemnet in Gen, when God tells Abraham, that" throuh his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed" Watch it, "for the promise is unto you you children, them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call". The promise is not the miraculous only, the method only, but the product the method brings, salvation through Jesus Christ. "Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
There is simply no contradiction between Christs, Peters or Pauls words when understood in its entire context and overall picture. The gifts were never meant to remain but salvation through Jesus Christ and the Spirits communication of that message was to remain until the end of time, regardless of the exact method.
I do not merely assume that anything or everything written in the Scriptures is accurate, or truthful. To me, it is illogical to do so. Nothing becomes a “farce” by approaching the Scriptures in this fashion. I do not merely believe everything I hear or everything I read. I ask for real, objective, tangible proof. I am no more skeptical of what I read in the Scriptures than what I read in the current Newspapers.
I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was anymore God in the flesh that you or I. Without the spirit of God in our noses neither one of us would be here having this discussion. To me, that is a fact. To you it probably sounds like naturalist blaspheme
As I have explained about 4 times now I know what you believe and dont believe. Christ and Paul both believed in the Holy Spirit, I know you do not. However, for the sake of argument maybe we could both assume at present that this is true to see if there is any contradiction in atleast the text itself. This is not an unreasonable or unwarrented way to proceed until such time a it becomes necessary to discuss the supernatural verses the narural again. Surely you can see what I am saying.
I think that your example is a little off. Jesus of Nazareth being depicted as God in the flesh who has mainly come to die for our sins is quite different than an narrative that clearly contains metaphorical and/or figurative references woven throughout its narrative context.
Not if the narrative you are employing, implies or inculcates a creator or deity, as you have suggested and believe in. I still am not seeing this overwhelming fascination you have with "natural metaphors". Would it not be reasonable for a person to use that which is in front of and common to him, to write a stroy or poem?
quote:
“Indeed, you have five trees in paradise, which do not move in summer or winter, and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever is acquainted with them will not taste death” (GTh 36:21-24).
The term “paradise” is the LXX equivalent of Heb. “garden” in Eden. The five trees are then described as being metaphorical and/or figurative “trees”.
Whether you accept these word as being spoken by Jesus or not, the fact remains that someone nearly two thousand years ago perceive the “five trees in paradise” as being metaphors within a parable.
The author of the Eden narrative did not see them as figurative. Ill take Moses over the Gospel of Thomas, if for no other reason he was close to the narrative itself. That is if I have to choose between the two, or for that matter the inumerable others that percieved it as literal.
Gospel of Thomas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Gospel According to Thomas (Coptic : p.euaggelion p.kata.cwmas), also known as The Gospel of Thomas, is a New Testament -era apocryphon , nearly completely preserved in a Coptic papyrus manuscript discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi , Egypt .
The text is in the form of a codex , bound in a method now called Coptic binding . It was written for a school of early Christians who claimed Thomas the Apostle as their founder . Unlike the four canonical gospels , Thomas is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus and is not worked into any overt philosophical or rhetorical context. Rather, it is logia , or gospel sayings, with short dialogues and sayings attributed to Jesus.
In the incipit , the writer is styled Didymus Judas Thomas. Didymus (Greek ) and Thomas (Hebrew ) both mean twin , and the name Judas (Greek: ), also Jude or Judah , is the anglicized Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Yehudah (Hebrew: ).
The work comprises 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Some of these sayings resemble those found in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew , Mark , Luke , and John ). Others were unknown until its discovery, and Christian scholars assert that a small number are incompatible with sayings in the four canonical gospels.[citation needed ] No major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative.
When this Coptic version of the complete text of Thomas was found, scholars realized that three separate portions of a Greek version of it had already been discovered in Oxyrhynchus , Egypt, in 1897 [1]. In 1903 two more different fragments were discovered in Oxyrhynchus,[2] seemingly originating from the same collection of sayings bearing the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (P. Oxy. I 1; IV 654; IV 655) dating from between AD 200 to AD 250 [3], with another Greek fragment discovered in 1905 predating AD 200 [4]; the manuscript of the Coptic version dates to about 340 . Although the Coptic version is not quite identical to any of the Greek fragments, it is believed that the Coptic version was translated from an earlier Greek version, itself recorded from an earlier oral version.
