All Christians are literalists.
D.Castles
First some brief definitions:-
A. A Christian...a theist, who believes (amongst other things), that
Jesus of Nazareth was/is a manifestation of God.
B. A Literalist...a person who derives a belief system primarily from
"God inspired" writings and uses that written word as the main evidence
to demonstrate the "truth" of that particular belief system.
Jews, Christians & Muslims are all literalists.
Lately, the term "literalist" has been thrown around (usually as an
insult) to describe people who believe that the bible is the un-erring
word of God and maintain a rigid "literal" interpretation.
Although literalism may be practiced in degrees (Uniting Church
"liberals" on one hand to red-necked southern Baptists on the other),
all people that derive a belief system from these works are literalists.
My main reason for this contention in relation to Christians is that
there is no reliable, objective, contemporary, written source or
substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main tenets of the
belief system.( Even the bible itself is considered by many scholars to
be unfit to be taken as a literal recounting of fact.)
If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
belief system derive?
Dave
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
> A new thread deriving from an earlier thread..............
>
> First some brief definitions:-
> A. A Christian...a theist, who believes (amongst other things), that
> Jesus of Nazareth was/is a manifestation of God.
> B. A Literalist...a person who derives a belief system primarily from
> "God inspired" writings and uses that written word as the main evidence
> to demonstrate the "truth" of that particular belief system.
Merriam Webster puts it better:
Main Entry: literalism
Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&-"liz-&m
Function: noun
Date: 1644
1 : adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression
<biblical literalism>
2 : fidelity to observable fact : REALISM
- literalist /-list/ noun
- literalistic /"li-t(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
> Jews, Christians & Muslims are all literalists.
As you would be.
You are adhering to the explicit idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims
are literalists. Your ideas differ from those whom you classify, yet you
are adhering to those ideas.
> Lately, the term "literalist" has been thrown around (usually as an
> insult) to describe people who believe that the bible is the un-erring
> word of God and maintain a rigid "literal" interpretation.
> Although literalism may be practiced in degrees (Uniting Church
> "liberals" on one hand to red-necked southern Baptists on the other),
> all people that derive a belief system from these works are literalists.
Unfortunately, you would also be a literalist, for you are strictly
adhering to an idea that all people who derive a belief from the word of
God are literalists. The strict definition of adherance as to why this is
so is your next paragraph.
> My main reason for this contention in relation to Christians is that
> there is no reliable, objective, contemporary, written source or
> substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main tenets of the
> belief system.( Even the bible itself is considered by many scholars to
> be unfit to be taken as a literal recounting of fact.)
Can you please divulge your sources for this statement, since nobody has
any idea how "many scholars" we are talking about, which scholars we are
talking about, and why they are talking about it.
At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
of absence.
> If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> belief system derive?
God ? <G>
--
"Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:50:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> > A new thread deriving from an earlier thread..............
> >
> > First some brief definitions:-
> > A. A Christian...a theist, who believes (amongst other things), that
> > Jesus of Nazareth was/is a manifestation of God.
> > B. A Literalist...a person who derives a belief system primarily from
> > "God inspired" writings and uses that written word as the main evidence
> > to demonstrate the "truth" of that particular belief system.
>
> Merriam Webster puts it better:
>
> Main Entry: literalism
> Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&-"liz-&m
> Function: noun
> Date: 1644
> 1 : adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression
> <biblical literalism>
> 2 : fidelity to observable fact : REALISM
> - literalist /-list/ noun
> - literalistic /"li-t(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
>
> > Jews, Christians & Muslims are all literalists.
>
> As you would be.
Who cares what I am? I'm not even a Christian.
>
>
> You are adhering to the explicit idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims
> are literalists. Your ideas differ from those whom you classify, yet you
> are adhering to those ideas.
So what?
>
>
> > Lately, the term "literalist" has been thrown around (usually as an
> > insult) to describe people who believe that the bible is the un-erring
> > word of God and maintain a rigid "literal" interpretation.
> > Although literalism may be practiced in degrees (Uniting Church
> > "liberals" on one hand to red-necked southern Baptists on the other),
> > all people that derive a belief system from these works are literalists.
>
> Unfortunately, you would also be a literalist, for you are strictly
> adhering to an idea that all people who derive a belief from the word of
> God are literalists.
Yep, sure am..
> The strict definition of adherance as to why this is
> so is your next paragraph.
>
> > My main reason for this contention in relation to Christians is that
> > there is no reliable, objective, contemporary, written source or
> > substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main tenets of the
> > belief system.( Even the bible itself is considered by many scholars to
> > be unfit to be taken as a literal recounting of fact.)
>
> Can you please divulge your sources for this statement, since nobody has
> any idea how "many scholars" we are talking about, which scholars we are
> talking about, and why they are talking about it.
OK, you win , no scholars are saying this, I just made it up. The statement is
still true. My source for the statement is the lack of other material.(to
state the bleeding obvious)
>
>
> At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
> of absence.
No, I'm saying that absence of evidence is absence of evidence
>
>
> > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > belief system derive?
>
> God ? <G>
How does god hand down this authority?
Where is god's will recorded?
Come on Lawrence you've got to do better than this.
>
> --
> "Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
> Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
So Lawrence,
I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
correct?
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:50:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > > A new thread deriving from an earlier thread..............
> > >
> > > First some brief definitions:-
> > > A. A Christian...a theist, who believes (amongst other things), that
> > > Jesus of Nazareth was/is a manifestation of God.
> > > B. A Literalist...a person who derives a belief system primarily from
> > > "God inspired" writings and uses that written word as the main evidence
> > > to demonstrate the "truth" of that particular belief system.
> >
> > Merriam Webster puts it better:
> >
> > Main Entry: literalism
> > Pronunciation: 'li-t(&-)r&-"liz-&m
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1644
> > 1 : adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression
> > <biblical literalism>
> > 2 : fidelity to observable fact : REALISM
> > - literalist /-list/ noun
> > - literalistic /"li-t(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
> >
> > > Jews, Christians & Muslims are all literalists.
> >
> > As you would be.
>
> Who cares what I am? I'm not even a Christian.
You'd be a literalist like those you wish to portray as bad due to their
literalism.
Does this mean you wish to seen in the same light ?
> >
> >
> > You are adhering to the explicit idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims
> > are literalists. Your ideas differ from those whom you classify, yet you
> > are adhering to those ideas.
>
> So what?
Tell me you shouldn't wear the same stigma those you classify as
literalist do..
> >
> >
> > > Lately, the term "literalist" has been thrown around (usually as an
> > > insult) to describe people who believe that the bible is the un-erring
> > > word of God and maintain a rigid "literal" interpretation.
> > > Although literalism may be practiced in degrees (Uniting Church
> > > "liberals" on one hand to red-necked southern Baptists on the other),
> > > all people that derive a belief system from these works are literalists.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you would also be a literalist, for you are strictly
> > adhering to an idea that all people who derive a belief from the word of
> > God are literalists.
>
> Yep, sure am..
This has implications...
> > The strict definition of adherance as to why this is
> > so is your next paragraph.
>
> >
> > > My main reason for this contention in relation to Christians is that
> > > there is no reliable, objective, contemporary, written source or
> > > substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main tenets of the
> > > belief system.( Even the bible itself is considered by many scholars to
> > > be unfit to be taken as a literal recounting of fact.)
> >
> > Can you please divulge your sources for this statement, since nobody has
> > any idea how "many scholars" we are talking about, which scholars we are
> > talking about, and why they are talking about it.
>
> OK, you win , no scholars are saying this, I just made it up. The statement is
> still true. My source for the statement is the lack of other material.(to
> state the bleeding obvious)
Just made it up ? Say WHAT?!!
Err, that puts a major spanner in your works in terms of how much
integrity you speak with. I'm confused as to why you would speak off the
cuff by making grandiose claims on the basis of non-existent scholars.
Frankly, you're doing everything possible to erode your own claim before
my eyes, without much help from me at all.
Your source is the "lack of other material" ? Hmm. That means you're
pitching that because there is silence, there is no evidence..
It is very poor reasoning to have the foundation of a premise as
silence..
You can do better than this, you know..
> >
> >
> > At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
> > of absence.
>
> No, I'm saying that absence of evidence is absence of evidence
On the foundation that there is silence.
I'm sorry, but effective reasoning and science never, ever, ever bases
anything on a foundation of silence. There always has to be some support
for an inital premise, somehow..
> > > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > > belief system derive?
> >
> > God ? <G>
>
> How does god hand down this authority?
Through relationship, community and fellowship, on the basis of the Holy
Spirit filling flesh.
> Where is god's will recorded?
Oooh. Loaded question if ever I saw it. ;-)
Scripture is the quick and dirty answer (context: relationship and
community). It remains an adherence to an idea, yes, not Scripture per
se, but Scripture as part of a relationship.
For Scripture shows testimony of God and His will for Israel and the
church in community and relationship, and it is from that insight and
revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today. That's the
middleweight answer - note the context remains the same.
Don't ask me to do the very long and detailed answer..
> Come on Lawrence you've got to do better than this.
I have.
>
> >
> > --
> > "Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
> > Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
>
> So Lawrence,
> I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> correct?
I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
mine.
I am asking why you should not jump up and down at yourself for being
exactly like those you wish to tar and feather as literalist (whom, based
on your claims, are bad, ignorant, illogical savages, even though your
reasoning was made up off the cuff).
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
I don't care what light I am seen in and you seem to be making a point but it
escapes me.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You are adhering to the explicit idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims
> > > are literalists. Your ideas differ from those whom you classify, yet you
> > > are adhering to those ideas.
> >
> > So what?
>
> Tell me you shouldn't wear the same stigma those you classify as
> literalist do..
Again, I don't care what stigma I wear. You are playing the man once again.
Lawrence, I think you are a man of little humour and take yourself (and me) far too
seriously. Lighten up. Of course I didn't make it up. I was being facetious. I was
trying to make the point that the statement was true without justifying it with a
load of references. If I give references you will undoubtably heap scorn upon them
and we will lose the point. But if you insist.
1. The Jesus Seminar.
2. J.S.Spong
3. A.N. Wilson
4. B. Thiering
5. B. Russell
6. H. Schonfield
7. The writers of the biblical Gospels (unknown)
I will supply many many more if you wish but at the present I am in an office
surrounded by boring technical manuals and am not near my library at home and my
memory for names is not that good..
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
> > > of absence.
> >
> > No, I'm saying that absence of evidence is absence of evidence
>
> On the foundation that there is silence.
>
> I'm sorry, but effective reasoning and science never, ever, ever bases
> anything on a foundation of silence. There always has to be some support
> for an inital premise, somehow..
Thanks for this pearl of wisdom.
>
>
> > > > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > > > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > > > belief system derive?
> > >
> > > God ? <G>
> >
> > How does god hand down this authority?
>
> Through relationship, community and fellowship, on the basis of the Holy
> Spirit filling flesh.
What a load of Pauline bollocks! This is man doing what man does.
>
>
> > Where is god's will recorded?
>
> Oooh. Loaded question if ever I saw it. ;-)
>
> Scripture is the quick and dirty answer (context: relationship and
> community). It remains an adherence to an idea, yes, not Scripture per
> se, but Scripture as part of a relationship.
More Pauline bollocks!
>
>
> For Scripture shows testimony of God
How do you know this?
> and His will for Israel
Are you a Jew now?
> and the
> church in community and relationship
This was all Pauline teaching wasn't it? The rest is about the Jewish community.
> , and it is from that insight and
> revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today.
How does this revelation occur. What is the revelation and how can you possibly
relate it to today apart from very general concepts
> That's the
> middleweight answer - note the context remains the same.
>
> Don't ask me to do the very long and detailed answer..
Do the very long and detailed answer.
>
>
> > Come on Lawrence you've got to do better than this.
>
> I have.
Thanks
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
> > > Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
> >
> > So Lawrence,
> > I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> > correct?
>
> I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
> of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
> mine.
Sure is . Relationship with whom?
I put it to you that your relationship with me is far more important to that with a
theory.
>
>
> I am asking why you should not jump up and down at yourself for being
> exactly like those you wish to tar and feather as literalist (whom, based
> on your claims, are bad, ignorant, illogical savages, even though your
> reasoning was made up off the cuff).
I never made any value statement about literalists. I never said they were bad,
illogical or savages. Stop putting words in my mouth and attributing attitudes to
me that I don't have or haven't expressed.
Sure, I don't like the "process" of literalism but make no value judgement about the
people that do it.
You are the king of value judgments Lawrence, not me.
