|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: Really? Do you really accept that a command to stay in Jerusalem would allow a short trip outside the walks, but rule out a trip to Galilee ? I asked for a link as I am quite sure I have never made that argument with you or anyone else on the forum. I thought my previous post was pretty clear. I think that you have me mixed up with someone else, so again, I would like to know why you claimed that I was being dishonest.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There's one terrific piece of evidence we often overlook, and that is that it was WOMEN who first discovered the empty tomb and it was a woman who first saw the risen Jesus Himself. We think nothing of it in our time but in those days to give women any responsibility for such an important role as witnessing the resurrection of Christ was a radical contradiction to the prevailing attitude toward women. That Jesus Himlself, God Himself, entrusted mere women with this revelation must have been quite an eyeopener to the male disciples who accepted the cultural attitude that women could not even testify in court (or only under some special circumstances, sorry I'm not up on all that.) And this also has the wonderful effect of validating the scriptures as honest witness reports, since no Jew in his right mind would ever make up such a tale as that women were entrusted with this knowledge before the men knew it. It's also no doubt a big part of the reason why Thomas couldn't believe the reports he'd heard -- they came first of all from women. Anyway, you can be sure none of the writers of the gospels would have made up such a thing. By the same reasoning, the Gospel of Mary Magdalane is, if anything, even more credible than the account of the resurrection, and we should all immediately become Gnostics. After all, it says that Jesus loved Mary even more than he loved the male disciples, and that he confided to her privately important teachings that he wouldn't tell the Apostles in public --- and given the lowly status of women at the time the Gospel of Mary was composed, no-one would have made that up. Therefore, the Gospel of Mary and all its contents must be true. Logic! Well, what passes for logic round here, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a perfect example of a bogus writing, as are all the gnostic gospels. It is not a narrative, it's a bunch of vaporings by a gnostic, the exact sort of thing the Bible is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Interesting that you don't answer the question.
But here you are insisting that if the disciples could get away with a trip to the Mount of Olives, they could get away with going all the way to Galilee.
Message 27 Seriously, a little day trip,just outside the walls, certainly could be within the bounds of staying in Jerusalem. Heading off to Gallee certainly is not,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Yawn, just more of your usual slanders. Look we all know what a nasty peace of work you are. It doesn't encourage anyone to believe your silliness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a perfect example of a bogus writing .... And yet your reasoning in support of the canonical gospels would prove it genuine, and indeed more likely to be genuine than they are. Which suggests that there's something wrong with your reasoning.
It is not a narrative .... 'Tis.
... the exact sort of thing the Bible is not. But only because the Bible was compiled by people ignorant of your criterion of whether a book is genuine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is not a narrative. It is a bogus made-up dialogue putting words in the mouths of Biblical personalities they would never say.
It puts Mary in a position not normally given to women in Jewish culture based on scripture's attitude to women, isn't that obvious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is not a narrative. It is a bogus made-up dialogue putting words in the mouths of Biblical personalities they would never say. It's a narrative. It includes Jesus making long speeches, but then so do the canonical Gospels --- the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind. As to whether they'd have said it, that depends on whether the Gospel of Mary is accurate, let's not do circular reasoning here.
It puts Mary in a position not normally given to women in Jewish culture based on scripture's attitude to women, isn't that obvious? And that's the point. According to your reasoning, Faith, according to your reasoning, that means that it must be true because no-one would have made it up. Look, this is simple a fortiori reasoning. Let's go over it again. You say that the canonical gospels must be true, because no-one would have invented a story which gives a significant role to women. But here we have the Gospel of Mary, which gives an even more significant role to a woman --- indeed, to the same woman. It says that Jesus favored her above the male disciples, over the Twelve Apostles themselves. This leaves you with two choices: (1) You can follow your own reasoning, and say that no-one would have invented the Gospel of Mary which elevates a woman above all the male disciples put together. In which case the Gospel of Mary is true and we should all believe a bunch of Gnostic nonsense. (2) You can reject your own reasoning, and admit that the rather less prominent part played in the canonical gospels by women is not in fact good evidence for the truth of the canonical gospels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
(1) You can follow your own reasoning, and say that no-one would have invented the Gospel of Mary which elevates a woman above all the male disciples put together. In which case the Gospel of Mary is true and we should all believe a bunch of Gnostic nonsense. (2) You can reject your own reasoning, and admit that the rather less prominent part played in the canonical gospels by women is not in fact good evidence for the truth of the canonical gospels. Or I can continue to say that the fact that women were given such prominence specifically in the witnessing and reporting of Christ's resurrection, which no Jew could have made up, is evidence for the truthfulness of the gospels, and all the gnostic gospels are is bogus revisionist usurpers and copycats. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Raphael.