The original text was published in photographic facsimile in 1975. The James M. Robinson translation was first published in 1977, as part of The Nag Hammadi Library in English, (E.J. Brill and Harper & Row).[5] The Gospel of Thomas has been translated and annotated in several languages. The original manuscript is the property of Egypt's Department of Antiquities. The first photographic edition was published in 1956, and its first critical analysis appeared in 1959.[6]
Did you happen to read vs 46 of the Gospel of Thomas, "From Adam to John the Baptist", I think he bleieved Adam was real
Hmmmm, lets see, no historical or factual information to corroborate in its contents and its dated between 200 and 250 AD. I cant imagine why it was rejected can you? Ok, lets move it from the National Enquirer to the Globe.
The NT and its individual books usually carry with them a certain amount of historical, archeological and verifiable information that the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi (or as we say in Alabama, the "Nag hamidy") cannot boast. This is one of the "main" reasons they are considered as reliable.
Even the dates of many of the suprious books give them away as nothing more that feeble attempts at copy cat reproductions. The earliest documents and that which can be traced throught the earliest followers writings is usually the most reliable, even if you do not believe in the Holy Spirits watchful eye.
Whether I blindly believe in the ethereal existence of an anthropomorphic entity referred to in the Scriptures, as the “Holy Spirit” should have no bearing on whether what the human authors of the Scriptures proclaim the Holy Spirit supposedly said; that is in black and white in scripture. I am questioning what is written, copied, translated, and copied again. Whether the Holy Spirit is an actual ethereal being is not an issue; we are discussion what the authors of the NT wrote down for us to read.
Then why do you keep questioning weather the HS had a hand in the process, if it is obvious that the"authors" did? If we are discussing what they had to say, would that not include the Holy Spirit. This is not rocket science AM.
Apparently, somehow the HS being real or not came into the discussion. Perhaps that occurred because you are or were claiming that the HS bestowed powers on the Apostles and then took them away leaving us with little more than a bunch of words in a book. To me, as I read the NT the words of Jesus of Nazareth do indeed conflict with the words of Paul and Acts by Luke. If it is Jesus of Nazareth’s “words” that will last forever, then that is what I tend to read. And if the words of Jesus of Nazareth convey different gospel messages, then I look to see how the contradiction can be resolved.
By being remotley resonable and atleast alittle objective. Did you not agree, atleast with the fact, that from a sriptural standpoint that Jesus promised the comforter to guide them into all truth and show them things to come? Was it not Christs words in Rev to the Apostle John, "write these things down"
I think what I perceive as the “limiting” factor here is the literary context indicates that Jesus is talking only to those who are with him at the time, and I do not recall reading where the Gospels expand the issue to all those who will follow. It seems that Jesus would have made it clear that the HS was going to be there for all of the followers who would come into play after his death on the cross. Perhaps you could help me find the passage in the Four Gospels where Jesus states that the HS will be there for all those followers who come after the original 12.
The passages that could be quoted or cited at this point would be to numeous to mention. However, the ones that come immediatley to my attention would those that Christ used to assure his followers that if "God so clothes the flower of the field, will he not do much more for you", etc Secondly would be any of the Great commissions that extencd the Gospel to all people, included in this is the promise of the Gospel was the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles and thier follwers into all truth. Do you think the Apostles were an island unto themselves? What would be the pourpose of giving a commission that involved only themselves? "And lo I am with you even unto the end of the world". Acts 2 "They" continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, in the breaking of bread and prayer. Now I wonder who "they" were and where the Apostles got this "doctrine"?
Here are some others, Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
"This spake he of the Holy Spirit, which "those that believe on him should recieve", as it was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified, John7:39.
TheBible.net :: Daily Bread
The Promises Of Christ (John 16)
By Neal Pollard
Click for printable version
Foxe alleges that Andrew, supposedly bound with a cord and fastened between two pieces of wood, said these words as he painfully and slowly died: "O cross, most welcome and oft-looked for; with a willing mind, joyfully and desirously, I come to thee, being the scholar of Him who did hang of thee; because I have been always thy lover, and have longed to embrace thee!"