You keep forgetting Lawrence. I like you. I value our relationship.
Lawrence Meckan
Is literalism a good thing or not, Dave ?
For whatever you say about others in their literalism may apply to you..
Or I may just find ways to challenge them... ;-P
> and we will lose the point. But if you insist.
> 1. The Jesus Seminar.
> 2. J.S.Spong
> 3. A.N. Wilson
> 4. B. Thiering
> 5. B. Russell
> 6. H. Schonfield
> 7. The writers of the biblical Gospels (unknown)
> I will supply many many more if you wish but at the present I am in an office
> surrounded by boring technical manuals and am not near my library at home and my
> memory for names is not that good..
An emoticon helps now and then (for the jokes and stuff tongue-in-cheek
anyway)..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
> > > > of absence.
> > >
> > > No, I'm saying that absence of evidence is absence of evidence
> >
> > On the foundation that there is silence.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but effective reasoning and science never, ever, ever bases
> > anything on a foundation of silence. There always has to be some support
> > for an inital premise, somehow..
>
> Thanks for this pearl of wisdom.
Obvious, isn't it ?
> >
> >
> > > > > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > > > > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > > > > belief system derive?
> > > >
> > > > God ? <G>
> > >
> > > How does god hand down this authority?
> >
> > Through relationship, community and fellowship, on the basis of the Holy
> > Spirit filling flesh.
>
> What a load of Pauline bollocks! This is man doing what man does.
Why shouldn't it be this way ?
Within the nation of Israel, as shown through the OT, it was this way.
Within the Church, comprising both Jew and Gentile, it was this way.
Nothing changed.
> >
> >
> > > Where is god's will recorded?
> >
> > Oooh. Loaded question if ever I saw it. ;-)
> >
> > Scripture is the quick and dirty answer (context: relationship and
> > community). It remains an adherence to an idea, yes, not Scripture per
> > se, but Scripture as part of a relationship.
>
> More Pauline bollocks!
Err, I don't follow Paul. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > For Scripture shows testimony of God
>
> How do you know this?
Err, it documents that people met God. Obvious, it seems.
> > and His will for Israel
>
> Are you a Jew now?
Why ? Are you ? <G>
> > and the
> > church in community and relationship
>
> This was all Pauline teaching wasn't it? The rest is about the Jewish community.
But community and relationship none the less, in both contexts.
> > , and it is from that insight and
> > revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today.
>
> How does this revelation occur.
Intellect, questions, prayer, life (and anything else).
> What is the revelation and how can you possibly
> relate it to today apart from very general concepts
What is the revelation? What God wills for your life.
How does it possibly relate ? Through gaining understanding and wisdom as
to the times, places, and situations which man and God related to each
other through the words chronciled in Scripture. That's how..
> > That's the
> > middleweight answer - note the context remains the same.
> >
> > Don't ask me to do the very long and detailed answer..
>
> Do the very long and detailed answer.
..
> > > Come on Lawrence you've got to do better than this.
> >
> > I have.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
> > > > Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
> > >
> > > So Lawrence,
> > > I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> > > correct?
> >
> > I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
> > of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
> > mine.
>
> Sure is . Relationship with whom?
God and people.
> I put it to you that your relationship with me is far more important to that with a
> theory.
Which theory are we talking about here, exactly ?
> >
> >
> > I am asking why you should not jump up and down at yourself for being
> > exactly like those you wish to tar and feather as literalist (whom, based
> > on your claims, are bad, ignorant, illogical savages, even though your
> > reasoning was made up off the cuff).
>
> I never made any value statement about literalists. I never said they were bad,
> illogical or savages. Stop putting words in my mouth and attributing attitudes to
> me that I don't have or haven't expressed.
Okay. Sorry. Lost my tangent killer.
However, by stating "there is no reliable, objective, contemporary,
written source or substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main
tenets of the belief system", you may be implying spurious motives on the
part of those who have faith. Correct ?
> Sure, I don't like the "process" of literalism but make no value judgement about the
> people that do it.
So why start a thread saying "All Christians are literalists" if you do
not wish to make a judgement about them ?
> You are the king of value judgments Lawrence, not me.
See above. We're not that different.
> You keep forgetting Lawrence. I like you. I value our relationship.
I know.
That's why I feel free to disagree with you on some matters.
lawrence
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
Yes, it may. So what? are you trying to demonstrate that I have a
hypocritical streak?
Your playing the man again.
I'm sure you will.
>
>
> > and we will lose the point. But if you insist.
> > 1. The Jesus Seminar.
> > 2. J.S.Spong
> > 3. A.N. Wilson
> > 4. B. Thiering
> > 5. B. Russell
> > 6. H. Schonfield
> > 7. The writers of the biblical Gospels (unknown)
> > I will supply many many more if you wish but at the present I am in an office
> > surrounded by boring technical manuals and am not near my library at home and my
> > memory for names is not that good..
>
> An emoticon helps now and then (for the jokes and stuff tongue-in-cheek
> anyway)..
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At face value, you're still pitching that absence of evidence is evidence
> > > > > of absence.
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm saying that absence of evidence is absence of evidence
> > >
> > > On the foundation that there is silence.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but effective reasoning and science never, ever, ever bases
> > > anything on a foundation of silence. There always has to be some support
> > > for an inital premise, somehow..
> >
> > Thanks for this pearl of wisdom.
>
> Obvious, isn't it ?
No.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > > > > > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > > > > > belief system derive?
> > > > >
> > > > > God ? <G>
> > > >
> > > > How does god hand down this authority?
> > >
> > > Through relationship, community and fellowship, on the basis of the Holy
> > > Spirit filling flesh.
> >
> > What a load of Pauline bollocks! This is man doing what man does.
>
> Why shouldn't it be this way ?
Because that is what we are. Human animals with a heightened sense of
being.
>
>
> Within the nation of Israel, as shown through the OT, it was this way.
> Within the Church, comprising both Jew and Gentile, it was this way.
>
> Nothing changed.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Where is god's will recorded?
> > >
> > > Oooh. Loaded question if ever I saw it. ;-)
> > >
> > > Scripture is the quick and dirty answer (context: relationship and
> > > community). It remains an adherence to an idea, yes, not Scripture per
> > > se, but Scripture as part of a relationship.
> >
> > More Pauline bollocks!
>
> Err, I don't follow Paul. Sorry.
Of all the statements you have ever made to me this one takes the cake.
You are a follower of Paul through and through. You quote Pauline
theology often. You have
a Pauline view of Jesus. You have a Pauline view of the world. If you
are a believer in NT
you are a follower of Paul.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > For Scripture shows testimony of God
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> Err, it documents that people met God. Obvious, it seems.
How do I know they met God?
>
>
> > > and His will for Israel
> >
> > Are you a Jew now?
>
> Why ? Are you ? <G>
No.
>
>
> > > and the
> > > church in community and relationship
> >
> > This was all Pauline teaching wasn't it? The rest is about the Jewish community.
>
> But community and relationship none the less, in both contexts.
>
> > > , and it is from that insight and
> > > revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today.
> >
> > How does this revelation occur.
>
> Intellect, questions, prayer, life (and anything else).
It must be the lack of prayer that keeps me in the dark.
>
>
> > What is the revelation and how can you possibly
> > relate it to today apart from very general concepts
>
> What is the revelation? What God wills for your life.
I don't want a God willing anything for my life.
How do I stop your God doing this?
>
>
> How does it possibly relate ? Through gaining understanding and wisdom as
> to the times, places, and situations which man and God related to each
> other through the words chronciled in Scripture. That's how..
Can one have understanding and wisdom without your God's involvement?
How do I know that God's word is contained in scripture anyway?
>
>
> > > That's the
> > > middleweight answer - note the context remains the same.
> > >
> > > Don't ask me to do the very long and detailed answer..
> >
> > Do the very long and detailed answer.
>
> ..
>
> > > > Come on Lawrence you've got to do better than this.
> > >
> > > I have.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "Broke my heart for you. Set myself apart for you"
> > > > > Lawrence Meckan - http://www.geocities.com/lmeckan/
> > > >
> > > > So Lawrence,
> > > > I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> > > > correct?
> > >
> > > I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
> > > of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
> > > mine.
> >
> > Sure is . Relationship with whom?
>
> God and people.
I can't have a relationship with an entity I can't detect.
How do you?
>
>
> > I put it to you that your relationship with me is far more important to that with a
> > theory.
>
> Which theory are we talking about here, exactly ?
Pauline Christianity.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I am asking why you should not jump up and down at yourself for being
> > > exactly like those you wish to tar and feather as literalist (whom, based
> > > on your claims, are bad, ignorant, illogical savages, even though your
> > > reasoning was made up off the cuff).
> >
> > I never made any value statement about literalists. I never said they were bad,
> > illogical or savages. Stop putting words in my mouth and attributing attitudes to
> > me that I don't have or haven't expressed.
>
> Okay. Sorry. Lost my tangent killer.
>
> However, by stating "there is no reliable, objective, contemporary,
> written source or substantial archaeological evidence to confirm the main
> tenets of the belief system", you may be implying spurious motives on the
> part of those who have faith. Correct ?
No, not spurious motives. Just lack of evidence.
>
>
> > Sure, I don't like the "process" of literalism but make no value judgement about the
> > people that do it.
>
> So why start a thread saying "All Christians are literalists" if you do
> not wish to make a judgement about them ?
I made a statement about a method of interpretation of the bible.
I did not make a value judgement about literalism but, to be honest yes,
I disagree
strongly with literalism in any form, but only as an intellectual
process. I do not
condemn people who practice it or think of them as less worthy human
beings for doing so.
I simply believe that if we see the bible for what it is and see Jesus
for what he really
was then we would all benefit.
Jesus doesn't need to be diefied for his teachings to be valid. The
bible doesn't have to
be literally true for us to gain wisdom and insight by reading it. By
seeing Jesus and the
bible in their historical setting we understand how some very wise and
good people
developed a moral code for us to live by.
The fact that they made mistakes only made them more human.
As a mere man Jesus becomes even more understandable and his teachings
more relevent.
Whether Jesus died on the cross, survived and went off to live somewhere
else is neither
here nor there. The resurrection is not necessary and neither is claims
to his Jewish
royal bloodline or him "dying for our sins".
You have probably detected my abhorrance of Paul and many of his
teachings. Christianity
as we know it today is more the beliefs of Paul rather than the
teachings of Jesus. Paul
hijacked the cult of Jesus and distorted it to fit his own wierd world
view. Paul acted
after the road to Damascus incident in exactly the same manner as he did
before. A mad
misguided genius on a power trip.
Lawrence Meckan
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:23:53 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 10:01:12 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > If modern Christianity is not based on a, at least partial, literal
> > > > > > > interpretation of the Bible then from where does the authority of this
> > > > > > > belief system derive?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > God ? <G>
> > > > >
> > > > > How does god hand down this authority?
> > > >
> > > > Through relationship, community and fellowship, on the basis of the Holy
> > > > Spirit filling flesh.
> > >
> > > What a load of Pauline bollocks! This is man doing what man does.
> >
> > Why shouldn't it be this way ?
>
> Because that is what we are. Human animals with a heightened sense of
> being.
Whose primary way of grasping that sense of being is via relationship,
community, fellowship..
> >
> >
> > Within the nation of Israel, as shown through the OT, it was this way.
> > Within the Church, comprising both Jew and Gentile, it was this way.
> >
> > Nothing changed.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Where is god's will recorded?
> > > >
> > > > Oooh. Loaded question if ever I saw it. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Scripture is the quick and dirty answer (context: relationship and
> > > > community). It remains an adherence to an idea, yes, not Scripture per
> > > > se, but Scripture as part of a relationship.
> > >
> > > More Pauline bollocks!
> >
> > Err, I don't follow Paul. Sorry.
>
> Of all the statements you have ever made to me this one takes the cake.
> You are a follower of Paul through and through. You quote Pauline
> theology often. You have
> a Pauline view of Jesus. You have a Pauline view of the world. If you
> are a believer in NT
> you are a follower of Paul.
I quote Pauline theology through and through ?? Care to quote me exactly
where, and on what grounds ?
I have a Pauline view of Jesus and the world ? Care to show me how ?
I'm not a believer "in the NT". If I was, I've be living 2000 or so years
ago... <g>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For Scripture shows testimony of God
> > >
> > > How do you know this?
> >
> > Err, it documents that people met God. Obvious, it seems.
>
> How do I know they met God?
How do I know you've met all the people you may say you've met ?
A matter of testimony...
> > > > and the
> > > > church in community and relationship
> > >
> > > This was all Pauline teaching wasn't it? The rest is about the Jewish community.
