|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the biggest bible contradiction? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
anastasia writes:
What you prefer and what you insist are no doubt important to you. What is important to me is an understanding of your selection criteria about which you are apparently confused.
Please, I prefer to keep the rest of this in context. I don't insist that all interpretations based on errors are disingenuous. I insist that the ones previously mentioned (do I have to mention them again?) are indeed purposeful misrepresentations after the fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
ConsequesntAtheist writes: What you prefer and what you insist are no doubt important to you. What is important to me is an understanding of your selection criteria about which you are apparently confused. My apologies then, I am at a loss as to how to make myself more clear. Unless, of course, you would make your objection more specific. You think I am biased, perhaps? Maybe. I don't so much select as compare, and disregard. I assume you have disregarded scripture in general, and I would be equally interested in your criteria for doing so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hey, I did manage to get back before the thread closed!
quote: Yes, both happen. However, in my case I did very thoroughly investigate the Catholic doctrines, and found less and less sense the more time I spent at it. Even with that, I’ve still spent more time studying Catholic doctrine than I have on any other single faith system, showing that I’ve biased my search in favor of Catholicism, and it still didn’t do very well.
quote: “knowing everything” is an unreasonably high bar, and of course not what I’m saying. I’m talking about getting at least an equal amount of understanding of several faiths, as well as their histories. So I have a solid understanding of Catholicism, a solid understading of Calvinism, a solid understanding of Islam, a solid understanding of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Of those and more I do have a decent understanding, and it only took around 6 years. I think one can very well make an educated guess, but first one must shed the preconceived notion that one is already right and everyone else is wrong. More importantly, it seems like an educated guess is an absolute necessity of anyone who thinks there could really be a Hell, and is honest about their beliefs. If there is even a low chance of Hell, then knowing about these religions, many of which claim a Hell for people in the other religions is more important than any earthly concern. If I honestly think there could be a Hell, then blithely guessing that the religion that my parents happen to have is the one that’s correct (and being content with that) suggests that I don’t really believe in Hell. Avoiding spending an eternity in Hell is certainly more important than movies, sitcoms, card games, birthday parties, driving to work, and most things we spend time on. Out of all that, saying that we just don’t have time to examine our religion and the religions of others is the same as saying that we really don’t think there is a hell, or at least that we, without bothering to question it, think lucky chance caused us to be born into the one true path that will save us from Hell. For me, now, I don’t think there is a Hell, and as such can excuse myself from not reading the Qu’ran or Calvin’s reasons why the Catholic Church is the wrong path. Of course, I’ve already studied those, and that’s been good. I learn out a desire to learn - but if I honestly believed in Hell, then I’d learn out of logical necessity. In short, I think a belief in Hell requires a belief that a decently educated guess is infinitely better than guessing our parents already had it right. Have a fun day- Edited by Equinox, : minor change -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Ok, here we go again.
quote: OK, now it sounds like we are playing fast and loose with the Bible, and just saying whatever we like. It looks like our conversation went like this:Scottness says that “there is only Christ, and one antichrist.” I show where the author of 2John talks about many antichrists, even 1,800 years ago. Scottness then says there are many antichrists, each incarnations of the unholy ghost, and then goes on to claim an unholy trinity. Two thoughts come to mind. First, that Scottness makes it clear that for some, the actual text of the Bible is less important than making it fit with other ideas. Second, the satanic trinity seems even less well biblically supported than the holy trinity, which is saying a lot, since we’ve been discussing for a while whether or not even the holy trinity can be supported by the Bible. Third, if Scottness’ “one Christ, one antichrist” claim actually means “many incarnations of the single antichrist spirit in many antichrists”, then doesn’t it seem that he’s also implying many incarnations of Christ, like Krishna? This is starting to sound like the Book of Mormon. It seems clear to me that other new testament authors did clearly imagine a single antichrist, while the author of 2 John thought of many (notice that 2Jn said "many antichrists" NOT "many prophets of the single antichrist". It seems that again, the actual text is less important than the preconceived belief). Different people often have different ideas on any topic, so finding differences between books is hardly surprising. I don’t see a need to try to make 2Jn’s many antichrists into one antichrist, unless one feels that we have to make all the books of the Bible agree with each other, no matter whether they do or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anastasia wrote:
quote: But isn’t the whole basis of the Bible belief that God does reveal things to people? And doesn’t the Catholic church itself claim it’s interpretations (at least the infallible ones) are guided by God? Many of them certainly do go by what the Bible itself says, and use logical, open apologetics. I may not agree with their apologetics, but then again I don’t agree with many from bigger churches either. As we’ve noted before on this thread, there really is only one word that’s translated differently in the JW bible, and that’s a lot less than the documented changes to the Bible made by the early Christian church in support of their doctrinal views, including the trinity. I agree that I personally discount a claim to private revelation, but am posting to say that: 1. Discounting revelations seems to invalidate the whole idea of the Bible. 2. I don’t see all of these newer Christianities rely mostly on private revelation anyway. The Mormons do in getting their 3rd testament, yes, but is a 200 year old revelation wrong because it isn’t 1,950 years old? Will the book of Mormon be Kosher : ) in another 1,700 years? What about the apologetics, it doesn’t seem much different from Calvinist or Catholic apologetics. Have a fun day- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
wb, Equinox,
I will be back later with a response for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
anastasia writes:
quote: It sure wasn’t when Christianity started. There were all kinds of different views, and it seems like the Trinitarian view wasn’t spelled out for decades at least, even centuries, and probably wasn’t the majority for a similar length of time. Today, yes, 99.9% of Christians are Trinitarian (of course, that’s ignoring the protestants who claim that Mary makes the Catholics polytheistic, etc.) I prefer to define a Christian as someone who says that their religion is based on Jesus Christ, however they interpret or define him. That’s a little loose, but at least it avoids the “christianer than thou” nastiness, and allows for Christians with an Ebionite, Marcionite, or Gnostic view, all of which are around the same age or older than the Trinitarian view. It also fits well with what the dictionary says: Chris”tian-adjective of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. -noun a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. Take care- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Equinox writes: It sure wasn’t when Christianity started. There were all kinds of different views, and it seems like the Trinitarian view wasn’t spelled out for decades at least, even centuries, and probably wasn’t the majority for a similar length of time. Today, yes, 99.9% of Christians are Trinitarian (of course, that’s ignoring the protestants who claim that Mary makes the Catholics polytheistic, etc.) It makes sense why the Trinitarian view wasn't spelled out for decades or centuries. Hey, it is not even spelled out definitively enough for everyone to agree at this day and age! But if you think about the various faith backgrounds which were possessed by new initiates into christianity, the problem was not necessarily noticed or defined as a problem until it began to contradict other views, and a task began of determining which idea was least contradictory. Men back then had no immediate access to all of scripture, gentiles in some regions didn't necessarily even know much of the judeo-abrahamic faiths. A few hundred years is not too long IMO to notice and correct/define differences. I think you know as well as I do that the protestant idea of Mary being a goddeess of sorts is absurd. They can think all they want, but it doess't make it true. It is worthy of note that this topic was never even mentioned during the reformation.
Equinox writes: I prefer to define a Christian as someone who says that their religion is based on Jesus Christ, however they interpret or define him. That’s a little loose, but at least it avoids the “christianer than thou” nastiness, and allows for Christians with an Ebionite, Marcionite, or Gnostic view, all of which are around the same age or older than the Trinitarian view. It also fits well with what the dictionary says: In deference to you and the dictionary, Equinox; the Marcionites and such were not held in esteem at their time, and their disciples in spirit are not today. Sheer age does not produce validity, and there are much older religions than christianity. I can only say that the teachings of christ may be somewhat open to interpretation, but if a christian is supposedly a follower of Christ and is not following what we know of Him, how can they be called a christian? Further, if a person claims to have personally revealed and privy knowledge of Jesus, how does that work with the Biblical claim that Jesus will save all men?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
He is both at the same time. Which would make him somewhat more than human. A man who is also a God is more than human. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
quote: Well, not by the proto-orthodox, who became the Catholic church. Most people back then weren’t any kind of Christian, and didn’t care. All of the early forms of Christianity disagreed with each other and called each other heretics. You could say the same you said in reverse as well, that the proto-orthodox (the Trinitarians) were not held in esteem (by the marcionites) early on either. It’s like saying that Lutheranism is wrong because the Calvinists disagreed with them, etc. Different religions disagree with each other, and we can all see today that Christianities are little different on that score.
quote: I agree. I mentioned age because you sounded like you were using age to weigh the Trinitarian revelations as more important than, say, the Mormon revelations. (in keeping with our honesty discussion, I'm not mormon, I just don't buy either set of revelations).