Andrew believed the promises of Christ, basic and vital building blocks of all the apostles' faith. They believed, not just because of His death but because of His resurrection. He reminds them of the promises He made to them in John sixteen at the time of His ascension. The promises, made to them, give us equal hope.
First, Jesus promised a coming. He uses the word erchomai ("come, coming") six times in the first thirteen verses. He promises a coming hour (2). In that hour, the disciples would suffer simply for being disciples. Then, Christ promises a coming Helper (7). The Helper was the Holy Spirit. He empowered them to teach and prove Christ as God's Son. Through scripture, He strengthens us by that same teaching and proof. Jesus also promised a coming hearer (13-14). This also refers to the Holy Spirit, the one who would speak what He had heard and make known what Christ had told Him. This allowed no conflicting teaching. Paul, Peter, and the others would all speak the same thing.
Second, Jesus promised a convicting. They needed doctrine to teach. To teach an ignorant and comfortable world, they needed a convicting message. A watered down "I'm all right, you're all right" could not have turned the world upside down. Christ promised a convicitng of sin (9), which began with the apostles' preaching on Pentecost. Christ promised a convicting of righteousness (10), and so the world would have to be taught to live righteous, sober and godly lives (Titus 2:12). Christ promised a convicting of judgment (11), and hearts must be convicted that, if they commit habitual sin, they are of the devil (1 John 3:8) and share his destiny.
Finally, Jesus promised a cooperation. The apostles trusted Jesus because they believed Him to be the Son of God. Christ promised a cooperation between Himself and the Father (15), between Himself and the Holy Spirit (13-15), and between Himself and the disciples (4). No one would doubt the first two, but most people do not practically believe the third. They say God endorses different followers teaching different things. Yet, all true disciples teach only the message Christ sent and that is found in the Bible. A substitute standard yields deadly results.
What validates the promises of Christ? His unbending character (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:25). Like the apostles, we can stand on Christ's promises. Every promise He makes, He delivers. Thank God for the promises of Christ.
Love,
Neal
AM writes:
I have no idea if the Jesus I quote from the Four Gospels was real or not. I merely quote what the authors of the Four Gospels proclaim Jesus as having said. Furthermore, I have never asked anyone to “trust” what I say in this forum. Nor have I ever claimed that I am absolutely correct in my understanding of these Scriptures. I am a student of Scripture. I am learning as we discuss these issues. Whenever someone makes a valid and reasonable point, I am fully open to what that person is presenting. My principle purpose here is to learn. I would much rather learn from someone else’s perspective than to merely regard myself as being “Right”. I debate from the basis of what I have learned up to this point in my life, but I do not claim that what I have learned up to this point is all that can and should be considered.
Please try to keep what I have said above in mind as we continue our discussions. Keep in mind also that although we may disagree, I am listening and learning from what you have to say. Your responses are very important to me.
AM, thanks for this honest admission, however, I doubt that you could not have "any idea", weather Jesus was real or not, with so much overwhelming evidence at hand.
Humility is a fine quality AM but the reality of the situation is that you do believe you are "right", regardless or wheather you believe you posess all the facts or not. If you did not you would not be defending your positon so vehemently.
your responses are as equally important to me as well, thanks.
I am really trying to get my “facts straight.” However, that does not mean that I always accomplish this rather difficult task. I thought I heard you “absolutely deny” the idea that the Hebrew Eden Narrative was a “parable.” I must have heard you wrong. I apologize.
So, let’s review the Hebrew Eden Narrative in view of this “other evidence to the opposite.” What is some of this “other evidence”? Let’s discuss it.
Good enough. The truth is however, that almost anything could be viewed as figurative, literal, poetic or fiction. I would think that one would have to view more than the story or narrative itself to gather these facts. If you choose to view it as a wisdom poem then it will convey a whole different meaning otherwise, correct?
