|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: But I think we all remain curious about how you explain your *something* that can't be investigated scientifically. It sounds like you're resorting to stuff like visions that appear to everyone present except the video camera, things that are apparent to people (who can tell us about these things) but that remain invisible in all ways to all manner of scientific instruments. Not really. For example if we look at the rise of empathy and altruism, or even consciousness, you and others claim scientific evidence. Yes, you can observe it happening but that still doesn't tell why it happened. That said, let's assume that science can actually come up with how consciousness evolved in the same manner that science has demonstrated physical evolution to be a reality. That still doesn't give an explanation of what the impetus was for its evolution. For example I believe I mentioned Chris Barrigar earlier in this thread. Here is a review of his book "Freedom All the Way Up' that outlines briefly his belief.
quote: Percy writes: I think we have a very different idea of what the means. God as a meme. I think you've got 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
GDR writes: There can be a good argument made that acts of selfless love by an atheist are a purer form of worship, or service, to God than what is done by a theist.Percy writes: That was pretty much my point. However the key is selflessness so it can't be for some form of reward in the next life for the theist, or to be highly thought of by others for the atheist. Put another way, an atheist's motivation to do good is unlikely to be adulterated by delusions of supernatural rewards.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
PaulK writes: the Messianic stuff is all postponed until the Second Coming. I'm sure curious as to why you would make that claim The messianic movement was very much part of that era. It was hoped that a messiah, (a man anointed by Yahweh would lead them in battle against the Roman with the sword. Jesus argued that the battle was against the evil behind the Romans and that is fought with love and kindness. Examples are to "turn the other cheek", "Go the extra mile and particularly the call to "love your enemy".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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes:
It's not so much the material, although in some cases it is helpful, but the increased understanding of the early Greek and Hebrew languages.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1940s and 50s, in biblical terms this might be "new" but not in normal scholastic terms. What's new in scholastic terms is that a few non-Christians have started researching and providing alternative interpretations of the same "data". But what we're talking about here is not new. Exactly what information has been revealed about that passage by the Dead Sea Scrolls? Tangle writes: "Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." You completely ignored the verses prior to that clearly show that this is about a revolutionary war with the Romans.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: Firstly, the Bible is a library of books written by men for a number of purposes. (In sone cases to justify the evil they were doing.) Most of it though, particularly in the OT was about what they had observed and what Jesus taught. We can look at the Bible as evidence but then we can make up our own minds as to whether or not we accept the Bible as being an historical account. For the supernatural? I never. Either you're having a hard time keeping people's positions straight, or you're being purposefully irritating. I'll agree that I'm replying to a number of people and it is sometimes difficult to keep everyone else's positions straight. I am trying hard not to be irritating.
Percy writes: I would like to see an example of that. If it is a belief it can't be an objective reality.
No one objects to anyone forming their own beliefs, but you've gone way beyond that. You've claimed objective reality for your beliefs, that there's evidence for them. GDR writes: ...as well as the various philosophical or theological books that in turn don’t have material evidence to support what is written in them.Percy writes: I'm not going to dig through this whole thread to find the quote and as far as I was concerned was that what I wrote was in agreement with what you had posted earlier. You began this message by mistakenly asserting that I'd acknowledged that the Bible is evidence, and you're concluding it by conceding that it isn't. So are you saying that the Gospel accounts aren't evidence? Can you then explain why they are not. They are obviously written to be believed as can be attested to by the fact that many at the time and still now do believe the accounts to be accurate to one degree or another.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes: Yes and he did so by inventing Q and discounting the work of all the early Christians and that was still true right up until his time. There are as you know other arguments for Luke using Matthew that don't require the invention of an unevidenced documentPaulK writes: And how do you know that the early Christians didn't do a lot of work to support their claims? You make these statements without any support. I have no idea where that remark on hostility comes from. You should try sitting on this side of the fence.