> >
> > But community and relationship none the less, in both contexts.
Dave, see here..
Community and relationship was in the beginning, and its gonna continue
for eternity..
It aint an idea dreamed up by Paul when he got in with the apostles..
> >
> > > > , and it is from that insight and
> > > > revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today.
> > >
> > > How does this revelation occur.
> >
> > Intellect, questions, prayer, life (and anything else).
>
> It must be the lack of prayer that keeps me in the dark.
Then why not do something to turn on the light?
> >
> >
> > > What is the revelation and how can you possibly
> > > relate it to today apart from very general concepts
> >
> > What is the revelation? What God wills for your life.
>
> I don't want a God willing anything for my life.
> How do I stop your God doing this?
You run away from God.
Reelationship doesn't work if there is no communication or
reconciliation.
> >
> >
> > How does it possibly relate ? Through gaining understanding and wisdom as
> > to the times, places, and situations which man and God related to each
> > other through the words chronciled in Scripture. That's how..
>
> Can one have understanding and wisdom without your God's involvement?
Of what, exactly ? Human understanding, by itself, remains incomplete.
Where will you go to seek understanding ?
> How do I know that God's word is contained in scripture anyway?
By the weight of testimony to the truth.
> > > > > So Lawrence,
> > > > > I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> > > > > correct?
> > > >
> > > > I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
> > > > of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
> > > > mine.
> > >
> > > Sure is . Relationship with whom?
> >
> > God and people.
>
> I can't have a relationship with an entity I can't detect.
> How do you?
How do you know you can't detect God ?
> >
> >
> > > I put it to you that your relationship with me is far more important to that with a
> > > theory.
> >
> > Which theory are we talking about here, exactly ?
>
> Pauline Christianity.
Which I don't follow.
Paul may have stuff to say in regards to testimony of Christ, but he aint
my primary source.
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
I'm not inclined to wade through our past discussions so I'll quote some generalities
Belief in Jesus as the paschal lamb.....Paul
Belief in Jesus as God.......................Paul
Belief in Jesus saving us from our sins, past, present and future....Paul
Choose just about anything from the NT (exept some gospel material) and it has been
influenced by Paul.
>
>
> I have a Pauline view of Jesus and the world ? Care to show me how ?
See above
>
>
> I'm not a believer "in the NT". If I was, I've be living 2000 or so years
The NT wasn't written 2000 years ago.
>
> ago... <g>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For Scripture shows testimony of God
> > > >
> > > > How do you know this?
> > >
> > > Err, it documents that people met God. Obvious, it seems.
> >
> > How do I know they met God?
>
> How do I know you've met all the people you may say you've met ?
I can introduce you to many of them.
>
>
> A matter of testimony...
>
> > > > > and the
> > > > > church in community and relationship
> > > >
> > > > This was all Pauline teaching wasn't it? The rest is about the Jewish community.
> > >
> > > But community and relationship none the less, in both contexts.
>
> Dave, see here..
>
> Community and relationship was in the beginning, and its gonna continue
> for eternity..
>
> It aint an idea dreamed up by Paul when he got in with the apostles..
>
> > >
> > > > > , and it is from that insight and
> > > > > revelation can occur as to what God may will for people today.
> > > >
> > > > How does this revelation occur.
> > >
> > > Intellect, questions, prayer, life (and anything else).
> >
> > It must be the lack of prayer that keeps me in the dark.
>
> Then why not do something to turn on the light?
What do you suggest ...Pray?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > What is the revelation and how can you possibly
> > > > relate it to today apart from very general concepts
> > >
> > > What is the revelation? What God wills for your life.
> >
> > I don't want a God willing anything for my life.
> > How do I stop your God doing this?
>
> You run away from God.
Nothing to run from.
>
>
> Reelationship doesn't work if there is no communication or
> reconciliation.
Yep and if there isn't a being to have a relationship with.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > How does it possibly relate ? Through gaining understanding and wisdom as
> > > to the times, places, and situations which man and God related to each
> > > other through the words chronciled in Scripture. That's how..
> >
> > Can one have understanding and wisdom without your God's involvement?
>
> Of what, exactly ? Human understanding, by itself, remains incomplete.
>
> Where will you go to seek understanding ?
The Bible is one place.
>
>
> > How do I know that God's word is contained in scripture anyway?
>
> By the weight of testimony to the truth.
We are going around in circles. You are assuming that the bible contains truth.
Which bits. All of it? Part of it?
I concede that parts of the bible contain fact.
Which parts and what facts are the questions.
>
>
> > > > > > So Lawrence,
> > > > > > I guess by all this you are denying that you are a literalist. Is that
> > > > > > correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > I adhere not by following rules and text. I adhere by expressing one side
> > > > > of a relationship. There is a difference between your perspective and
> > > > > mine.
> > > >
> > > > Sure is . Relationship with whom?
> > >
> > > God and people.
> >
> > I can't have a relationship with an entity I can't detect.
> > How do you?
>
> How do you know you can't detect God ?
how do I know I can't detect faries and UFO's?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I put it to you that your relationship with me is far more important to that with a
> > > > theory.
> > >
> > > Which theory are we talking about here, exactly ?
> >
> > Pauline Christianity.
>
> Which I don't follow.
See above
>
>
> Paul may have stuff to say in regards to testimony of Christ, but he aint
> my primary source.
But he has had a strong influence on what you believe has he not?
Dave
Andrew Bromage
"D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>I'm not inclined to wade through our past discussions so I'll quote
>some generalities
OK...
>Belief in Jesus as the paschal lamb.....Paul
Paul didn't invent that idea. See, for example, John 19:36 which
quotes Exodus 12:46.
>Belief in Jesus as God.......................Paul
That was asserted several times in the gospels. First by John the
Baptist (Matt 3:3, quoting Isaiah 40:3). The most explicit was
Thomas (John 20:28), though let's not forget John 1.
>Belief in Jesus saving us from our sins, past, present and future....Paul
Mark 2:10? That the sort of thing?
>The NT wasn't written 2000 years ago.
Rather a cheap shot, IMO. Surely Lawrence is allowed to speak in round
numbers for the purposes of a brief remark?
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> "D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>
> >I'm not inclined to wade through our past discussions so I'll quote
> >some generalities
>
> OK...
>
> >Belief in Jesus as the paschal lamb.....Paul
>
> Paul didn't invent that idea. See, for example, John 19:36 which
> quotes Exodus 12:46.
And John wasn't influenced by Paul?
>
>
> >Belief in Jesus as God.......................Paul
>
> That was asserted several times in the gospels. First by John the
> Baptist (Matt 3:3, quoting Isaiah 40:3). The most explicit was
> Thomas (John 20:28), though let's not forget John 1.
See above
>
>
> >Belief in Jesus saving us from our sins, past, present and future....Paul
>
> Mark 2:10? That the sort of thing?
See above
>
>
> >The NT wasn't written 2000 years ago.
>
> Rather a cheap shot, IMO. Surely Lawrence is allowed to speak in round
> numbers for the purposes of a brief remark?
I'm the cheapest shot in the business
Dave
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
Paul.
Quoting gospel just aint good enough. Paul had published by the time they were
written.
Got anything else?
A letter from Jesus.?
An interview with Jesus?
A contemporary account of Jesus?
How about a disciple...anything from them?
Peter...what did he have to say?
Joseph of Aramathea? Mary (mother) Mary (wife)
How about Jesus family...Brother James for instance anything from him?
How about a contemporary of John the Baptist.?
How about John the B himself.
Any documentation or archaeological evidence.
Records from the temple?
A scroll, wood carving, stone tablet.
Come on there must be something.
How about anything from somebody that wasn't a follower of Paul.....anything,
a rumour, a whisper, a heresy.
Dave
Andrew Bromage
"D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>Come on you guys give me something that is without doubt not influenced by
>Paul.
Very little in history is completely "without doubt". Besides, no
matter what I say, you're going to doubt it anyway, so, thanks to the
mechanism of self-fulfilling prophecy, it won't be "without doubt".
History is more about evidence for theory. To propose a theory, you
have explain the evidence that we have in the light of the theory.
Let's look at your theory:
>Quoting gospel just aint good enough. Paul had published by the time they were
>written.
By the rules of historians, you have to explain how the evidence that
we have fits your theory. In this case, you appear to assert that the
writers of the gospels somehow misreported events to fit with Paul's
theology. In which case, you also have to explain how these
misreportings came to be accepted by Christians. Many people who were
witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question, were around by the
time the gospels were published.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
>
> > G'day all.
> >
> > "D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
> >
> > >I'm not inclined to wade through our past discussions so I'll quote
> > >some generalities
> >
> > OK...
> >
> > >Belief in Jesus as the paschal lamb.....Paul
> >
> > Paul didn't invent that idea. See, for example, John 19:36 which
> > quotes Exodus 12:46.
>
> And John wasn't influenced by Paul?
John, if I remember my studies correctly, was a Jew.
He already knew of Exodus, etc... as shown in the Pentauch (sp?) and the
Prophets.
He was influenced by Jewish culture and times, for he was a Jew. So was
Paul.
He may not have been influenced by Paul, yet held a similar or parallel
understanding.
There.. that should effectively cover every Pauline conspiracy slant you
can throw against John's testimony of Jesus Christ.
Conspiracies never get you anywhere. They just feed your fear...
> >
> >
> > >Belief in Jesus as God.......................Paul
> >
> > That was asserted several times in the gospels. First by John the
> > Baptist (Matt 3:3, quoting Isaiah 40:3). The most explicit was
> > Thomas (John 20:28), though let's not forget John 1.
>
> See above
>
> >
> >
> > >Belief in Jesus saving us from our sins, past, present and future....Paul
> >
> > Mark 2:10? That the sort of thing?
>
> See above
>
> >
> >
> > >The NT wasn't written 2000 years ago.
> >
> > Rather a cheap shot, IMO. Surely Lawrence is allowed to speak in round
> > numbers for the purposes of a brief remark?
>
> I'm the cheapest shot in the business
Then at least load up your gun with the right ammo...
Nobody, I take it, noticed the emoticon ?
Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>John, if I remember my studies correctly, was a Jew.
I might just add here that we don't know for sure who wrote the gospel
traditionally attributed to John. I think you're spot on with the rest
of it, though. The author definitely was Jewish and therefore would
have pretty much the same theological background as Paul did.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
David Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> "D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>
> >Come on you guys give me something that is without doubt not influenced by
> >Paul.
>
> Very little in history is completely "without doubt". Besides, no
> matter what I say, you're going to doubt it anyway, so, thanks to the
> mechanism of self-fulfilling prophecy, it won't be "without doubt".
>
> History is more about evidence for theory. To propose a theory, you
> have explain the evidence that we have in the light of the theory.
>
> Let's look at your theory:
>
> >Quoting gospel just aint good enough. Paul had published by the time they were
> >written.
>
> By the rules of historians, you have to explain how the evidence that
> we have fits your theory. In this case, you appear to assert that the
> writers of the gospels somehow misreported events to fit with Paul's
> theology.
No, they reported the events according to Paul. this is different from mis
reporting them.
> In which case, you also have to explain how these
> misreportings came to be accepted by Christians.
the short answer is that they were accepted because Paul accepted them.
Paul was very sensitive to criticism levelled at him. He had strong words to say
about people who disagreed with him. (including the family of Jesus.)
Paul won the war of words. Other material that disagreed with his beliefs was
supressed over the following centruries. some snippetts remain (e.g Gospel of
Thomas)
It is not a case of John (who ever he was) being a liar or a distorter of facts. It
is just that this was one of the texts that didn't contradict Paul.
It is for this reason it survived.
Let us for a moment assume a testament was produced by James (the Just) about the
life and work of Jesus. Paul himself explains how he fell out with James. Would he
have approved of the use of this testament? would the church of Paul have allowed
it to be included in the NT? Of course not. The entire body of evidence used by
Christians to determine the story of Jesus has been "approved" by people who got
their understanding of who Jesus was via Paul. It is no surprise then that the
Gospels and the writings of Paul seem to achieve confluence. This is not to say
that everything written under the influence of Paul was wrong or a distortion. It
means though, that any interpretation of the NT must be made with this in mind.
> Many people who were
> witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
Who did this?
> , were around by the
> time the gospels were published.
Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
Dave
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan
Conspiracy theory.
