Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,859 Year: 12,971/6,534 Month: 254/2,210 Week: 195/390 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1396 of 1532 (902519)
11-24-2022 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1389 by PaulK
11-24-2022 12:22 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes:
It’s right there in the quote. Mark and Matthew say to run when the Romans start pagan worship in the Temple - which would have almost certainly provoked a revolt. Luke says that the sign to flee is armies surrounding Jerusalem which would not have happened until the Romans mobilised their forces to respond to the revolt (at the earliest).
I don't believe that the Romans started pagan worship in the Temple. As far as I know they simply plundered it which is interesting but I don't think addresses your point. At any rate it would be at least about the Roman occupation of the Temple and in reference to the Babylonian occupation back in 589 BC.
I suggest that it would be quite natural for Jesus to predict that the Temple would be desecrated prior to the more general invasion. As I said I contend that His prediction was based on His understanding of the political situation in His world then.
I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indicator that it was time to get out of Dodge.
BTW, you said something about this suggesting a later writing. I just don't see that and in addition it is recorded as Him having said that not one stone would be left on another in regards to the Temple. As we know, there are still quite a few stones on top of one another. If any of these were written after the war then surely they wouldn't have included that statement.
I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indictor that it was time to get out of Dodge.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1389 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2022 12:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1397 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2022 3:29 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1397 of 1532 (902520)
11-24-2022 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1396 by GDR
11-24-2022 2:44 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
I don't believe that the Romans started pagan worship in the Temple
Yes, I’ve mentioned that before. That’s the reason for changing the prophecy.
quote:
At any rate it would be at least about the Roman occupation of the Temple and in reference to the Babylonian occupation back in 589 BC.
Of course it wouldn’t. It’s a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes erecting an altar to Zeus in the Temple. That’s what Daniel is talking about.
quote:
I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews.
Please keep track of the context. That is what Matthew and Mark wrote, which was changed in Luke,
quote:
BTW, you said something about this suggesting a later writing. I just don't see that…
It’s pretty obvious. Something that didn’t happen (but might have happened - Caligula got very close) was replaced with something that did. Which is pretty easy with hindsight- but what would be the motivation to change the supposed words of Jesus otherwise?
quote:
..and in addition it is recorded as Him having said that not one stone would be left on another in regards to the Temple.
But Jesus did not say who would do the demolition, and as I have pointed out that demolition seems to come at the very end. (I also note that Jesus is supposed to have said that he would rebuild the Temple in 3 days. It’s a bit tricky to nail down, but it certainly seems plausible that that was related to this prophecy.)
quote:
I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews
And I don’t see why you would think that when, I clearly said that that was what was in Matthew and Mark - and was changed in Luke.
The point I made about what the Jews believed is that the Jews believed that the End Times would feature a war which would go very badly for them until God intervened- and that provided adequate reason to run for the hills

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1396 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 2:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1402 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1398 of 1532 (902521)
11-24-2022 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Percy
11-24-2022 12:56 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes:
If you're not going to address the questions raised about the reliability of Tacitus as a source about Jesus then you shouldn't be citing him.
I don't know what you would agree to as evidence. Here is a wiki page that provides considerable support for what he wrote.
Tacitus on Jesus
Here is one brief bit from that site.
quote:
The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Percy, posted 11-24-2022 12:56 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1399 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2022 5:58 PM GDR has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7848
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1399 of 1532 (902522)
11-24-2022 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1398 by GDR
11-24-2022 5:41 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
There is also this.
quote:
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[68] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[69]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1398 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 5:41 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1400 of 1532 (902523)
11-24-2022 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Stile
11-09-2022 10:50 AM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Stile writes:
I wouldn't worry about academic schooling. It's largely inconsequential.
What matters more is how much you want to understand critical thinking - looking for the truth.
My concern is my ability to express my conclusions is not at the level of someone like yourself.
Stile writes:
For everything we discuss (I mean EVERYTHING, not just on this webpage) we all have to decide if we want to discuss it in a way that "feels right" or a way that "follows reality." Feeling right is the human default. Following reality is difficult and takes extra monitoring and effort. Different topics will produce different priorities.