But by all means we can see what your estimations are from this perspective. You have been already I agree, but you will need to be tolerant of others objections to your interpretations. Dont get distracted or discouraged when we come at you forcefully. I dont think ole ICANT will show to much mercy in this area, as I suspect he is an ole straight forward knowlegable grouchin these matters. All I am saying is just be prepared and tolerant.
Tolerant: "lack of oppositions for beliefs or practices differing from one's own" Hey, I am just qouting the dictionary, haha.
And in the future it would be really great if we could keep our posts a little more concise. It is extremely difficult to respond to so much written material.
The whaaaambulance will be at your house around noon, if you pass out from writing, ha ha , see you in a while, should I bring flowers to the hospital?
Off the topic at hand. In the thread "Is Jesus the Circular Messiah", I would like to know what YOURs, ICANTS and JAYWILLS response to message 35 of Modulous argument would be. how would you respond to his argument in that instance, if you have the time. IANO is doing a fine Job, I would just be interested in yalls comments on such a subjective point. Not from the actuality of Jesus or not, simply as an argument in reality. If dont have the time that is fine as well.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by autumnman, posted 08-04-2008 9:58 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 11:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 246 by autumnman, posted 08-08-2008 12:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 257 by autumnman, posted 08-09-2008 10:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 245 of 321 (477859)
08-08-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2008 1:01 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
quote:
The author of the Eden narrative did not see them as figurative. Ill take Moses over the Gospel of Thomas, if for no other reason he was close to the narrative itself. That is if I have to choose between the two, or for that matter the inumerable others that percieved it as literal
What empirical evidence do you have that Moses is the author of the Eden narrative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2008 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by autumnman, posted 08-08-2008 12:25 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 1:12 PM deerbreh has replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 246 of 321 (477861)
08-08-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dawn Bertot
08-07-2008 1:01 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
post 244 continued
bertot wrote: No. the passage says those that are saved will be able to do these things. I do not know the exact time these things faded, I suspect as I have indicated before that they faded with the passage of the Apostles and those that had recieved the Laying on of hands of the Apostles. Also, in those unique situations, where the Lord gave the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to others than the Apostles, Cornelius in Acts 10 and others.
Paul's injunction or spirit guided declaration in 1Cor 13 and the obvious fact that these gifts through men would have not been recognizable after a certain point, would have been a clear indication to the Church that these were no longer present. Again, you are missing the point. the medium is less important than the result or the affect of the gift. Consider a parallel in Acts chapter 2:1-47, a slightly more expanded explanation of Mark 16:15-18. Here the Apostle Peter sets out exacally what it means for God to pour out his spirit on all flesh. Most people that read the passage equate the miraculous or poring out of the Spirit only with the gifts involved. This, so totally misses the point involved. Actually the expression "pour out my Spirit on all flesh", is exacally that which is in involved in the statemnet in Gen, when God tells Abraham, that" throuh his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed" Watch it, "for the promise is unto you you children, them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call". The promise is not the miraculous only, the method only, but the product the method brings, salvation through Jesus Christ. "Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
There is simply no contradiction between Christs, Peters or Pauls words when understood in its entire context and overall picture. The gifts were never meant to remain but salvation through Jesus Christ and the Spirits communication of that message was to remain until the end of time, regardless of the exact method.
Then the short answer to the question I posed -
quote:
So, you are saying that what is written in Mark 16:15 thru 18 was only meant for the Apostles? Only the Apostles were to be able to take up serpents and drink deadly things? No one after the first century CE or even the second century CE and on through the centuries were to read these passages at the end of the Gospel of Mark and understand these passages as literally speaking to them personally?
- is a simple, Yes.
No one after these gifts mentioned in Mark 16:15 thru 18 had faded read these passages and construed them as speaking directly to them. So, passages such as these in the New Testament are just there to let the later readers know what they missed out on. But you say the message somehow remains the same? I really do not see how that is possible.
bertot wrote: As I have explained about 4 times now I know what you believe and dont believe. Christ and Paul both believed in the Holy Spirit, I know you do not. However, for the sake of argument maybe we could both assume at present that this is true to see if there is any contradiction in atleast the text itself. This is not an unreasonable or unwarrented way to proceed until such time a it becomes necessary to discuss the supernatural verses the narural again. Surely you can see what I am saying.