> Let us for a moment assume a testament was produced by James (the Just) about the
> life and work of Jesus. Paul himself explains how he fell out with James. Would he
> have approved of the use of this testament? would the church of Paul have allowed
> it to be included in the NT? Of course not. The entire body of evidence used by
> Christians to determine the story of Jesus has been "approved" by people who got
> their understanding of who Jesus was via Paul. It is no surprise then that the
> Gospels and the writings of Paul seem to achieve confluence. This is not to say
> that everything written under the influence of Paul was wrong or a distortion. It
> means though, that any interpretation of the NT must be made with this in mind.
Paul and the apostles were part of the same community. It is no suprise
that the Gospels and Paul's work achieve confluence.
What you present as the basis for this confluence is a conspiracy theory.
Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
> > Many people who were
> > witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> > repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
>
> Who did this?
Matthew for a start, if I remember my studies..
> > , were around by the
> > time the gospels were published.
>
> Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
> have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
A conspiracy theory ?
The question is whether you could actually provide any hard evidence that
a witness to the events would have seen things differently to Paul, and
so became "heretical", according to your spin on this..
Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Conspiracy theory.
Yup. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
But it was Paul who interpreted the meaning of Jesus' life and death. If the apostles had
another interpretation it is not around for us to peruse
>
>
> What you present as the basis for this confluence is a conspiracy theory.
I don't think it was a conspiracy. To the apostles the death of Jesus may have seemed to
be a disaster. There is no doubt that they were waiting for the "kingdom of heaven". Paul
comes along and happens to be a theological genius. He interprets the events, gives them
meaning, gives his followers hope.
This is OK and understandable except that I maintauin that in doing so distorted Jesus
original message.
I think Paul interpreted things in a way the would have outraged Jesus and many of the
Jews..
>
>
> Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives. Paul ideas were
outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
>
>
> > > Many people who were
> > > witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> > > repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
> >
> > Who did this?
>
> Matthew for a start, if I remember my studies..
Do you mean Matthew the gospel writer? who was he?
>
>
> > > , were around by the
> > > time the gospels were published.
> >
> > Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
> > have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
>
> A conspiracy theory ?
>
> The question is whether you could actually provide any hard evidence that
> a witness to the events would have seen things differently to Paul, and
> so became "heretical", according to your spin on this..
A very good point.
The Jerusalem church had a different spin on it according to Paul
Thomas (the gospel writer who it is said was an eye witness) had a different spin.
The Jews of the time had a different view. The first three centuries of Christianity were
awash with "heresy"
e.g. Priscillian, bishop of of Avila (possible the first heretic to die because of his
views) definitely had a different spin. The Cathars saw it differently and so did the
Arabs (who later became Muslim)
Many of the Bishops at Nicaea disagreeed as to who or what Jesus was.
Remember , Paul was not an eye witness.
D.Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Conspiracy theory.
>
> Yup. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Agreed, and where is your corroborated, objective, first hand evidence.
Put up or shut up
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
Err, how do you know what you say above is true ?
The apostles may have already had the same or a parallel intepretation,
which may explain why Barnabas sought to advocate Paul to join the
apostles (Acts 9:27).
You seem to be canvassing only those options which cast the church in a
bad light on the premise that Paul is the only person who intepreted the
meaning for Jesus' life and death, and so got it wrong.
There are more options out there than those where Paul did all the
work and got it wrong..
> >
> >
> > What you present as the basis for this confluence is a conspiracy theory.
>
> I don't think it was a conspiracy. To the apostles the death of Jesus may have seemed to
> be a disaster. There is no doubt that they were waiting for the "kingdom of heaven".
Remember, the Gospels record Jesus appearing to many after his
resurrection, including the command He gives for them to wait in
Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come..
> Paul comes along and happens to be a theological genius. He interprets the events, gives them
> meaning, gives his followers hope.
Peter also inteprets the events and gives them meaning.
So what ?
> This is OK and understandable except that I maintauin that in doing so distorted Jesus
> original message.
> I think Paul interpreted things in a way the would have outraged Jesus and many of the
> Jews..
> >
> >
> > Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> > 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
>
> Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
> theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
> Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives.
Or merely having their understanding renewed so they could see the
implications of Christ's life.
> Paul ideas were outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
> outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
Yet again, you define the church's historical development via Paul.
The church existed before Paul was ever a disciple. Therefore it held an
understanding of what went on in Jesus' life. The only recorded
disagreement between the elders at Jerusalem and Paul was on a matter of
how Jews and Gentiles work and live together, while doing different
customs. Something I do believe Simon Peter got a vision from God about..
> >
> >
> > > > Many people who were
> > > > witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> > > > repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
> > >
> > > Who did this?
> >
> > Matthew for a start, if I remember my studies..
>
> Do you mean Matthew the gospel writer? who was he?
>
> >
> >
> > > > , were around by the
> > > > time the gospels were published.
> > >
> > > Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
> > > have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
> >
> > A conspiracy theory ?
> >
> > The question is whether you could actually provide any hard evidence that
> > a witness to the events would have seen things differently to Paul, and
> > so became "heretical", according to your spin on this..
>
> A very good point.
> The Jerusalem church had a different spin on it according to Paul
In what way ? The whole Jewish customs vs Gentile customs within the
church thing ? For that seems to be the only difference between the
Jerusalem church and Paul.
> Thomas (the gospel writer who it is said was an eye witness) had a different spin.
> The Jews of the time had a different view. The first three centuries of Christianity were
> awash with "heresy"
> e.g. Priscillian, bishop of of Avila (possible the first heretic to die because of his
> views) definitely had a different spin. The Cathars saw it differently and so did the
> Arabs (who later became Muslim)
> Many of the Bishops at Nicaea disagreeed as to who or what Jesus was.
> Remember , Paul was not an eye witness.
He was still part of the community.
Are you willing to conclude that because these heresies existed, Paul
strong armed John's gospel into agreeing with his views ?
For it seems the two factors - heresies and where Paul and John were in
the community - remain unrelated, and provide no burden of proof for them
to be related.
Andrew Bromage
"D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>Agreed, and where is your corroborated, objective, first hand evidence.
You mean you want evidence that there was no conspiracy? I'm afraid
all I have is absence of evidence which, as we know, is not evidence
of absence.
>Put up or shut up
I submit that I'm not the one with the extraordinary claims here. All
I claim that the gospels are, within the confines of the time and the
genre they were written in, accurate depictions of the words and deeds
of Jesus during his ministry. You're the one suggesting the facts were
tampered with based only on the unsupported idea that anything written
or edited after the time of Paul must have been altered to suit Paul's
theology.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
David Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
His interpretation is there in the NT for us to read.
>
>
> The apostles may have already had the same or a parallel intepretation,
> which may explain why Barnabas sought to advocate Paul to join the
> apostles (Acts 9:27).
They may have
>
>
> You seem to be canvassing only those options which cast the church in a
> bad light
I'm not trying to caste the church in a bad light
> on the premise that Paul is the only person who intepreted the
> meaning for Jesus' life and death, and so got it wrong.
No, not just Paul, I think many people got it wrong but at the same time I think a large group got it right.
>
>
> There are more options out there than those where Paul did all the
> work and got it wrong..
>
> > >
> > >
> > > What you present as the basis for this confluence is a conspiracy theory.
> >
> > I don't think it was a conspiracy. To the apostles the death of Jesus may have seemed to
> > be a disaster. There is no doubt that they were waiting for the "kingdom of heaven".
>
> Remember, the Gospels record Jesus appearing to many after his
> resurrection, including the command He gives for them to wait in
> Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come..
Try a parallel gospel reading of this.
>
>
> > Paul comes along and happens to be a theological genius. He interprets the events, gives them
> > meaning, gives his followers hope.
>
> Peter also inteprets the events and gives them meaning.
True.
>
>
> So what ?
So what what?
>
>
> > This is OK and understandable except that I maintauin that in doing so distorted Jesus
> > original message.
> > I think Paul interpreted things in a way the would have outraged Jesus and many of the
> > Jews..
> > >
> > >
> > > Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> > > 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
> >
> > Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
> > theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
> > Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives.
>
> Or merely having their understanding renewed so they could see the
> implications of Christ's life.
You would say this wouldn't you.
>
>
> > Paul ideas were outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
> > outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
>
> Yet again, you define the church's historical development via Paul.
Yes I do because if it wasn't for Paul there would be no Christian church.
>
>
> The church existed before Paul was ever a disciple.
No it didn't, there was no "church". There was a Jewish cult based in Jerusalem led by James.
> Therefore it held an
> understanding of what went on in Jesus' life. The only recorded
> disagreement between the elders at Jerusalem and Paul was on a matter of
> how Jews and Gentiles work and live together, while doing different
> customs.
There was more to it that just this.
> Something I do believe Simon Peter got a vision from God about..
I wouldn't be to sure about the vision thing.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Many people who were
> > > > > witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> > > > > repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
> > > >
> > > > Who did this?
> > >
> > > Matthew for a start, if I remember my studies..
> >
> > Do you mean Matthew the gospel writer? who was he?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > , were around by the
> > > > > time the gospels were published.
> > > >
> > > > Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
> > > > have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
> > >
> > > A conspiracy theory ?
> > >
> > > The question is whether you could actually provide any hard evidence that
> > > a witness to the events would have seen things differently to Paul, and
> > > so became "heretical", according to your spin on this..
> >
> > A very good point.
> > The Jerusalem church had a different spin on it according to Paul
>
> In what way ? The whole Jewish customs vs Gentile customs within the
> church thing ? For that seems to be the only difference between the
> Jerusalem church and Paul.
See above
>
>
> > Thomas (the gospel writer who it is said was an eye witness) had a different spin.
> > The Jews of the time had a different view. The first three centuries of Christianity were
> > awash with "heresy"
> > e.g. Priscillian, bishop of of Avila (possible the first heretic to die because of his
> > views) definitely had a different spin. The Cathars saw it differently and so did the
> > Arabs (who later became Muslim)
> > Many of the Bishops at Nicaea disagreeed as to who or what Jesus was.
> > Remember , Paul was not an eye witness.
>
> He was still part of the community.
He was part of his community. There were more than one.
>
>
> Are you willing to conclude that because these heresies existed, Paul
> strong armed John's gospel into agreeing with his views ?
No, I don't think John was "strong armed".As I said before John for the most part agreed with Paul. I don't
know why this was because I don't know who John was. Neither do you.
Because John was the spiritual text it was and because it kept to Pauline doctrine it was chosen to be
included in the NT.
>
>
> For it seems the two factors - heresies and where Paul and John were in
> the community - remain unrelated, and provide no burden of proof for them
> to be related.
No John may never have met Paul or he may have been his best buddy. That is not the point. The point is that
for whatever reason he had similir views to Paul. Therefore it wasn't rejected as heretical or non doctrinal.
Many other texts were disgarded for this reason.
Lawrence, You are assuming thatIi am making an attack on your church and you colour your responses defensively
because of this. I know what i am saying is not the teaching of your church but I can't help that.
What i am trying to say here is that without Paul's ideas you have not got a lot to base a religion on. The
funny thing is that it is because of Paul that you have not other sources that may have shed light on the
ministry of Jesus.
Imagine you belief system without Paul. Take the NT and chuck out everything that Paul wrote or was written by
an obvious follower of Paul. We now have a very sparse tome indeed.
Are you sure your religion is based on the teachings of Jesus or is it based on the teachings of Paul?
David Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> "D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>
> >Agreed, and where is your corroborated, objective, first hand evidence.
>
> You mean you want evidence that there was no conspiracy?
No that not what I want. I go back to my original post. Show me some
contemporary objective evidence of Jesus life and work that does not come
from the NT.
> I'm afraid
> all I have is absence of evidence which, as we know, is not evidence
> of absence.
>
> >Put up or shut up
>
> I submit that I'm not the one with the extraordinary claims here.
No, your claims would be very ordinary. Very close to doctrine I'm sure.
> All
> I claim that the gospels are, within the confines of the time and the
> genre they were written in, accurate depictions of the words and deeds
> of Jesus during his ministry.
Yep, much of the gospels is, I'm sure, a good record of his life and work.
Taken in the historical context in which they were written they give us a
pretty good insight into Jesus world.
Unfortunately there are:-
bits added for political reasons, (the nativity story)
bits left out (his marital status and parental status)
hazy bits (the ressurection)
misinterpreted bits (his political associations, the kingdom of god)
misunderstood bits ( his birthright to be King of the Jews, his eschalology)
> You're the one suggesting the facts were
> tampered with based only on the unsupported idea that anything written
> or edited after the time of Paul must have been altered to suit Paul's
> theology.