Raphael writes: I am familiar with the idea of the father complex. However, this psychological phenomenon is more proof for there being a God than against. Think of it this way. We each have an innate desire/compulsion and real need to eat food. Food exists. Doesn't make sense that food would exist, given that we naturally crave it? The same goes for many things in life. Water. Sex. Belonging. Love. This is the same idea. The father complex (which we all have to some extent or another) is the innate desire to be fathered and all the ideas/assumptions/learned ideas about what that means. But at a base level, we all desire to be fathered. Does it not logically follow that this need is based on a reality? And, in fact, we find that it is. We all have a father. So what does this prove? It proves: This innate desire for a father, and the subsequent projection of this need, is based on reality; we all have a father that exists/existed. Therefore, this seemingly innate desire to think about God, create Gods, worship God, know God personally, and create religions around God also is based on reality. That which fulfills this desire, the food to our hunger, is the real, actual, God, YHWH. As I understand it, the basic argument unfolds as follows:
I'm not prepared to accept this argument at face value. For example, you included "belonging" and "love" in your list of things that are yearned for. These are good examples of things that might be exclusively psychogenic. If they are, then that would be pretty good evidence that people frequently yearn for things that only exist in their minds. Also, I haven't studied psychology, but I never understood a "father complex" to be a "yearning for a father," but more of an influence of one's relationship (or lack thereof) with their father on their relationships with other people. So, I'm not entirely sure it's really an example of what you're looking for. Even if it is, are we sure it's an "innate" yearning, like hunger? How do we know it isn't an acquired yearning, with culture and experience priming us for it? Another observation is that a "father complex" often means one has erroneously projected feelings onto someone who is not their father. So, how do we rule out the possibility that belief in God is not a similarly erroneous projection of some other yearning (e.g., yearning for a "father figure," some sort of "Cosmic Truth" or feeling of "Belonging")? I'm generally in agreement with you that our biology favors yearning for things that are biologically and socially "real" over yearning for things that are not "real." However, I'm not convinced that human psychology is so tidy that it can be used to reliably diagnose reality.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Or I can continue to say that the fact that women were given such prominence specifically in the witnessing and reporting of Christ's resurrection, which no Jew could have made up, is evidence for the truthfulness of the gospels, and all the gnostic gospels are is bogus revisionist usurpers and copycats. You can say that, but that would be incredibly stupid. Oh for fuck's sake. You wish to argue that THE SAME THING is an argument for the truth of the canonical gospels, and that THE SAME THING should be ignored as an argument for the truth of the Gnostic gospels. I have literally laid my head down upon my keyboard and wept with laughter, with mirth and despair mingled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes:
That wasn't the point I was making at all. I agree that there are discrepancies in the accounts. I don't agree that these discrepancies negate the main point which is that God did something unique in Jesus by resurrecting Him. Interesting that you don't answer the question.But here you are insisting that if the disciples could get away with a trip to the Mount of Olives, they could get away with going all the way to Galilee. For that matter I contend that the fact that there are differences just goes to show that there wasn't collusion and that there wasn't an organized group starting something with ulterior motives. INHO, which obviously is opposite to your opinion, is that the differences actually give credibility to the essential message of the NT. The entire NT is written around that event with the writers trying to get their head around what God was doing, what He would do in the future and what it should mean to their lives. People are still doing that today. (Including me. ) They aren't all in agreement about the answers or even historical details but they all are in agreement that Jesus was resurrected.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Not exactly true, is it ?
It is an open question as to where the disciples were over the 40 day period but it seems pretty clear that they didn't remain in Jerusalem the whole time. Even in Acts Luke has them returning to Jerusalem from Olivet, which has to lead you to understand that Luke is agreeing that they didn't stay in Jerusalem even though he had written in his gospel that they had been told to do
You definitely suggest a trip to Galilee, based on the short day-trip to the Mount of Olives, which is only against the strictest interpretation of Jesus' (supposed) command.
quote: In reality the suggestion of collusion is a straw man, and one that serves to obscure the copying between the Synoptic Gospels. But writing off the differences without considering them as you do is just to ignore what is going on. And in this case The author of Luke/Acts seems to be deliberately attacking the account in Matthew. And that is hardly the only significant difference between the two Gospels. And really, can you imagine Matthew completely ignoring the encounter on the road to Emmaus, and wrongly placing the appearances in Galilee as would have to be the cause if Luke/Acts is correct. And if Luke/Acts is wrong, then the Encounter on the road to Emmaus must be a fiction and quite likely more, besides. But I don't expect you to deal honestly with these points, because you have already failed to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes:
Frankly I wrongly interpreted what was meant by a short-day trip which is ignorance, not dishonesty, a term you like to liberally throw around.
You definitely suggest a trip to Galilee, based on the short day-trip to the Mount of Olives, which is only against the strictest interpretation of Jesus' (supposed) command. PaulK writes: In Matthew Jesus says to tell the brethren to leave for Galilee. This does not preclude Jesus turning up anywhere else. We don't know that all the brethren got the memo. Also, Matthew does say that the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee and it would make sense that it would be the eleven disciples who Jesus was referring to when He told them to pass on the message to go to Galilee. It wasn't two of the eleven that Jesus appeared to on the road to Emmaus. And really, can you imagine Matthew completely ignoring the encounter on the road to Emmaus, and wrongly placing the appearances in Galilee as would have to be the cause if Luke/Acts is correct. And if Luke/Acts is wrong, then the Encounter on the road to Emmaus must be a fiction and quite likely more, besides.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It isn't the same thing. The gnostic gospels are discredited from many angles before we even get to Mary Magdalene.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024