For the sake of this discussion we can both assume at present that both Christ and Paul believed in the Holy Spirit. Now, how does that help us determine if there are or are not any contradictions in the text itself? What did the Holy Spirit {a.k.a. Christ the Father} need Paul for? Why Paul? Why not Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or someone already within the inner circle?
Not if the narrative you are employing, implies or inculcates a creator or deity, as you have suggested and believe in. I still am not seeing this overwhelming fascination you have with "natural metaphors". Would it not be reasonable for a person to use that which is in front of and common to him, to write a stroy or poem?
That’s the whole point of “natural metaphors”; they are “reasonable” and “in front of and common to” not just the author, but to anyone who may read the author’s composition. Natural metaphors employed in a text take the guesswork out of interpreting what the author is conveying. That is why I have this “overwhelming fascination with ”natural metaphors’.” Natural metaphors impart “wisdom” that no human being has had a hand in creating.
bertot wrote: The author of the Eden narrative did not see them as figurative. Ill take Moses over the Gospel of Thomas, if for no other reason he was close to the narrative itself. That is if I have to choose between the two, or for that matter the inumerable others that percieved it as literal.
Of course the author of the Eden narrative knew what he was composing was “figurative.” Read the Eden narrative carefully - “formed of dust”; a “tree of the life”, and a “tree the knowledge of good and bad”; one mighty unnamed river flowing from Eden into the garden and from there becoming four mighty heads - two of which flow to this day; God giving the human archetype two opposite commands prior to the human archetype possessing the knowledge of good and bad; God stating that He will make a strong helper for the human archetype, but then creates the bests of the field and fowl of the air; but the helper is not found among the brute animals; so God builds a weak woman? And then we have this talking serpent. Either the author was composing a parable, or the author was really stupid. I’ll go with the parable idea.
I’ll get back to responding to the rest of post #244 as soon as I get some work done.
All the best,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-07-2008 1:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 247 of 321 (477862)
08-08-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 11:50 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
deerbreh:
What empirical evidence do you have that Moses is the author of the Eden narrative?
Good question for bertot. As far as I know there is no empirical evidence that points to Moses as the author of the Eden narrative. We'll just have to see what bertot or someone else has to say on this subject.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 11:50 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 248 of 321 (477866)
08-08-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 11:50 AM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
What empirical evidence do you have that Moses is the author of the Eden narrative?
Thanks for your question you presented and I would suggest that you go back and rehearse all the information we have covered on that topic on numerous posts already. We spent several posts discussing that question, I presented numerous articles and information in response to that question
Simply put however, all the information and indications would indicate he was the author, there is no "good" reasons to believe he was not.
Further, as this discussion goes it is irrelevant who the author was, as I have asked AM if the Eden narrative has ever been discovered apart from the book of Genesis or if it has always been a part of that book. He has avoided this quesion like a plauge. If it has always been a part of that book and no emperical evidence can be presented that it has not, it would follow that the author was the same, more than likely, correct? Since you love emperical data so much. that author whoever it was, did not view it as a poem in later writings.
On the topic at hand between myself and AM, the authorship is not what is the exact point at present. I would be happy for you to follow along in "context" of our discussion if you wish, that would be great and at a future date, we can discuss that issue again.
In fairness to you however, feel free to respond to what I have said here, I simply do not want to get to far off subject, OK?
Sound like a good idea to you?
Hows that for a response AM?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 11:50 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 1:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 255 by autumnman, posted 08-08-2008 10:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 249 of 321 (477868)
08-08-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
quote:
Simply put however, all the information and indications would indicate he was the author, there is no "good" reasons to believe he was not.
Well, that is your opinion, your protagonist disagrees that you have presented empirical evidence for the authorship of Moses. And further, 'no "good" reasons to believe he was not' is not empirical evidence, it is a logical fallacy to present the lack of proof of a negative as proof of the positive. So the ball is still in your court. Sorry, but the rules of logic apply even in nonscientific discussions.