It is not as if the early Christians seem to have done a out of work to ensure the accuracy of their claims - or even that their claims are entirely clear. And indeed, you discount the claims about Mark. So drop the hostility. PaulK writes: The Didache does include some of Jesus' sayings but primarily it was an instruction manual on ho wthe church should be run. It evolved, apparently considerably over a period of time. The sayings of Jesus in the Diadache are just as likely to have come from the Gospels as the other way around. Garrow doesn't seem to have gotten much if any support for His view. Interestingly it has come to my attention that Garrow proposes that the Didache is Q, so perhaps it is neither lost nor invented.However even if he is correct it doesn't impact the dating or the order of the synoptics. PaulK writes: Also Jerome wrote this. So, we have no real evidence that the Aramaic document referred to by Papias has any connection to the Gospel associated with Matthew.quote: PaulK writes: Just off the top of my head: It is your argument that makes no sense. First there is no need to mention an event so widely known. Second, separating the Christians from the Jews would point to a later time of writing, not earlier, when Christianity had ceased to be a Jewish sect.1/ The destruction of the Temple would have confirmed Jesus' forecast of the event. They would clearly want to have included that. 2/There would be no point to focus as much as they did on His opposition the the Temple culture and authorities as neither still existed after 70AD. 3/This was a major catastrophic event and they could hardly have ignored it, even when it supported their message. GDR writes: Also the Jewish nation at had two particular hopes for the future. One was the return of Yahweh to their nation and the other was that of a messiah who would be a man anointed by God to lead them against Rome. The Gospels story essentially sees Jesus as fulfilling both of those hopes but in a very different way than what the Jews expected. Jesus used the term "son of man" which combined both hopes. PaulK writes: They were already combined. And “son of man” does nothing to combine them. Well it does. As John said in Chap 1 "the Word became flesh". Jesus the man embodied God's nature and revealed that nature to the world thus embodying the return of Yahweh. He also fulfilled the messianic role but by preaching and teaching non-violent revolution as opposed to a violent one.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: I wasn't referring to any specific passage but to your comment that there had been 2000 years to figure this stuff out.
We were talking specifically about the passage in Matthew about the second coming.You said that the Dead Sea scrolls gave us a new understanding. I asked "Exactly what information has been revealed about that passage by the Dead Sea Scrolls?" Tangle writes: You are going to believe what you are going to believe but in the context of the whole passage it is clearly about what is going to happen when the revolution comes.
I didn't ignore it, I discarded t as irrelevant. The historical facts are that there were numerous cults around at the time preaching the end times as the 1st century was supposed to fulfil earlier apocalyptic prophecies. Tangle writes: Certainly there were other messianic movements during that period however I have never come across any evidence about end times predictions by them or Josephus. Can you give me an example. According to Josephus there were at least half a dozen messianic cults around preaching it and your Dead Sea scrolls mentions more. It was expected in their life time. You can't honestly negotiate your way out of these facts and the actually words said. I do agree that many of the early Christians believed that it would happen soon, and you can still read about people claiming that for today. INHO it, like the first coming, which wasn't at all what people expected and I doubt the 2nd one will be either. My personal opinion for what it is worth, (which is very little I agree), is that it happens individually as we shuffle off this mortal coil.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes:
How many people predicted WWII prior to it happening. Jesus would know, that a revolution was a popular idea, and that a rebellion was going to happen at some point in time. He actually gave it a very wide period of time with His prediction.
n that case Jesus would only be pretending to answer the question instead of honestly admitting that he doesn’t know where in the sequence of events that destruction would actually happen. I don’t think that’s very likely. PaulK writes: No, it is simply about the vindication of His message and the confirmation of it, giving His message authority.
Since the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel that can’t be true. GDR writes: Yes I've read Maccabees. It was 100 years of Jewish reign that didn't go as well as the Jewish nation hoped. I really don't get your point.PaulK writes: This makes no sense. If they ruled for 100 years how can it be that the movement died when the “seven brothers” did? And in fact Judaism is still around and still influenced by those events (eg the celebration of Hanukkah). Of course it was an earthly event and I don't understand why you thought I said it wasn't. However, the Jewish government in the Hasmonean did not bring about what had been hoped for. There ere a number of factions that simply didn't work well together and it was what was essentially a civil war that made it easier for the Herodians, backed by the Romans. to take over and bring that era to a close.