Example: When trying to build a house, I hope the builders will follow reality 100% as opposed to what they feel is right.
Example: When looking for a partner, I hope the following reality side and feeling right sides are more 50-50.

It can become difficult when discussing something like purpose.
Agreed
Stile writes:

When you or I are looking for our own purpose, I hope that the feeling right side is quite high.
However, when you and I are discussing what purpose is and which purpose is better in whatever situation... I hope we move closer to following reality.

It takes constant monitoring and effort to judge each idea/situation and identify if you should be feeling right or following reality.
Once that's identified, it again takes more constant effort to ensure one follows reality to help achieve the goal (even if the goal is to feel right!)

That's what critical thinking is all about.
The problem is though, when it comes to things that can't be concluded objectively we look at what information we have, and then subjectively conclude of how strongly we rate the material, and then come to our own conclusions. In many cases, such as the subject of this discussion, we all come to it with a bias which can't help, in spite of our best efforts, to influence our conclusions regardless of how critically we review the material.
In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can. As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical. However, I as a theist can accept that it could possibly be historical and the look for more material to form a conclusion.
GDR writes:
The junior stone mason has been given a task of carving the stone in a very specific way. His purpose then is to complete faithfully the task that he has been given.
Stile writes:
This would seem to imply that the act of giving the junior the task actually sets the junior's purpose.
This is incorrect, and against reality.
Any teacher (especially those with more than 10 students) will tell you that setting a task doesn't give the student purpose.
It may very well be the teacher's purpose to have the student complete the task. But the student always decides for themselves if they want to comply or not.

If the teacher providing the task actually set the student's purpose in reality... there would be no such thing as students that "act out" or "don't want to participate."

It is the student's own act of willingly complying that sets the student's purpose. Not the act of the teacher providing the task.

A subtle, but extremely important, distinction.
I agree with all of that. In the case of the junior stone mason his purpose cna be formed by just wanting to get the job done so he can get on with what he wants to do, maybe he just ignores the assignment altogether or just maybe it does become his purpose, at least until it is finished, to do the best job that he can.
Stile writes:
I wouldn't say that all the purposes in our lives form our basic nature.
All the purposes in our lives more form our day-to-day existence.
But many people's day-to-day existence is more of a struggle that they do not particularly like. This is because all those purposes go against their basic nature. That is... they do not align with their feelings on what their priorities should be... so they feel ineffective on their actual priorities... which causes feelings of wasted time, frustration and depression.

Some people are lucky enough to have all the purposes in their lives form their day-to-day existence in a way that aligns with their basic nature. These are generally very happy people. They feel like many of their actions are actively working towards the goals they hold as high priorities. They feel engaged, useful and in control of their lives.