NO, No, No, You and Lawrence are missing my point. Maybe it's my dreadful
uneducated communication style, I really should have gone to university and
given up rock & roll.......I'm not saying anything has been tampered with
(although this may have happened but is not my main point)
I'm saying that because Paul's views became the prevaling doctrine ( which
you would have to agree was the case) other material was discarded leving
only material that kept to the "party" line. I don't think this was tampered
with but was more "filtered". I don't think some unseen hand scrubbed out
bits and added other bits It was more a case of "re-interpretation".
This view of mine is not new. I did not invent it. It has been around for
millenia.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan
<d.ca...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:41:01 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul and the apostles were part of the same community. It is no suprise
> > > > that the Gospels and Paul's work achieve confluence.
> > >
> > > But it was Paul who interpreted the meaning of Jesus' life and death. If the apostles had
> > > another interpretation it is not around for us to peruse
> >
> > Err, how do you know what you say above is true ?
>
> His interpretation is there in the NT for us to read.
Then you're saying that the Gospel's don't tell us about Jesus Christ's
life and death, and what that means... Hmmm..
<snip>
> > > > Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> > > > 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
> > >
> > > Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
> > > theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
> > > Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives.
> >
> > Or merely having their understanding renewed so they could see the
> > implications of Christ's life.
>
> You would say this wouldn't you.
What do you expect me to say ?
That Jesus didn't back up his claim to being the way, the truth and the
life ?
Straight from the Gospels, Dave..
If Jesus brings truth, obviously the mind of man needs to be renewed so
they can understand it.. After all, a closed mind cannot grow.
> >
> >
> > > Paul ideas were outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
> > > outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
> >
> > Yet again, you define the church's historical development via Paul.
>
> Yes I do because if it wasn't for Paul there would be no Christian church.
There would be a Christian church. Saul merely encouraged it via
persecution, which ended up with the communities moving outside of Judea
(to some extent). And then he got convicted of his own persecution.
> >
> >
> > The church existed before Paul was ever a disciple.
>
> No it didn't, there was no "church". There was a Jewish cult based in Jerusalem led by James.
Err, 3000+ at Pentecost...
The church was in existence, even if it was infancy..
> > Therefore it held an
> > understanding of what went on in Jesus' life. The only recorded
> > disagreement between the elders at Jerusalem and Paul was on a matter of
> > how Jews and Gentiles work and live together, while doing different
> > customs.
>
> There was more to it that just this.
Paul was "endorsed" in some way, shape or form by what the Holy Spirit
said of him while at Jerusalem through Agabus (in Acts somewhere).
> > Something I do believe Simon Peter got a vision from God about..
>
> I wouldn't be to sure about the vision thing.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Many people who were
> > > > > > witnesses to the events in question, or were part of a community who
> > > > > > repeated pre-Paul stories of the events in question
> > > > >
> > > > > Who did this?
> > > >
> > > > Matthew for a start, if I remember my studies..
> > >
> > > Do you mean Matthew the gospel writer? who was he?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > , were around by the
> > > > > > time the gospels were published.
> > > > >
> > > > > Were are their testimonies?. Could it be that a witness to the actual events would
> > > > > have seen things differently to Paul and therefore eventually become heretical?
> > > >
> > > > A conspiracy theory ?
> > > >
> > > > The question is whether you could actually provide any hard evidence that
> > > > a witness to the events would have seen things differently to Paul, and
> > > > so became "heretical", according to your spin on this..
> > >
> > > A very good point.
> > > The Jerusalem church had a different spin on it according to Paul
> >
> > In what way ? The whole Jewish customs vs Gentile customs within the
> > church thing ? For that seems to be the only difference between the
> > Jerusalem church and Paul.
>
> See above
See reply to above.
> >
> >
> > > Thomas (the gospel writer who it is said was an eye witness) had a different spin.
> > > The Jews of the time had a different view. The first three centuries of Christianity were
> > > awash with "heresy"
> > > e.g. Priscillian, bishop of of Avila (possible the first heretic to die because of his
> > > views) definitely had a different spin. The Cathars saw it differently and so did the
> > > Arabs (who later became Muslim)
> > > Many of the Bishops at Nicaea disagreeed as to who or what Jesus was.
> > > Remember , Paul was not an eye witness.
> >
> > He was still part of the community.
>
> He was part of his community. There were more than one.
The communities were no longer merely in Judea or considered a Jewish
sect thanks to Saul's persecution.
One man, Saul, sought to bring the church down, while it was still in
it's infancy. He ended up being turned around into one who would serve
the church as Paul..
> >
> >
> > Are you willing to conclude that because these heresies existed, Paul
> > strong armed John's gospel into agreeing with his views ?
>
> No, I don't think John was "strong armed".As I said before John for the most part agreed with Paul. I don't
> know why this was because I don't know who John was. Neither do you.
> Because John was the spiritual text it was and because it kept to Pauline doctrine it was chosen to be
> included in the NT.
This is a speculative conclusion based on a lack of evidence...
> >
> >
> > For it seems the two factors - heresies and where Paul and John were in
> > the community - remain unrelated, and provide no burden of proof for them
> > to be related.
>
> No John may never have met Paul or he may have been his best buddy. That is not the point. The point is that
> for whatever reason he had similir views to Paul. Therefore it wasn't rejected as heretical or non doctrinal.
> Many other texts were disgarded for this reason.
> Lawrence, You are assuming thatIi am making an attack on your church and you colour your responses defensively
> because of this. I know what i am saying is not the teaching of your church but I can't help that.
> What i am trying to say here is that without Paul's ideas you have not got a lot to base a religion on. The
> funny thing is that it is because of Paul that you have not other sources that may have shed light on the
> ministry of Jesus.
Without Paul, there would still be the Gospels..
> Imagine you belief system without Paul. Take the NT and chuck out everything that Paul wrote or was written by
> an obvious follower of Paul. We now have a very sparse tome indeed.
> Are you sure your religion is based on the teachings of Jesus or is it based on the teachings of Paul?
Jesus, all the way..
Paul merely adds the frosting on the chokky cake..
Sometimes you think it's too sugary, but it's frosting.
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 23:08:43 +1000, David Castles
> <d.ca...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:41:01 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul and the apostles were part of the same community. It is no suprise
> > > > > that the Gospels and Paul's work achieve confluence.
> > > >
> > > > But it was Paul who interpreted the meaning of Jesus' life and death. If the apostles had
> > > > another interpretation it is not around for us to peruse
> > >
> > > Err, how do you know what you say above is true ?
> >
> > His interpretation is there in the NT for us to read.
>
> Then you're saying that the Gospel's don't tell us about Jesus Christ's
> life and death, and what that means... Hmmm..
That's Right!
>
>
> <snip>
> > > > > Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> > > > > 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
> > > > theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
> > > > Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives.
> > >
> > > Or merely having their understanding renewed so they could see the
> > > implications of Christ's life.
> >
> > You would say this wouldn't you.
>
> What do you expect me to say ?
>
> That Jesus didn't back up his claim to being the way, the truth and the
> life ?
>
> Straight from the Gospels, Dave..
>
> If Jesus brings truth, obviously the mind of man needs to be renewed so
> they can understand it.. After all, a closed mind cannot grow.
Interesting platitudes but your premise is not valid. did Jesus btring truth? Certainly Paul didn't
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Paul ideas were outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
> > > > outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
> > >
> > > Yet again, you define the church's historical development via Paul.
> >
> > Yes I do because if it wasn't for Paul there would be no Christian church.
>
> There would be a Christian church. Saul merely encouraged it via
> persecution, which ended up with the communities moving outside of Judea
> (to some extent). And then he got convicted of his own persecution.
You underestimate Paul.
What do you mean by him "getting convicted of his own persecution"
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > The church existed before Paul was ever a disciple.
> >
> > No it didn't, there was no "church". There was a Jewish cult based in Jerusalem led by James.
>
> Err, 3000+ at Pentecost...
Where do you get this figure?
>
>
> The church was in existence, even if it was infancy..
Disagree.
>
>
> > > Therefore it held an
> > > understanding of what went on in Jesus' life. The only recorded
> > > disagreement between the elders at Jerusalem and Paul was on a matter of
> > > how Jews and Gentiles work and live together, while doing different
> > > customs.
> >
> > There was more to it that just this.
>
> Paul was "endorsed" in some way, shape or form by what the Holy Spirit
> said of him while at Jerusalem through Agabus (in Acts somewhere).
sorry but quoting Acts leaves me cold. Acts is a pot-pouri of writngs from goodness knows where. It contradicts
itself. It changes from first person to third person. It has no sense of Jesus as a real person. Acts is one of the
tracts I was talking about that made if past the "filter" because it simply kept to the party line.
Funny about that.This story says a lot about Paul . A self confessed liar. A man who claimed to be a Jew but was
steeped in Mithraism/ DionysisOsiris/sun god theology. Paul was anything he wanted to be. He was a man posessed by
his own guilt, consumed by sin.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you willing to conclude that because these heresies existed, Paul
> > > strong armed John's gospel into agreeing with his views ?
> >
> > No, I don't think John was "strong armed".As I said before John for the most part agreed with Paul. I don't
> > know why this was because I don't know who John was. Neither do you.
> > Because John was the spiritual text it was and because it kept to Pauline doctrine it was chosen to be
> > included in the NT.
>
> This is a speculative conclusion based on a lack of evidence...
I've got exactly the same evidence as you.
Go and find out for yourself how John got included. It makes interesting reading.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > For it seems the two factors - heresies and where Paul and John were in
> > > the community - remain unrelated, and provide no burden of proof for them
> > > to be related.
> >
> > No John may never have met Paul or he may have been his best buddy. That is not the point. The point is that
> > for whatever reason he had similir views to Paul. Therefore it wasn't rejected as heretical or non doctrinal.
> > Many other texts were disgarded for this reason.
> > Lawrence, You are assuming thatIi am making an attack on your church and you colour your responses defensively
> > because of this. I know what i am saying is not the teaching of your church but I can't help that.
> > What i am trying to say here is that without Paul's ideas you have not got a lot to base a religion on. The
> > funny thing is that it is because of Paul that you have not other sources that may have shed light on the
> > ministry of Jesus.
>
> Without Paul, there would still be the Gospels..
True, but without Paul threre would be many many more Gospels for us to study and compare.
>
>
> > Imagine you belief system without Paul. Take the NT and chuck out everything that Paul wrote or was written by
> > an obvious follower of Paul. We now have a very sparse tome indeed.
> > Are you sure your religion is based on the teachings of Jesus or is it based on the teachings of Paul?
>
> Jesus, all the way..
Dream on.You have no primary source from Jesus. You can't even demonstrate that he existed.
>
>
> Paul merely adds the frosting on the chokky cake..
Paul is the chokky cake as well as the icing
>
>
> Sometimes you think it's too sugary, but it's frosting.
That's sugar too.
Lawrence Meckan
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 08 Sep 2001 23:08:43 +1000, David Castles
> > <d.ca...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:41:01 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul and the apostles were part of the same community. It is no suprise
> > > > > > that the Gospels and Paul's work achieve confluence.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it was Paul who interpreted the meaning of Jesus' life and death. If the apostles had
> > > > > another interpretation it is not around for us to peruse
> > > >
> > > > Err, how do you know what you say above is true ?
> > >
> > > His interpretation is there in the NT for us to read.
> >
> > Then you're saying that the Gospel's don't tell us about Jesus Christ's
> > life and death, and what that means... Hmmm..
>
> That's Right!
Then you're missing the point of the Gospels..
There is ample evidence that the Gospels tell us about Jesus Christ's
life and death. They do focus on the 3 years of his ministry after all.
Since they focus on his ministry, there obviously must be some meaning
behind it. What is that focus ?
Let's see.. how did Jesus put it ? I will tear down the temple and built
it again in 3 days...
Implications run from there..
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > > Surely community, in the expression that it talked of in Acts 6:1-8 and
> > > > > > 11:28-30 and elsewhere, would achieve confluence..
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. As soon as a "Christian" community was formed they started to find a common
> > > > > theology. This again is completely understandable. They were not "conspiring" to distort
> > > > > Jesus. They were breaking new ground,. forming new perspectives.
> > > >
> > > > Or merely having their understanding renewed so they could see the
> > > > implications of Christ's life.
> > >
> > > You would say this wouldn't you.
> >
> > What do you expect me to say ?
> >
> > That Jesus didn't back up his claim to being the way, the truth and the
> > life ?
> >
> > Straight from the Gospels, Dave..
> >
> > If Jesus brings truth, obviously the mind of man needs to be renewed so
> > they can understand it.. After all, a closed mind cannot grow.