quote: And what do we know of him? The gospels are written decades later by people who never saw him, and the same goes for the rest of the New Testament. We do know some things better than others (like Jesus was probably a monotheist and a Jew, and not a Buddhist or Hindu), but the best supported historical reconstruction is that of an apocalyptic Jew, not a messiah. So if you are calling someone a non-Christian because they aren’t in line with our best guess based on the evidence, then you’ve called nearly all of the “Christians” not Christian. A good place to start on learning about the different ideas of who Jesus was is here: Historical Jesus Theories
quote: Well, it could work a lot of ways. Their revelation may say that all men (women too?) are saved, even if they don’t get the knowledge, or any number of other ways (you sound almost Gnostic in saying that they need the saving knowlege to be saved). Not that I doubt you, but where does Jesus say all men will be saved? Is that another contradiction, since in Mt 7 Jesus seems to say that most people will end up in Hell, and further that most churches (including the Catholic church) have as part of their doctrine that all people *won’t* be saved, based on the Bible? That’s the heresy called Universalism. Take care-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Brian writes: A man who is also a God is more than human I admire your breaking down of the obvious. I imagine the originators of the Trinity doctrine doing just that. An entity, or persona who is a combination of God and man would indeed be a lesser God or a super-human. That is the reason why the Trinity defines the persons of God as having seperate and distinct natures, and actually three persons, as opposed to God being one person who is a melding of different natures. Understand? There is no fusing or melding of natures or attributes. The best way I can say it is this; instead of 3=1, and 1,2,and 3 are only parts of God, 1=God, 2=God, 3=God...all equal the same amount whether together or seperate. It is not mathematically possible, of course!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Equinox writes: Well, not by the proto-orthodox, who became the Catholic church. Most people back then weren’t any kind of Christian, and didn’t care. All of the early forms of Christianity disagreed with each other and called each other heretics. You could say the same you said in reverse as well, that the proto-orthodox (the Trinitarians) were not held in esteem (by the marcionites) early on either. It’s like saying that Lutheranism is wrong because the Calvinists disagreed with them, etc. Different religions disagree with each other, and we can all see today that Christianities are little different on that score As usual, I am close to being unable to argue at face value with your thoughts. But I guess there is more to life than meets the eye! The term proto-orthodox is sufficient enough to say much in itself. They were the first orthodox followers of Christ. If history now prefers to call early christian catholics 'orthodox' and 'orthodox' means 'adhering to conventional doctrine', then who has decided what doctrine is conventional? Isn't the term itself indicative of bias? The 'proto-orthodox' decided their doctrine was conventional, and then, so have the historians in so dubbing them. What, then, does one mean when they say a doctrine is conventional? Usual, accepted, widespread, or literal? We can say that monogamy is conventional; it is usual and accepted to say that bigamy is wrong, it's even a law! It is possible at times for the conventional to be wrong by an extreme measure, like with slavery. Generally there is power in numbers, but we could still say that just because a view point is not held by many, that doesn't mean its not right or equally viable. We would need therefore a criteria to determine what does make something right, or if indeed there is a right. If we look only at man-made laws, it is easy to determine what is right. 'Right' is almost always linked with 'rights'. In other words, we have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't take away our neighbor's rights. I would dare to say that the laws surrounding bigamy are more based on the rights of eacn individual, then any residual of christian commandments. Doctrinal 'wrongs' and 'rights' are harder to decide. There is no clear line about what is absolutely true of God, and what is just a guess. There is not really any line at all, as everyone keeps reminding me Even scripture is not a clear line, if it is not revered as such. But, doctrines work only under the assumption that scripture is the word of God. I know of no branch of christianity that does not claim to follow scripture. Looking at things that way we can get closer to deciding which doctrines are more 'right'. Scripture is full of contradictions. The Trinity is just one example of a reconciliation of confusing ideas. Other possibilities exist, but, whether ancient or modern, men have attempted to resolve one issue with the side-effect of forcing another into existance. If disbelief in an extra-biblical trinity forces polytheism, the contradiction is worse than it was to begin with. It forces the new doctrine into heresy. It is not so much that one church declares heresy or excommunication, as that the belief itself has created a heresy. It has created a heresy against the bible, so to speak, the bible which was given the prestige of being the final word. The bible thereafter becomes subject to the interpretation, and not, the interpretation is subject to the bible.
Equinox writes: So if you are calling someone a non-Christian because they aren’t in line with our best guess based on the evidence, then you’ve called nearly all of the “Christians” not Christian. I suppose I have.