PaulK writes: Daniel was written near the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and the fact that He is writing the material in Chap 7 is an indication that he wasn't all that happy about things as they were.
No. The author of Daniel 7 was a supporter of at least the aims of the Maccabean revolt, writing around that time. PaulK writes: Yes, it was used as being about a human being but it was also used as Daniel used it here to have a heavenly significance. How many times do I have to point this out? The figure in Daniel is implicitly not a son of man. The term usually refers to a human being. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes:
Essentially, correct but we can observe that enough people testified about it that the early church was formed in contrast to all of the other messianic movements of the era. Some of the other movements even had some military success but when the Romans executed them their movements always ground to a an immediate halt. This movement didn't end in spite of the humiliating cruel death at Roman hands.
You have evidence in the Bible but no evidence it is accurate? What would you say about a researcher who said this: "All I have for evidence is my data, but there is nothing to indicate my data is accurate. I only believe it is accurate." How strong a case do you think this researcher has for having discovered something likely true about the real world? He has nothing, right? Well, that's what you have. Percy writes: Certainly Paul was the greatest evangelist but he was hardly alone. Also of course Paul was under the tuition of the Apostles prior to going to the Roman/Greek areas, that also did include the Jewish diaspora.
Paul created the Christian church by evangelizing about Jesus in the Jewish diaspora. None of those who joined his churches or even wrote about Jesus had even seen or heard him, let alone met him. Percy writes: Luke provides a good example right in the beginning of the lack of evidence pervading all of Biblical scholarship. Luke begins by naming Herod, a figure of well established historicity, but then goes on in 1:9 to describe how Zechariah, a priest of the temple, was "chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense." Zechariah was alone. Luke then describes in 1:11 how "an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." Luke tells us the angel was Gabriel. There could only have been only a single witness to this event, Zechariah, but he was rendered speechless until the day of his prophesized son's birth. How convenient that he only gets to tell the other husbands of his village of the prophecy after the fact. And how could Luke know about Zechariah's vision, including what appears to be every word Gabriel said. If we presume Luke or his community didn't make the story up out of whole cloth then the story was passed orally down through the decades. Do you see an ounce of real evidence in any part of this? Luke continues on in the same manner, the next part describing in detail Gabriel's appearance to Mary who, just like Zechariah, was the sole witness. There is some factual basis in that he clearly describes specifically who the account is about. With the amount of detail given I would say that there is a basis for the story, which I agree could have been fabricated by one of the characters. However, I would still contend that Luke was given that account and believed it.
Percy writes: There is a difference between using mindless particles to facilitate consciousness as opposed to evolving from mindlessness.