>
> Interesting platitudes but your premise is not valid. did Jesus btring truth? Certainly Paul didn't
My premise is valid. The reference I used is straight from the Gospels
(John 14:6).
Merely because someone brings truth does not mean another will accept or
understand it. That is why man's mind needs to be renewed. We aint Borg
as much as Barry O'Grady or John Leister would like to think us to be.
Truth, much like anything else, can be rejected using free will.
Please don't tell me you read the Gospels without thinking about the
implications of what Jesus says and does..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Paul ideas were outstanding, brilliant, mind boggling, it is no wonder it all took off like wildfire. So
> > > > > outstanding were these views that people like you hold to them today.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again, you define the church's historical development via Paul.
> > >
> > > Yes I do because if it wasn't for Paul there would be no Christian church.
> >
> > There would be a Christian church. Saul merely encouraged it via
> > persecution, which ended up with the communities moving outside of Judea
> > (to some extent). And then he got convicted of his own persecution.
>
> You underestimate Paul.
You overestimate him.
> What do you mean by him "getting convicted of his own persecution"
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The church existed before Paul was ever a disciple.
> > >
> > > No it didn't, there was no "church". There was a Jewish cult based in Jerusalem led by James.
> >
> > Err, 3000+ at Pentecost...
>
> Where do you get this figure?
Acts 1:15 and 3:41.
There were around 120 disciples before Pentecost.
There were around 3000+ disciples post Pentecost.
> >
> >
> > The church was in existence, even if it was infancy..
>
> Disagree.
By what measure of evidence ?
> >
> >
> > > > Therefore it held an
> > > > understanding of what went on in Jesus' life. The only recorded
> > > > disagreement between the elders at Jerusalem and Paul was on a matter of
> > > > how Jews and Gentiles work and live together, while doing different
> > > > customs.
> > >
> > > There was more to it that just this.
> >
> > Paul was "endorsed" in some way, shape or form by what the Holy Spirit
> > said of him while at Jerusalem through Agabus (in Acts somewhere).
>
> sorry but quoting Acts leaves me cold. Acts is a pot-pouri of writngs from goodness knows where. It contradicts
> itself. It changes from first person to third person. It has no sense of Jesus as a real person. Acts is one of the
> tracts I was talking about that made if past the "filter" because it simply kept to the party line.
Which means you have issues not with Paul, but with the entire New
Testament.
Let's see..
I can't quote Paul's writing 'cos you don't like Paul.
I can't quote Peter's writing 'cos you'll probably accuse him of
duplicity (party line conspiracy again).
I can't quote Acts because of your opinionated conspiracy speil above.
When I quote the Gospels, you remove the premise I am working with and
replace it with your own.
Err, just what you want me to work with ? Your opinions alone ?
I hope your opinions aren't based on conspiracies, Dave..
You've got less because you make the claim to conspiracy. I don't make
that claim.
Sorry, Dave, but that's the truth of the matter.
> Go and find out for yourself how John got included. It makes interesting reading.
Go find yourself another conspiracy theory and lose yourself in fear...
NOT.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For it seems the two factors - heresies and where Paul and John were in
> > > > the community - remain unrelated, and provide no burden of proof for them
> > > > to be related.
> > >
> > > No John may never have met Paul or he may have been his best buddy. That is not the point. The point is that
> > > for whatever reason he had similir views to Paul. Therefore it wasn't rejected as heretical or non doctrinal.
> > > Many other texts were disgarded for this reason.
> > > Lawrence, You are assuming thatIi am making an attack on your church and you colour your responses defensively
> > > because of this. I know what i am saying is not the teaching of your church but I can't help that.
> > > What i am trying to say here is that without Paul's ideas you have not got a lot to base a religion on. The
> > > funny thing is that it is because of Paul that you have not other sources that may have shed light on the
> > > ministry of Jesus.
> >
> > Without Paul, there would still be the Gospels..
>
> True, but without Paul threre would be many many more Gospels for us to study and compare.
There are many, many more Gospels, even with Paul, Dave. Your statement
remains inconclusive and rather illogical.
What exactly are you trying to say ?
> >
> >
> > > Imagine you belief system without Paul. Take the NT and chuck out everything that Paul wrote or was written by
> > > an obvious follower of Paul. We now have a very sparse tome indeed.
> > > Are you sure your religion is based on the teachings of Jesus or is it based on the teachings of Paul?
> >
> > Jesus, all the way..
>
> Dream on.You have no primary source from Jesus. You can't even demonstrate that he existed.
The Gospels, Dave..
But you don't like me using the Gospels because... ????
Andrew Bromage
David Castles <d.ca...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>No that not what I want. I go back to my original post. Show me some
>contemporary objective evidence of Jesus life and work that does not come
>from the NT.
Not possible, I'm afraid.
See, the only people who cared about Jesus' life and work at the time
was the church. Writing being something of a commodity at the time,
it stands to reason that the only written evidence you'll find comes
from the church. You might ask well ask for evidence that you existed
or evidence for what you did by looking only at Australias major
newspapers.
Since you won't admit any church writings (presumably other church
writings that didn't make it into the NT would have been "gotten at"
by the conspiracy too), we appear to be at an impasse.
BTW, there _is_ good external evidence that a man named Jesus existed
and that he had followers (Josephus, Pliny the Younger). You'll
find not bad evidence that he was executed by the Romans (Tacitus).
Considering what you'd _expect_ to find for a random person from that
era (i.e. nothing), that's better than you could expect.
>This view of mine is not new. I did not invent it. It has been around for
>millenia.
Ah, you should have said so. Do you have some references, then? It
would help to know if anyone suggesting this has some actual evidence
for it.
FWIW, I do agree with you that some of what's in the gospels is not
"literal history", for lack of a better term. But you should not be
surprised about this. We should expect a book of Jesus' words and
deeds to contain stories from different sources, and we should not
expect ancient authors to follow modern conventions of references,
citations, footnoting and so on.
Personally, I think it's a good thing. It's good that the gospels are
not golden tablets handed down from on high, but a part of human
history, grounded in our own humanity. It's the start of the long
Christian tradition of "people talking about Jesus".
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
<snip>
Lawrence,
I just went to the ATM at the bank, put my card in and withdrew $40.00
I walked off......in a dream..................... without taking the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I ran back....money gone!
Surely this is a sign that I have to get back to 2001
Dave
Richard Kerr
[snip]
> sorry but quoting Acts leaves me cold. Acts is a pot-pouri of writngs from goodness knows where. It contradicts
> itself. It changes from first person to third person. It has no sense of Jesus as a real person.
Acts, unlike the gospels, was almost certainly the work of one man. An
educated Greek speaker with a pretty distinctive vocabulary.
Changing between first and third person and back again (there are three
"we" sections of the book, 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1--28:16) is
consonant with the author being a travelling companion of Paul on some
of his missionary journeys.
So, I have travelled with my wife, but we did not spend all our time
together, so sometimes I will "We went..." and others I say "She
went..."
The gospels are interesting because they are so different. Mark was
probably the first gospel and is sometimes criticised because it is not
Pauline _enough_, despite your suggestions. It ends, for instance, with
the empty tomb, but does not recount any of Jesus post resurrection
appearances.
Luke and Matthew, a much more Jewish book than Luke, were probably
written later, and they both include the majority of Mark and another
source document (called "Q" from the German word "Quelle" for source).
They each contain some unique material which started life as "pericopae"
or orally transmitted stories about Jesus.
Depending on how you slice it this retains four different traditions of
Jesus (Mark, Q and the oral histories of two different regions and
cultures).
> Acts is one of the
> tracts I was talking about that made if past the "filter" because it
> simply kept to the party line.
If pressed you could say that Luke/Acts provide the Pauline perspective
on the gospel, but there is very little evidence to suggest that the
kind of near-natural selection that you are suggesting occured. In
contrast, after years of source criticism (what we are talking about
now) we would expect that Mark, Q and the pericopae are all accounts
accepted by the followers of the pre-Paul Jesus movement in the regions
from which they come.
On the other hand we have some very good reasons to doubt that all of
the new testament is "tainted" by Pauls teaching.
John, for instance, is startlingly different to the other gospels and
recounts many different stories about Jesus and seems to be addressing a
different set of theological issues than the other gospels. It does not
appear to fit into your strictly Pauline hypothesis well.
The earliest records we have of the growing church are in the grafitti
on the walls of synagogues and tombs. What they demonstrate is that the
divinity of Christ (e.g. his Alpha and Omega claim, and Jesus as the
"light of God", or simply God, "Deo") were seen as being central to the
identity of the church from the very earliest times.
The "alternative gospels" we have found (you have mentioned Thomas, but
there are others attributed to, for example, Mary) were written very
late, judging by their vocabularies. Probably three hundred years or
more after Jesus' life.
So there you have it. Separate traditions within the bible recording
what we know what were widely dispersed pre-Pauline traditions of Jesus,
very early extrabiblical evidence of supposedly Pauline doctrine, and
the relatively late emergence of the sources you have posited as
preserving alternate traditions.
Let's face it. Modern scholarship - evangelical, liberal and
non-religious alike - has come to accept that Jesus left widely spread
and largely independent "Jesus movement" communities behind him. Their
oral (pericopae) and written (Mark and Q) traditions later became part
of the bible, and the Christian faith emerged as the shared
understanding of these traditions. With significant input from Paul,
sure, but not completely swamped by him, as you suggest. Certainly I'd
like to know more about James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem,
but it's a long step from wanting to know more about the some hsitorical
figure to saying that no evidence of pre-Pauline beliefs remains.
_Yours_ is the extraordinary claim, _yours_ is the burden of proof.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
D.Castles
Richard Kerr wrote:
> "D.Castles" wrote:
> [snip]
> > sorry but quoting Acts leaves me cold. Acts is a pot-pouri of writngs from goodness knows where. It contradicts
> > itself. It changes from first person to third person. It has no sense of Jesus as a real person.
>
> Acts, unlike the gospels, was almost certainly the work of one man. An
> educated Greek speaker with a pretty distinctive vocabulary.
>
> Changing between first and third person and back again (there are three
> "we" sections of the book, 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1--28:16) is
> consonant with the author being a travelling companion of Paul on some
> of his missionary journeys.
OK I'll buy this
>
>
> So, I have travelled with my wife, but we did not spend all our time
> together, so sometimes I will "We went..." and others I say "She
> went..."
>
> The gospels are interesting because they are so different. Mark was
> probably the first gospel and is sometimes criticised because it is not
> Pauline _enough_, despite your suggestions. It ends, for instance, with
> the empty tomb, but does not recount any of Jesus post resurrection
> appearances.
Agreed mostly but many say now that John preceded Mark
>
>
> Luke and Matthew, a much more Jewish book than Luke, were probably
> written later, and they both include the majority of Mark and another
> source document (called "Q" from the German word "Quelle" for source).
> They each contain some unique material which started life as "pericopae"
> or orally transmitted stories about Jesus.
Agreed
>
>
> Depending on how you slice it this retains four different traditions of
> Jesus (Mark, Q and the oral histories of two different regions and
> cultures).
>
> > Acts is one of the
> > tracts I was talking about that made if past the "filter" because it
> > simply kept to the party line.
>
> If pressed you could say that Luke/Acts provide the Pauline perspective
> on the gospel,
Agreed
> but there is very little evidence to suggest that the
> kind of near-natural selection that you are suggesting occured.
Beg to differ
> In
> contrast, after years of source criticism (what we are talking about
> now) we would expect that Mark, Q and the pericopae are all accounts
> accepted by the followers of the pre-Paul Jesus movement in the regions
> from which they come.
Agreed
>
>
> On the other hand we have some very good reasons to doubt that all of
> the new testament is "tainted" by Pauls teaching.
You are right I agree that not all of it was Paul tainted.
>
>
> John, for instance, is startlingly different to the other gospels and
> recounts many different stories about Jesus and seems to be addressing a
> different set of theological issues than the other gospels. It does not
> appear to fit into your strictly Pauline hypothesis well.
True, but it does not in any major way contradict Paul either. There is no doubt that it provides a different
perspective than the other Gospels.
>
>
> The earliest records we have of the growing church are in the grafitti
> on the walls of synagogues and tombs.
Where?
> What they demonstrate is that the
> divinity of Christ (e.g. his Alpha and Omega claim, and Jesus as the
> "light of God", or simply God, "Deo") were seen as being central to the
> identity of the church from the very earliest times.
>
> The "alternative gospels" we have found (you have mentioned Thomas, but
> there are others attributed to, for example, Mary) were written very
> late, judging by their vocabularies. Probably three hundred years or
> more after Jesus' life.