So, "all the purposes in our lives" do not form our basic nature. Our basic nature is whatever it happens to be... whatever feelings each individual human may have on what priorities they hold.
The only place I take issue with any of that is that our basic nature is not a fixed point. I think that our basic nature is largely formed based on the lens through which we view our existence. However the lens is adjustable. Maybe someone grows up in a home where he is abused but as he gets older he marries into a family where he is treated like a beloved son or daughter. The individuals lens has been adjusted and likely alters hi/her purposes.
Stile writes:
Having "all the purposes in our lives" match that basic nature or not... is what causes happy people vs. unhappy people.
Agreed. I think we're on the same page, it is just that you express it better.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1334 by Stile, posted 11-09-2022 10:50 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1401 by Tangle, posted 11-24-2022 7:28 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1404 by nwr, posted 11-24-2022 8:40 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1410 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 12:57 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1413 by Stile, posted 11-25-2022 11:13 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8789
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1401 of 1532 (902524)
11-24-2022 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by GDR
11-24-2022 6:25 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes:
In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can. As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical. However, I as a theist can accept that it could possibly be historical and the look for more material to form a conclusion.
We need to get this straightened out.
In principle no one is totally objective about anything, because, as an old professor used to say to me, “where we stand affects what we can see.”
That's why the scientific method is so successful at sorting out fact from beliefs.
Almost all 'scholarly' work about the bible has been done by believers, usually theologians, often clergy. It is impossible for them to deny the resurrection as historical fact and still be a Christian, so anything written by them about the resurrection has to be regarded with deep scepticism. They have the largest conflict of interest possible.
You would say that atheists have an equal but opposite bias and that's possibly true. I could make an argument why that is not the case based on the fact that I, as an atheists can be convinced by good evidence. Like I could be convinced about elves. But that's not my starting point.
More interestingly, believers have to believe that Christ existed as a real person, atheists definitely do not, I'm pretty neutral - Christ could be proven to be as real Alexander the Great but it would make no difference to whether the resurrection was real or not. But the evidence for a historical Christ is so poor that it's actually impossible to find for one side or the other and the evidence for the resurrection is not just non-existant, it's actually negative. The evidence, such that it is, shows that the anonymous authors made it up.
It's only recently when a few real historians have got involved that these things have been argued. For centuries it's been theologians doing literary criticism, starting from the common understanding that it's all true and that's all you've read - stuff that confirms your beliefs. We've read both sides.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 6:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1403 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1402 of 1532 (902525)
11-24-2022 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1397 by PaulK
11-24-2022 3:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Paulk writes:
Yes, I’ve mentioned that before. That’s the reason for changing the prophecy.
Frankly, I'm not sure how you contend that the prophesy was changed. Also, I'm not that keen on calling it a prophesy as prophesy has in my view a suggestion of supernatural knowledge. I simply see Jesus as predicting what will happen if and when they go ahead with a military revolution.
Also the most likely prediction to be changed would be the one where no rock is left on another.
PaulK writes:
Of course it wouldn’t. It’s a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes erecting an altar to Zeus in the Temple. That’s what Daniel is talking about.
Of course, but Jesus referred to it as paralleling the Babylonian situation to the Roman situation in which they lived.
PaulK writes:
But Jesus did not say who would do the demolition, and as I have pointed out that demolition seems to come at the very end. (I also note that Jesus is supposed to have said that he would rebuild the Temple in 3 days. It’s a bit tricky to nail down, but it certainly seems plausible that that was related to this prophecy.)
It is clear that he is referencing the Romans for the demolition. I'm not clear as to what comes at the end of what.
Jesus conducted a counter Temple movement and that the current Temple culture was corrupt, a den of thieves even, and that era would end. Jesus saw Himself as the Temple replacement as the man who embodied the Word or nature of God and represented the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people for the world.
PaulK writes:
Please keep track of the context. That is what Matthew and Mark wrote, which was changed in Luke,
There are several details like that in the Gospels that don't line up with one another. Different authors.
AbE BTW, I'm impressed with you knowledge in all of this. Is this something that you have studied previously or are you just googling around. In either case you have a good grasp of it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1397 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2022 3:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1409 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 12:37 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1403 of 1532 (902526)
11-24-2022 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1401 by Tangle
11-24-2022 7:28 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Tangle writes:
In principle no one is totally objective about anything, because, as an old professor used to say to me, “where we stand affects what we can see.”