Your entire body is made up of "mindless particles". Obviously consciousness, morality and sentience have no trouble coming from "mindless particles". GDR writes: I realize that we can see it working its way through societies but that does nothing to answer the question of whether or not that is happening because of a pre-existing intelligence or not. That too is belief without evidence.Percy writes: The it is empathy or even just consciousness. What is "it" in this paragraph? Whatever "it" is, you are correct that your beliefs are not backed by objective evidence.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm on Windows. BTW I get those symbols for apostrophes as well when I read a post on email.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I don't see the symbols when I send the message. The only reason that I see them is when I open posts from others that I see them on my email site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Phat writes:
Hi Phat. And GDR was referring to Daniel.(not knowing) Actually I was referring to Jesus not Daniel. I think that too often we acknowledge Jesus as wholly God and wholly man but then we ignore the wholly man part of Jesus. I don't think that Jesus was that much different than you and I in most respects. It is through the Daniel 7 text that we can understand the wholly God part. I always think of Jesus in Gethsemane. He believes that He is being called to go into Jerusalem, make a messianic statement by riding a colt into Jerusalem and in general tick off everyone in authority. He know that by doing this He is almost certain to be put to death. So, quite reasonably He prays to the Father that He needn't go through with this. However ultimately through His understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, and through prayer, He believes that He is to go ahead with it and that somehow God will vindicate what it is that He was doing. So, He prays to the Father that "this cup be taken from Him" but ultimately He believes BY FAITH that this what He called to do. This actually makes sense of the Gospels when you read them holistically. Understanding it with the idea that He supernaturally knew that He would be resurrected changes everything. Just for one thing it makes the sacrifice of all those who were martyred minimize what it was that Jesus did. It is no longer the great act of the faith that we as humans are called to. I often think of being in the position that Jesus was in Gethsemane and have no doubt that it would be a short prayer and I wouldn't even come close to having the guts to do what Jesus did. In the end I simply do what I can to honour and serve the man Jesus. and the one appointed as Lord by God the father. Frankly I'm not doing a great job of it. Jesus is wholly Man and wholly God and the first born of the New Creation, or the renewal of all things.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes: the Messianic stuff is all postponed until the Second Coming.GDR writes: I'm sure curious as to why you would make that claimPaulK writes: Because that’s what the Christians did. Jesus will rule - after the Second Coming. The Lost Tribes will return - after the Second Coming. I haven't run across any Christians who didn't think that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. However, Jesus was a messiah who different didn't teach or act in the anticipated way. Messiah was simply the man anointed by God to lead them against their enemies. So yes, from a Jewish POV Jesus didn't do what they expected of Him.
PaulK writes: Not true for the early followers of Jesus. Jesus triumphed by showing that with the worst that could be done to Him He still triumphed and showed that evil and death don't have the final word. And Jesus failed and died, so Christians put off the fulfilment until the Second Coming - which never happened. The messianic stuff as you call it is an earthly thing with no connection to the second coming.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes: The Griesbach hypothesis is something of a minority view, too. That's correct.
PaulK writes: Which apparently was NOT about the book we call Matthew, but about the “Gospel of the Hebrews” Jerusalem Perspective You managed to find one guy with a different perspective on it. Nothing from everybody that I have read suggests that as a possibility to be the case. Here is the first part again.
quote: You seem to want to read Jewish apocryphal writing as plain language, yet here you want to read something that is in plain language as meaning something altogether different. By the time of Jerome the Gospels had long been established as Gospels so he is clearly referring to the Gospel of Matthew.
Sure, it is John's theology that explains the views of the early Christians as that sort out the meaning that they could glean from Jesus' teachings and also of His resurrection.Obviously it is not the phrase itself but Christian theology that does the work. You have just said exactly that. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
GDR writes: So are you saying that the Gospel accounts aren't evidence? Can you then explain why they are not.Tangle writes:
We do have the writings of the early church fathers plus Tacitus the Roman historian who wrote this: Because they have no historicity; they fail all evidential tests. We've done this.quote: Tangle writes: We don't know who wrote them. They are full of contradictions, They bear all the hallmarks of myth including antecedents. They have no external confirming evidence. There are multiple frauds, redactions, interpolations and political interference in their construction. They were written at least 40 years after the supposed death of the main character by people who never met him let alone witnessed the events. Major elements that are core to the Christian belief are known to have never happened - eg the sermon on the mount. The list is almost endless. If you can find real historicity in there somewhere, please show us. Actually we have a pretty good idea of who wrote them. Richard Bauckham a Cambridge scholar wrote a book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses with over 600 pages going into the autorship of the Gospels. I own it and have read it. Yes, there are contradictions in some details. Different people will often remember details differently. There is external evidence from early material as well as by the rise of Christianity. As you know I contend that the Gospels were all written within 30 years with the possible exception of John. We have already had multiple posts on that in this thread. And of course you know the "Sermon on the Mount" never happened do you?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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024