No, not quite right. There is good evidence that Thomas was as early as the others but without making an issue of it
the interesting thing is the way it was "lost"
>
>
> So there you have it. Separate traditions within the bible recording
> what we know what were widely dispersed pre-Pauline traditions of Jesus,
Agreed.
>
> very early extrabiblical evidence of supposedly Pauline doctrine,
Where?
> and
> the relatively late emergence of the sources you have posited as
> preserving alternate traditions.
Hmmm.
>
>
> Let's face it. Modern scholarship - evangelical, liberal and
> non-religious alike - has come to accept that Jesus left widely spread
> and largely independent "Jesus movement" communities behind him. Their
> oral (pericopae) and written (Mark and Q) traditions later became part
> of the bible, and the Christian faith emerged as the shared
> understanding of these traditions. With significant input from Paul,
> sure, but not completely swamped by him, as you suggest. Certainly I'd
> like to know more about James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem,
> but it's a long step from wanting to know more about the some hsitorical
> figure to saying that no evidence of pre-Pauline beliefs remains.
>
> _Yours_ is the extraordinary claim, _yours_ is the burden of proof.
No archeaological evidence.
No extra biblical sources
No eye witness account
No reliable record of Jesus even existing
No writings by Jesus
No physical evidence of any sort.
Disturbing similarities between Jesus and prevailing pre Jesus pagan theology
e.g. Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, Bacchus which include amongst other things
Son of God claims
Born to a virgin
Return from dead
Ascends to heaven
Born on 25th Dec/6 Jan
Birth/star prophesy
Visited by Magi at birth
Baptism
Water to wine miracle
12 disciples
Attacking of hypocrites standing up to authority
tomb visitation by 3 women
The born again belief
Etc, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
Dave
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Kerr
D.Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> David Castles <d.ca...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>
> >No that not what I want. I go back to my original post. Show me some
> >contemporary objective evidence of Jesus life and work that does not come
> >from the NT.
>
> Not possible, I'm afraid.
>
> See, the only people who cared about Jesus' life and work at the time
> was the church.
Yep,
> Writing being something of a commodity at the time,
> it stands to reason that the only written evidence you'll find comes
> from the church.
Yep,
> You might ask well ask for evidence that you existed
> or evidence for what you did by looking only at Australias major
> newspapers.
Yep,
>
>
> Since you won't admit any church writings (presumably other church
> writings that didn't make it into the NT would have been "gotten at"
> by the conspiracy too), we appear to be at an impasse.
Yep,
>
>
> BTW, there _is_ good external evidence that a man named Jesus existed
> and that he had followers (Josephus, Pliny the Younger). You'll
> find not bad evidence that he was executed by the Romans (Tacitus).
These tired ol' references keep getting trotted out. They have been debunked
even by Christians.
At best they prove that Jesus existed at worst that the pen of the revisionist
was very busy in the early church.
>
> Considering what you'd _expect_ to find for a random person from that
> era (i.e. nothing), that's better than you could expect.
Yep,
>
>
> >This view of mine is not new. I did not invent it. It has been around for
> >millenia.
>
> Ah, you should have said so. Do you have some references, then?
Yep, Lots
> It
> would help to know if anyone suggesting this has some actual evidence
> for it.
Yep, lots of research and study has been done. Not by me.
>
> FWIW, I do agree with you that some of what's in the gospels is not
> "literal history", for lack of a better term. But you should not be
> surprised about this.
I'm not
> We should expect a book of Jesus' words and
> deeds to contain stories from different sources, and we should not
> expect ancient authors to follow modern conventions of references,
> citations, footnoting and so on.
I don't expect this.
>
>
> Personally, I think it's a good thing. It's good that the gospels are
> not golden tablets handed down from on high, but a part of human
> history, grounded in our own humanity. It's the start of the long
> Christian tradition of "people talking about Jesus".
Sure did, but let us agree that all the major theological concepts
surrounding Jesus/Paul had been around for a long time before Jesus' ministry.
Jesus said nothing new neither did Paul. All of it was borrowed exept the
"dying for our sins" concept which Paul honed to a fine piece of guilt/sin
goobledegook
Dave
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
I'm sorry to hear about your experience..
Yet what has this to do with the current debate ?
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
> No archeaological evidence.
> No extra biblical sources
> No eye witness account
The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
reject their testimony in the matter.
> No reliable record of Jesus even existing
There may be no reliable record of you ever existing one day. Will people
still think you existed after 2000 years, Dave ?
> No writings by Jesus
Who needs to write to *exist* ?
Julius Caesar didn't write his own biography, yet we know of his
existence.
> No physical evidence of any sort.
> Disturbing similarities between Jesus and prevailing pre Jesus pagan theology
> e.g. Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, Bacchus which include amongst other things
> Son of God claims
> Born to a virgin
> Return from dead
I take it you haven't read up on Osiris then, because he most certainly
didn't return from the dead. He became what could be considered a zombie
(out of the B-Grade horror flicks), not to mention the fact the other
gods had to assemble him back into bodily form (like Threepio in
SW:ESB)..
> Ascends to heaven
> Born on 25th Dec/6 Jan
> Birth/star prophesy
> Visited by Magi at birth
> Baptism
Err, John the Baptist was already baptising people at the time..
Nothing new.
> Water to wine miracle
> 12 disciples
> Attacking of hypocrites standing up to authority
And this isn't a good thing ?
> tomb visitation by 3 women
> The born again belief
> Etc, etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
your doubt...
Impasse.
I'm quite prepared to lay down the gun (I prefer Nerf guns, they are a
lot more fun). Are you prepared to walk away from yours?
Andrew Bromage
"D.Castles" <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>> BTW, there _is_ good external evidence that a man named Jesus existed
>> and that he had followers (Josephus, Pliny the Younger). You'll
>> find not bad evidence that he was executed by the Romans (Tacitus).
>These tired ol' references keep getting trotted out. They have been debunked
>even by Christians.
Huh? Look at what those references say: there was a man named Jesus,
he had followers, and was probably executed by the Romans. Apart from
a small but occasionally vocal minority, no historians seriously
dispute these three factoids.
Not even Christians. :-)
>[...] let us agree that all the major theological concepts
>surrounding Jesus/Paul had been around for a long time before Jesus'
>ministry.
It depends what you call "the major theological concepts". A lot of
what Jesus said had been said before, in various forms, this is true.
Some of it is straight out of the Old Testament, some from Rabbinical
thought. Some of it has been noted in other religions, which is great
for Christianity: it's more likely to be true. :-)
>Jesus said nothing new neither did Paul.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon
the shoulders of giants."
-- Sir Isaac Newton
What's important for Christians is not that Jesus taught something new.
It is rather that Jesus represents a new kind of relationship (new
covenant) between God and humanity.
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
Andrew Bromage
Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Err, John the Baptist was already baptising people at the time..
Actually, as Les has kindly pointed out in the past, it predates John
the Baptist, too. Originally it came from ritual purification (e.g.
Lev 8:6), and eventually ended up as the "mikveh", which is still
practiced today by converts to Judaism.
David, I can't help get the feeling here that you should be in
advertising. Apparently nothing is worth it unless it's "new and
improved". :-)
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> > No archeaological evidence.
> > No extra biblical sources
> > No eye witness account
>
> The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
> reject their testimony in the matter.
So M,M,L&J were eye witnesses?
>
>
> > No reliable record of Jesus even existing
>
> There may be no reliable record of you ever existing one day. Will people
> still think you existed after 2000 years, Dave ?
Probably not but
1. I have no followers
2. I can't perform miracles
3. Nobody thinks I am the son of God
4. I am not feared by the authorities
5. I will not ressurect
6. I do not have a well known Jewish royal blood line
7. The only person attending my birth was my mother and doctor/nurses
8. I probably won't be crucified (although this idead may appeal to you guys)
etc. etc.
>
>
> > No writings by Jesus
>
> Who needs to write to *exist* ?
Of course you don't and this is a red herring.
>
>
> Julius Caesar didn't write his own biography, yet we know of his
sorry Lawrence but Julias Caesar wrote extensively and in much detail about his life, work and military campaigns. These
writings are available today for you to read. Go to a library and they will be there.
Although you are wrong about this I get your point. Yes, you can exist without writing about yourself.....agreed.
>
> existence.
>
> > No physical evidence of any sort.
> > Disturbing similarities between Jesus and prevailing pre Jesus pagan theology
> > e.g. Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, Bacchus which include amongst other things
> > Son of God claims
> > Born to a virgin
> > Return from dead
>
> I take it you haven't read up on Osiris then, because he most certainly
> didn't return from the dead. He became what could be considered a zombie
> (out of the B-Grade horror flicks), not to mention the fact the other
> gods had to assemble him back into bodily form (like Threepio in
> SW:ESB)..
I was not attributing all these things to all these entities. I was pointing out that belief in these entities included
most of the attributes of Jesus.
>
>
> > Ascends to heaven
> > Born on 25th Dec/6 Jan
> > Birth/star prophesy
> > Visited by Magi at birth
> > Baptism
>
> Err, John the Baptist was already baptising people at the time..
>
> Nothing new.
I was pointing out that Baptism had been around for quite a while....way before John the B.
>
>
> > Water to wine miracle
> > 12 disciples
> > Attacking of hypocrites standing up to authority
>
> And this isn't a good thing ?
I didn't say it wasn't. Lawrence you are still hooked up on attributing some moral agenda to the things I say. I am not
saying that any of these things are good or bad. Only that they existed.
And in answer to your question Yes, authority must always be challenged.
>
>
> > tomb visitation by 3 women
> > The born again belief
> > Etc, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> >
> > Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> > If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> > to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
>
> Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
> your doubt...
No, convince me that Jesus did and was what you say he is.
.........and I never said anything about a conspiracy. This is your hang up not mine.
D.Castles
Andrew Bromage wrote:
> G'day all.
>
> Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Err, John the Baptist was already baptising people at the time..
>
> Actually, as Les has kindly pointed out in the past, it predates John
> the Baptist, too. Originally it came from ritual purification (e.g.
> Lev 8:6), and eventually ended up as the "mikveh", which is still
> practiced today by converts to Judaism.
True but it was used extensively all over the middle east and the
Meditteranean area for a very long time. Not just by Jews.
>
>
> David, I can't help get the feeling here that you should be in
> advertising. Apparently nothing is worth it unless it's "new and
> improved". :-)
Oh! the unkindest cut of all ADVERTISING!!!
No I don't want your religion to be "new and improved" in fact the
opposite is true.
I wish you guys would drop all the Pauline crap and get back to Jesus'
message.
You know quite well what that message is and so do I.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew Bromage
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:38:48 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > Lawrence,
> > I just went to the ATM at the bank, put my card in and withdrew $40.00
> > I walked off......in a dream..................... without taking the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > I ran back....money gone!
> > Surely this is a sign that I have to get back to 2001
> > Dave
>
> I'm sorry to hear about your experience..
>
> Yet what has this to do with the current debate ?
Nothing Lawrence, I was just sharing a piece of my life with you.
Sorry, it won't happen again.
Dave
Richard Kerr
>
> Andrew Bromage wrote:
[snip]
> > David, I can't help get the feeling here that you should be in
> > advertising. Apparently nothing is worth it unless it's "new and
> > improved". :-)
>
> Oh! the unkindest cut of all ADVERTISING!!!
> No I don't want your religion to be "new and improved" in fact the
> opposite is true.
> I wish you guys would drop all the Pauline crap and get back to Jesus'
> message.
> You know quite well what that message is and so do I.
Actually, after reading your last post to me (that I inted to reply to
in nauseating detail, give me time) I think you need to tell us what you
think Jesus message was, and the criteria you use to distinguish it from
the rest of the bible, because you seem to be rejecting the majority of
serious scholarship on the issue.
I'd really like to know where you plant your flag in soil on this one.
It might make the rest of the discussion easier.
--
Regards,
Richard Kerr
D.Castles
Richard Kerr wrote:
It is fairly irrelevent what I believe about Jesus and his message but at
the same time I make no secret of it.
The other references we have been discussing (Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus etc.)
are enough to convince me that Jesus did indeed exist and had followers
(thats about all these references give us).
So
1. Jesus did exist
The gospels are consistent enough to convince me of some other things:-
2. He was a Jew from Galillee with a mother at least 2 brothers & probably a
wife & and possibly children.
3. He had a royal bloodline and was a direct threat to prevailing royalty
with a real claim to the throne
The sign nailed above his head during his excecution was literally true.
4. He was a member of the Nazarene sect and later a follower of John the B.
5. He underwent a "conversion" during Baptism that completely changed his
outlook.