Agreed
Tangle writes:
That's why the scientific method is so successful at sorting out fact from beliefs.
Sure that works great with questions that can be answered by science. It can't for example tell us who we should vote for in an election.
Tangle writes:
Almost all 'scholarly' work about the bible has been done by believers, usually theologians, often clergy. It is impossible for them to deny the resurrection as historical fact and still be a Christian, so anything written by them about the resurrection has to be regarded with deep scepticism. They have the largest conflict of interest possible.
Actually that used to be true but not in the last few decades. Look at the likes of Dom Crossan, Marcus Borg and the balance of the Jesus Seminar. Actually, (although I believe it's a decreasing number) there are many in the CoE. However, I would agree that if I didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus that I would refer to myself as Christian but simply one who believed in what Jesus taught. Yes, that leaves me with a bias, which of course doesn't mean that my beliefs are in error.
Tangle writes:
You would say that atheists have an equal but opposite bias and that's possibly true. I could make an argument why that is not the case based on the fact that I, as an atheists can be convinced by good evidence. Like I could be convinced about elves. But that's not my starting point.
But we both know that an historical event can't be proven so we have to decide for ourselves if what we do have written is sufficient for us to believe or not.
Tangle writes:
More interestingly, believers have to believe that Christ existed as a real person, atheists definitely do not, I'm pretty neutral - Christ could be proven to be as real Alexander the Great but it would make no difference to whether the resurrection was real or not. But the evidence for a historical Christ is so poor that it's actually impossible to find for one side or the other and the evidence for the resurrection is not just non-existant, it's actually negative. The evidence, such that it is, shows that the anonymous authors made it up.
No sense in running around that again. We simply disagree.
Tangle writes:
It's only recently when a few real historians have got involved that these things have been argued. For centuries it's been theologians doing literary criticism, starting from the common understanding that it's all true and that's all you've read - stuff that confirms your beliefs. We've read both sides.
Yes, and as a Christian I say thankfully so, and many of the past assumptions are being overturned such as the meaning of Matthew 24.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1401 by Tangle, posted 11-24-2022 7:28 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1406 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2022 9:54 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1407 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2022 10:02 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1411 by Tangle, posted 11-25-2022 3:26 AM GDR has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6183
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 1404 of 1532 (902527)
11-24-2022 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by GDR
11-24-2022 6:25 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can.
I don't think that's correct.
As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical.
You may be reading too much into the word "atheist". I usually prefer to say that I am agnostic, so as to avoid that misunderstanding. I have not decided that there was no cosmic intelligence involved. The most I can say, is that I do not see any evidence of a cosmic intelligence. But I readily admit that I cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
However, I as a theist can accept that it could possibly be historical and the look for more material to form a conclusion.
That's what I did back when I was still a Christian and still regularly attending church. The conclusion that I reached was that I came to doubt the resurrection, but I did not immediately leave Christianity at that time.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 6:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1405 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 9:14 PM nwr has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5828
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1405 of 1532 (902528)
11-24-2022 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by nwr
11-24-2022 8:40 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
nwr writes:
I don't think that's correct.
I did say theist as opposed to Christian, but you have a point.
nwr writes:
You may be reading too much into the word "atheist". I usually prefer to say that I am agnostic, so as to avoid that misunderstanding. I have not decided that there was no cosmic intelligence involved. The most I can say, is that I do not see any evidence of a cosmic intelligence. But I readily admit that I cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
I was an agnostic for years but I never was atheistic. I just hadn't formed an opinion.
nwr writes:
That's what I did back when I was still a Christian and still regularly attending church. The conclusion that I reached was that I came to doubt the resurrection, but I did not immediately leave Christianity at that time.
I left agnosticism primarily from reading Mere Christianity. Over 20 years ago I decided that I wanted to put more thought into what I believed. It was relatively easy to accept the idea that God is about love and that we should live by the Golden Rule but then I started wondering about things like resurrection, miracles, how to understand the bible etc.
I have shelves of books that I went through and was impressed by N T Wright in particular in his argument for the resurrection. I found that those like Borg and Crossan etc simply argued that it didn't happen because we know it can't happen. I was also interested in how it connected with the world as seen by science. Of course, resurrection requires a different law than the ones we know but I found that people like John Polkinghorne very helpful in finding where the Christianity and science can go together. This was a very helpful book in that regard.
Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the Bible