Well, it could work a lot of ways. Their revelation may say that all men (women too?) are saved, even if they don’t get the knowledge, or any number of other ways (you sound almost Gnostic in saying that they need the saving knowlege to be saved). I suppose this is true as well; I believe men need the saving knowledge to be saved.
Not that I doubt you, but where does Jesus say all men will be saved? Is that another contradiction, since in Mt 7 Jesus seems to say that most people will end up in Hell, and further that most churches (including the Catholic church) have as part of their doctrine that all people *won’t* be saved, based on the Bible? That’s the heresy called Universalism Sorry about that! I don't mean that all men will be saved, but that all will have the oppurtunity to be. Certain cult type religions though don't give many people outside of their group much hope. Jehova's Witnesses believe that God only speaks to higher up members of the wt society, and everyone else waits for their revelations. They do extend the offer of salvation to others thru witnessing, so it is not a great example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Equinox writes: Two thoughts come to mind. First, that Scottness makes it clear that for some, the actual text of the Bible is less important than making it fit with other ideas That is what I have been saying all along, Equinox! No offense to scottness, I think his position is not unusual or objectionable...because he is not defining doctrine and I don't think there is any anti-christ doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Equinox writes: For me, now, I don’t think there is a Hell, and as such can excuse myself from not reading the Qu’ran or Calvin’s reasons why the Catholic Church is the wrong path. Of course, I’ve already studied those, and that’s been good. I learn out a desire to learn - but if I honestly believed in Hell, then I’d learn out of logical necessity I am very guilty of learning out of a desire to learn, also out of fascination and respect for my faith, and necessity of apologetics in day-to-day life. I learn so that I may 'witness' and not cave under influences that I am not prepared to meet. You must realize that not everyone has the means or opportunity to learn as we do. All men, however have the opportunity to live a good life, and it is that which I believe will qualify me for eternal life, and not the sum of my knowledge. If I compare all religions, and end up with faith in none, I have accomplished what? Without passing judgement, I can say there is a reason why the Bible warns against the wisdom of men, and puts the kingdom of God in the hands of little children. It is trust in God that is all-important, and we can not decide on our own merits which religion will save us from hell. I suppose this is what the protestants mean when they say they don't like organized religions, but there I am.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I understand your concerns. Btw, I think Anastasia is partly correct in her response to you. It is a result of interpreting the sciptures as per a pattern already established. I tend to speak as though this is the way it is in each subject I cover. Of course I believe that (in those cases), but I am aware that there are differences in opinion even among those I believe are genuine Christians. I had a very difficult time with some of this at one time. I am sorry for not showing more consideration for the sensibility of others.
By the same token, I would be dishonest to not share what I believe to be the truth! Now to defend my position, I believe that the Bible interprets itself. So as part of that belief I assume that the Bible was written with a particular interpretation in mind. I don't think anyone alive other than Jesus, fully grasped it's depth and cohesion. Jesus spoke of the spirit of truth (the counsellor or the Holy Spirit) coming and guiding us into all truth. That Spirit is the lens by which the scriptures must be interpreted. It's not something we can invoke by our own will or subjection. We tend to get caught up in whether this interpretation or that is the correct one. What astounds me, is that there are cases where I think multiple interpretations are simultaneously correct. As has been said (I remember hearing it somewhere), there is something in the scriptures for everyone. A child can understand it, and others can spend their whole lives discovering the overlapping consistency of the Bible. I remember Billy Graham in his book 'The Holy Spirit' make the case that after reading the Bible hundreds of times over his lifetime, he still gets out of it a little more of the picture each time. Just makes it all the more supernatural to me, and dismisses the notion of human wisdom alone being the source. It's just too deep for us to have invented. But at the same time, we were created to understand it, so in that sense it rings a chord, if we are willing. As for the Christ /antichrist simplification that I offered, consider that Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters (Matthew 12:30). And consider 1 John 4:3 ...but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. Don't forget that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) So this black and white assesment essentially boils down to all of us being of the world (of the antichrist by implication) until we accept Jesus as Lord. Jesus says this in another astonishing claim as well. We are all familliar with John 3:16, but how many overlook the whole context? John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. This is very difficult stuf in the philosophical climate in the West today Equinox. In my opinion, it is not so difficult to understand logically, but it is simply not acceptable to people. Then again, it was not acceptable then, and we crucified him. So if you will permit me, I contend that I am not cherry picking the scriptures at all. In fact, I am taking them all in context as a whole story that reflects a whole being (Jesus) that fulfilled it. Can you accept that answer in at least the effect defending why I believe what I said, even if you do not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024