Oh and as for relevance to the discussion - you made the claim. I did not make it up. If you can't back up the claim, the honorable thing to do is to withdraw it, not fall back on, "well it isn't germane to the discussion anyway." If it weren't germane, why did you make the claim? Obviously it is important, because if it can't be established that Moses was the author of the Eden account, then it can't be established that Moses was the author of Genesis - as you are resting your debate on the premise that one author wrote the whole shebang.
Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.
Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 2:24 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 250 of 321 (477871)
08-08-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 1:36 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Well, that is your opinion, your protagonist disagrees that you have presented empirical evidence for the authorship of Moses. And further, 'no "good" reasons to believe he was not' is not empirical evidence, it is a logical fallacy to present the lack of proof of a negative as proof of the positive. So the ball is still in your court. Sorry, but the rules of logic apply even in nonscientific discussions.
The above is a nonsensical statement at best. Think about it, if it is "my opinion" that Moses was the author, then it is "your opinion" he was not, seeing you presented no evidence to the contrary, which implies you have no good reason for believing he was not. It stands that from this point alone, he is quite possibly the author and no reason to believe he was not.
Secondly, it is nonsnsical becase it assumes no evidence has been presented based on the fact that AM disagrees with my position and evidence presented. I also, disgree with the information he has presented, does this mean his positon if false or invalid. I have been throwing the provervial "ball" back and forth.
Again, as I have stated, to jump in at this point and ignore all the previous evidence presented is silly. Did you really think my protaganist would agree with me and the evidence or not, that is a simplistic and nonsensical argument.
You seemed to miss this point, it is irrelevant who the author was for the purposes of the discussion. Whoever he was, does not change the fact, that the narrative has never been discovered apart from the book itself. Whoever tne author was goes on to indicate "it" as a literal story not to mention everyone else in the OT, history, the NT, Christ and nearly every thinking person.
Simply because something is written in poetic fashion does not negate it as being literal or factual, many other factors would have to come play to decide this fact itself.
Christ told many stroies in poetic and metaphorical fashion, this does not mean they were not literal events. If he was God, the he would have a vast amount of information to draw his stories from, correct? Maybe it was like Dragnet, no names were given to ptect the innocent, or he felt no need to do a the outset, think about it.
This is not rocket science fellas.
D Berot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 1:36 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 3:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 251 of 321 (477878)
08-08-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2008 2:24 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
quote:
Think about it, if it is "my opinion" that Moses was the author, then it is "your opinion" he was not, seeing you presented no evidence to the contrary, which implies you have no good reason for believing he was not. It stands that from this point alone, he is quite possibly the author and no reason to believe he was not.
No, that is quite flawed logic. It's a false choice, for one thing. I also don't have a good reason for believing Abraham was not the author but I can't prove it. And why not Abraham rather than Moses? Can you prove it wasn't Abraham? Two of us can't prove it wasn't so it must be so, by your logic, no?
But now you say it doesn't matter anyway (though getting nailed on faulty logic of course always matters whatever the context). So read on.
quote:
...nearly every thinking person.
Well it is not clear what you mean "every thinking person" is supposed to be believing, but if you mean belief in a literal Eden your universe of "thinking persons" must indeed be quite small, as I would venture to say that not nearly a majority of Christians and Jews believe that, let alone the rest of the world.
quote:
the narrative has never been discovered apart from the book itself.
Actually it has. In fact, there is fairly good evidence that the author of Genesis "borrowed" the account from Sumerian sources that predate Genesis. This is pretty much accepted by most scholars, who presumably do think on occasion.
Northstate Science: Review of From Eden to Exile, Chapter 1: The Garden of Eden
quote:
Cline next discusses mention of Eden in Sumerian texts that pre-date Genesis and which may themselves have been borrowed from an earlier culture, the Ubaidians (approximately 7500 - 5500 BP). He also notes the existence of additional creation stories from the region that have “striking similarities” to the story found in Genesis. All of these pre-date the biblical account:
Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was compiled from various sources, which were written down as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. and as late as the sixth or fifth century B.C. Even the earliest parts of the Bible, such as the source called J by biblical scholars, do not date earlier than the tenth or ninth century B.C., hundreds of years after Enuma Elish was written.