It shows how we can understand the Bible while getting away from the idea of it being dictated by God.
Anyway, that was kind of my journey.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by nwr, posted 11-24-2022 8:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1408 by nwr, posted 11-24-2022 10:22 PM GDR has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7848
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1406 of 1532 (902529)
11-24-2022 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1403 by GDR
11-24-2022 8:26 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
It can't for example tell us who we should vote for in an election.
This has nothing to do with exploring historicity. History is a science. Historians use the scientific method to determine what mist likely in the past. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ or followers. None.
Your bible is not evidence. It is not evidence until you provide provenance and evidence of authorship. Without that it is equal to Lord of the Rings.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1403 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7848
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1407 of 1532 (902530)
11-24-2022 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1403 by GDR
11-24-2022 8:26 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Crossan, Borg and the rest of the Jesus Seminar are all christians. It is not a group of historians. Its work is a lame attempt to shoe horn evidence for a historical Jesus. Evidence that does not exist.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1403 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:26 PM GDR has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6183
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1408 of 1532 (902531)
11-24-2022 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1405 by GDR
11-24-2022 9:14 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
I was an agnostic for years but I never was atheistic. I just hadn't formed an opinion.
Some would say that you were actually an atheist. You did not believe in God.
Atheism can be taken to just mean the lack of any belief in God.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1405 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 9:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1418 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:14 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1409 of 1532 (902535)
11-25-2022 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1402 by GDR
11-24-2022 8:06 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
quote:
Frankly, I'm not sure how you contend that the prophesy was changed
Luke has a noticeable difference (actually more than one) from Mark and Matthew. Luke is derived from at least one of those. Therefore the difference in Like is a change. It really isn’t at all hard to see. That it involves replacing an event which did not happen with one that did is evidence that the change was made after the predicted events.
quote:
Of course, but Jesus referred to it as paralleling the Babylonian situation to the Roman situation in which they lived.
I suppose you mean your presumed reference to Isaiah, although it is questionable whether it does come from Isaiah (I think Joel more likely).
quote:
It is clear that he is referencing the Romans for the demolition.
Given the fact that it is not mentioned, and God’s presumed intervention would defeat the Romans at the end I can’t see that as true at all.
quote:
Jesus conducted a counter Temple movement and that the current Temple culture was corrupt, a den of thieves even, and that era would end. Jesus saw Himself as the Temple replacement as the man who embodied the Word or nature of God and represented the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people for the world.
Which rather reinforces the point that it is Jesus who wants the Herodian Temple destroyed.
quote:
There are several details like that in the Gospels that don't line up with one another. Different authors.
You forget that we are discussing Luke, and even in your view Luke is derived from Matthew, not a first hand account. If Luke is copying from Matthew, any deviation is a change.
quote:
AbE BTW, I'm impressed with you knowledge in all of this. Is this something that you have studied previously or are you just googling around. In either case you have a good grasp of it.
I’ve discussed Daniel extensively here, and the Olivet Discourse has seen some serious discussion, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1402 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 8:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1412 by Theodoric, posted 11-25-2022 10:46 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 1420 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17368
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 1410 of 1532 (902536)
11-25-2022 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1400 by GDR
11-24-2022 6:25 PM


Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
quote:
In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can.
Since you are rather obviously very strongly biased not only in favour of the resurrection, but in favour of the idea that the evidence must support it, that is a self-serving falsehood. You merely like the idea that you are being objective about it, just as you like the idea that you primarily care about the truth.
quote:
As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical.
Or, an atheist might simply note that an apparently miraculous event is likely font a miracle at all and would require strong evidence to justify belief. Which would be an objective viewpoint.
On the other hand, throwing out much of the Gospel accounts as irrelevant details, or insisting that the participants in a car accident could have no idea where the accident occurred - would be a very clear sign that you weren’t being objective at all. Dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit your conclusion without valid grounds for doing so is undeniable proof of bias.
Or in short your “suggestion” is an obvious and self-serving falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by GDR, posted 11-24-2022 6:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1424 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 2:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022