In fact, there are multiple non-Hebrew Eden accounts and there are Hebrew accounts not part of Genesis as well.
Eden narratives in Qumran | Cegula
quote:
Eden narratives in Enoch
(1) The Book of Enoch
(2) Eden narrative in Enoch
(3) Differences from Genesis
Eden narratives in Jubilee
(1) The Book of Jubilee
(2) Eden narrative in Jubilee
(3) Differences from Genesis
Ball in your court again, I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 2:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 6:32 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 252 of 321 (477883)
08-08-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Ball in your court again, I believe.
Not a problem, will get to this this evening. I rather enjoy the ball in my court. Actually we have been over all of this already but I am specifically interested to get to logic part of the discussion.
thanks,
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 3:51 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 9:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 253 of 321 (477899)
08-08-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
If you have "been over all of this already" how could you make the nonsensical statement that the Eden narrative hasn't been found apart from the Book of Genesis? - because of course it has - numerous times. You are simply in denial if you insist otherwise.
As for the logic, I see no need to get to that - there is really nothing to discuss. You don't understand logic so there is no point. Go do some reading on logical fallacies and get up to speed and then maybe we can talk. In a separate thread of course. Here is a good place to start.
A List Of Fallacious Arguments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 6:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 10:33 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 256 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-09-2008 4:34 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 254 of 321 (477900)
08-08-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by deerbreh
08-08-2008 9:09 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
If you have "been over all of this already" how could you make the nonsensical statement that the Eden narrative hasn't been found apart from the Book of Genesis? - because of course it has - numerous times. You are simply in denial if you insist otherwise.
As for the logic, I see no need to get to that - there is really nothing to discuss. You don't understand logic so there is no point. Go do some reading on logical fallacies and get up to speed and then maybe we can talk. In a separate thread of course. Here is a good place to start.
Hold on until a little later junior and we will see if that is the case.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2008 9:09 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 255 of 321 (477901)
08-08-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2008 1:12 PM


Re: Jesus Christ's Words
Reply to post 248
bertot wrote: Hows that for a response AM?
That was a fine ”bertot’ response, my friend.
bertot previously responded: Further, as this discussion goes it is irrelevant who the author was, as I have asked AM if the Eden narrative has ever been discovered apart from the book of Genesis or if it has always been a part of that book. He has avoided this quesion like a plauge.
I believe that I did respond to your above question and gave you Sumerian as well as Proto-Canaanite narratives as being similar to the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I do not recall exactly where (which Thread or which post} you asked and I responded to that question, but I do recall us discussing the subject. So, now, ”deerbreh’ states much the same thing in post #251:
quote:
Actually it has. In fact, there is fairly good evidence that the author of Genesis "borrowed" the account from Sumerian sources that predate Genesis. This is pretty much accepted by most scholars, who presumably do think on occasion.
Northstate Science: Review of From Eden to Exile, Chapter 1: The Garden of Eden
quote:
Cline next discusses mention of Eden in Sumerian texts that pre-date Genesis and which may themselves have been borrowed from an earlier culture, the Ubaidians (approximately 7500 - 5500 BP). He also notes the existence of additional creation stories from the region that have “striking similarities” to the story found in Genesis. All of these pre-date the biblical account:
Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was compiled from various sources, which were written down as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. and as late as the sixth or fifth century B.C. Even the earliest parts of the Bible, such as the source called J by biblical scholars, do not date earlier than the tenth or ninth century B.C., hundreds of years after Enuma Elish was written.
In fact, there are multiple non-Hebrew Eden accounts and there are Hebrew accounts not part of Genesis as well.
Eden narratives in Qumran | Cegula
quote:
Eden narratives in Enoch
(1) The Book of Enoch
(2) Eden narrative in Enoch
(3) Differences from Genesis
Eden narratives in Jubilee
(1) The Book of Jubilee
(2) Eden narrative in Jubilee
(3) Differences from Genesis
I am not certain what more you are looking for?
I’ve got to get some sleep. I’ll check in tomorrow morning.
My post #246 is a continuation of my response to your post #244. I look forward to your reply.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2008 1:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024