6. He set about on a mission to teach his own style of "Pharisaic" Judaism
mixed with gnostic/Hermetic thought
7. He was a "magician" steeped in Hermetic gnostisism and obviously had had
some education outside Palestine. (Egypt maybe?)
8. He was convinced of the imminent "end time" approaching and behaved in a
way that he believed would bring on the "end time/kingdom of God"
9. He recognised the corruption and uselessness of the established religious
heirachy
10. He had "inner" and "outer" followers and made much of secret knowledge.
11. He was crucified by the Roman authorities as a political troublemaker
possibly involving the collusion of some Jewish religious authorities.
12. Something extraordinary happened after his "death". He was seen walking
and talking by some of his followers.
13. To fatherless Jesus God was his Abba (daddy) and he loved and trusted
Him with all his heart
His Theology concerned 3 main themes:-
1. The "one" God (not very surprising for a Jew)
2. The "do unto others" theme of social order. (Pharisaic)
3. The coming of the "Kingdom of God" , this was not some airy fairy
hereafter but a real political and social order established in Palestine by
the power of the Jewish God and for the benefit of the living.
I have probably left out other details that I am convinced about but thats
about it for now.
What I don't believe about Jesus.
1. He was the Son of God (a hangover from the Greeks e.g. Alexander)
2. He died for our sins (a Paul concept invented by a true sinner)
3. The Resurrection (of all the explanations put forward about what happened
this is the least likely)
4. His birth in Bethlehem story (pure invention deriving from scripture)
5. The paschal lamb concept (Paul)
6. The last supper (completely, unbelievably pagan)
7. Miracles (he apparently did do extraordinary things)
8. He was not a "poor carpenter" but an educated Rabbi from a well to do
family
Again, I have left out much but I guess it is enough for you all to start
the crucifixion process
Come on guys...get out the nails....I'm waiting for ya!
Brown Family
<d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>Andrew Bromage wrote:
>
>> G'day all.
>>
>> Lawrence Meckan <lme...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >Err, John the Baptist was already baptising people at the time..
>>
>> Actually, as Les has kindly pointed out in the past, it predates John
>> the Baptist, too. Originally it came from ritual purification (e.g.
>> Lev 8:6), and eventually ended up as the "mikveh", which is still
>> practiced today by converts to Judaism.
>
>True but it was used extensively all over the middle east and the
>Meditteranean area for a very long time. Not just by Jews.
It was hardly extensive. I have yet to see proof for any other
religious belief to use a special ritual immersion pool. Some faiths
do practice ritual immersion such as Hinduism, but there, the location
of where the immersion is carried out, is of prime importance and not
the principle of immersion of itself.
There is a difference to bathing for health, fun and pleasure and
ritual immersion. The Romans and Greek may have done it for health and
pleasure, but the Jews did it for spiritual purposes as well.
"What is a mikvah?
"A mikvah is a natural body of water or a gathering of water that has
a designated connection to natural water. The pool is designed
specifically for immersion, according to the rules and customs of
Jewish law. It contains about 200 gallons of water.
"What is special about the water in a mikvah?
"Water is the primary source of all living things. It has the power to
purify, to restore and replenish life. A mikvah must be filled with
living waters from a flowing source that has never been dormant, such
as fresh spring water, rainwater, or even melted snow. The water is
kept under strict hygienic control, cleaned daily and chlorinated."
Ref:
http://www.mikvah.org/matters/facts.asp
Baptism on the other hand, derives from the latin word; "baptisterium"
which is a large basin used as a private bath in Roman times. The
water there was drawn. Just another one of those Roman/Jewish fusions
that permeate throughout Christianity.
For a picture of a modern mikvah, which is basically an old one with
better plumbing, see:
http://www.adaparch.com/projects/302-pool.html
Who (and what!) immerses depends. Here is a brief list:
1. It is the final stage of conversion to Judaism. (symbolising
re-birth)
2. It is used by men customarily at auspicious times, such as before
Yom Kippur and a groom on his wedding day. Many men use it Shabbath
eve, while some chassidic men even use the mikvah daily before prayer.
3. Generally, new dishes should also be immersed in the mikvah before
use.
4. Before a woman marries, used by a married woman seven days after
menopause, and after she gives birth (Lev 12:4ff).
Because a Jewish married couple cannot resume marital relations after
the menopausal break until after the woman has immersed, and because
one can pray almost anywhere, it is considered more important to
construct a mikvah than a syngogue, consequently, there are many more
ancient mikva'ot (pl. of mikvah) around than ancient synagogues. TV
and the internet weren't around in those days (sigh).
A good source for information on immersion is found at:
http://www.mikvah.org/matters
Les Brown
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > > No archeaological evidence.
> > > No extra biblical sources
> > > No eye witness account
> >
> > The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
> > reject their testimony in the matter.
>
> So M,M,L&J were eye witnesses?
Matthew and John were.
Mark, if I remember my studies, was a disciple under Peter. There should
be a little contextual nuance in regards to how Mark tells of the
Gethsemane experience of Peter swiping off one of the ears of a servant
of the chief priests. The young man who gets his garment swiped (Mark
14:51) as the religious "posse" of the chief priests, etc.. arrest Jesus
may well have been Mark. Part eyewitness, yet almost ghost writing..
Luke... I've forgotten what evidence there is for Luke, but I think
tradition tells that he went to Mary and to James. He was a doctor under
the Hippocratic Oath.
Disclaimers are in place on these last two in that I may have Mark's &
Luke's history mixed up..
<snip>
> > > Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> > > If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> > > to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
> >
> > Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
> > your doubt...
>
> No, convince me that Jesus did and was what you say he is.
Then read the Gospels...
You convince yourself, if you want to know this Jesus you speak so highly
of.
I don't want to spoon feed faith to anyone. The relationship you have
with God must be your own.
> .........and I never said anything about a conspiracy. This is your hang up not mine.
It's your hang up, Dave.
You were the one with the grand idea of who towed the party line under
Paul, or which gospels were "got at". Not me.
What you suggest by these ideas is speculative conspiracy.
I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:38:48 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Lawrence,
> > > I just went to the ATM at the bank, put my card in and withdrew $40.00
> > > I walked off......in a dream..................... without taking the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > I ran back....money gone!
> > > Surely this is a sign that I have to get back to 2001
> > > Dave
> >
> > I'm sorry to hear about your experience..
> >
> > Yet what has this to do with the current debate ?
>
> Nothing Lawrence, I was just sharing a piece of my life with you.
Share away. I won't stop you.
> Sorry, it won't happen again.
Don't be sorry.
It's just I got a little suprised that you wandered off debate into
something that requires empathy and understanding, especially in a public
forum.
For about a day, I was going <HUH?> before I even wrote something back.
Perhaps I didn't expect that people would value me so highly as to ditch
debate in preference for sharing experience.
For what it's worth in regards to sharing experience, I can't do the MPEG
sharing of our collective songs at the moment. I've just completed the
first production copy of my first demo (semi single/semi e.p.) as of last
Friday. I'm currently getting feedback from my network of professional
musos as to where I can go with it in terms of musical style, form etc..
, what needs to be revised (redoing EQ's on vox and guitar is what I've
critiqued myself), and what skills would the demo advertise. Revisions
will then be implemented for the release demo/single/e.p. However, on a
good note, I did DJ a party over the weekend, and slipped a few of my own
songs in the mix (including the bad EQing), and nobody threw up or ran
screaming out of the building.. A good sign.. <g>
The album I've been planning for the last few years should hopefully
start production in about a month or so (or whenever I can get some good
female Christian lead vocalists in).
lawrence
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:51:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > > No archeaological evidence.
> > > > No extra biblical sources
> > > > No eye witness account
> > >
> > > The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
> > > reject their testimony in the matter.
> >
> > So M,M,L&J were eye witnesses?
>
> Matthew and John were.
>
> Mark, if I remember my studies, was a disciple under Peter. There should
> be a little contextual nuance in regards to how Mark tells of the
> Gethsemane experience of Peter swiping off one of the ears of a servant
> of the chief priests. The young man who gets his garment swiped (Mark
> 14:51) as the religious "posse" of the chief priests, etc.. arrest Jesus
> may well have been Mark. Part eyewitness, yet almost ghost writing..
Can't accept any of this sorry.
>
>
> Luke... I've forgotten what evidence there is for Luke, but I think
> tradition tells that he went to Mary and to James. He was a doctor under
> the Hippocratic Oath.
I agree about the tradition but no real evidence.
>
>
> Disclaimers are in place on these last two in that I may have Mark's &
> Luke's history mixed up..
No you are right I've read this before
>
>
> <snip>
> > > > Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> > > > If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> > > > to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
> > >
> > > Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
> > > your doubt...
> >
> > No, convince me that Jesus did and was what you say he is.
>
> Then read the Gospels...
I have many times
>
>
> You convince yourself, if you want to know this Jesus you speak so highly
> of.
That the problem. What do I believe and what do I reject?
>
>
> I don't want to spoon feed faith to anyone. The relationship you have
> with God must be your own.
I'm an atheist, I don't have a God.
>
>
> > .........and I never said anything about a conspiracy. This is your hang up not mine.
>
> It's your hang up, Dave.
>
> You were the one with the grand idea of who towed the party line under
> Paul, or which gospels were "got at". Not me.
OK so tell me the gospels haven't been got at then. Come on say it.
>
>
> What you suggest by these ideas is speculative conspiracy.
Tell me there is no "filtering" then. That they are pure truth and published as written.
>
>
> I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
>
I can't see much to back up yours either and you are the one making the claims about gods etc. not me.
Lawrence Meckan
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:51:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > No archeaological evidence.
> > > > > No extra biblical sources
> > > > > No eye witness account
> > > >
> > > > The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
> > > > reject their testimony in the matter.
> > >
> > > So M,M,L&J were eye witnesses?
> >
> > Matthew and John were.
> >
> > Mark, if I remember my studies, was a disciple under Peter. There should
> > be a little contextual nuance in regards to how Mark tells of the
> > Gethsemane experience of Peter swiping off one of the ears of a servant
> > of the chief priests. The young man who gets his garment swiped (Mark
> > 14:51) as the religious "posse" of the chief priests, etc.. arrest Jesus
> > may well have been Mark. Part eyewitness, yet almost ghost writing..
>
> Can't accept any of this sorry.
Why ?
> >
> >
> > Luke... I've forgotten what evidence there is for Luke, but I think
> > tradition tells that he went to Mary and to James. He was a doctor under
> > the Hippocratic Oath.
>
> I agree about the tradition but no real evidence.
Err, merely because they are enshrined in tradition does not mean that
the evidence they bring is *false* ?
> >
> >
> > Disclaimers are in place on these last two in that I may have Mark's &
> > Luke's history mixed up..
>
> No you are right I've read this before
>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> > > > > If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> > > > > to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
> > > >
> > > > Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
> > > > your doubt...
> > >
> > > No, convince me that Jesus did and was what you say he is.
> >
> > Then read the Gospels...
>
> I have many times
>
> >
> >
> > You convince yourself, if you want to know this Jesus you speak so highly
> > of.
>
> That the problem. What do I believe and what do I reject?
What do you think you should believe ? Why?
What do you think you should reject ? Why?
> >
> >
> > I don't want to spoon feed faith to anyone. The relationship you have
> > with God must be your own.
>
> I'm an atheist, I don't have a God.
>
> >
> >
> > > .........and I never said anything about a conspiracy. This is your hang up not mine.
> >
> > It's your hang up, Dave.
> >
> > You were the one with the grand idea of who towed the party line under
> > Paul, or which gospels were "got at". Not me.
>
> OK so tell me the gospels haven't been got at then. Come on say it.
The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
> >
> >
> > What you suggest by these ideas is speculative conspiracy.
>
> Tell me there is no "filtering" then. That they are pure truth and published as written.
There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
"filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
those in the Bible, even with Paul...
> >
> >
> > I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
> >
>
> I can't see much to back up yours either and you are the one making the claims about gods etc. not me.
I do it on the basis of a relationship.
You may make your claims on the basis of doubt, leading to conspiracy..
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:51:26 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:51:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:08:10 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > No archeaological evidence.
> > > > > > No extra biblical sources
> > > > > > No eye witness account
> > > > >
> > > > > The gospels remain an eyewitness account . You can either accept or
> > > > > reject their testimony in the matter.
> > > >
> > > > So M,M,L&J were eye witnesses?
> > >
> > > Matthew and John were.
> > >
> > > Mark, if I remember my studies, was a disciple under Peter. There should
> > > be a little contextual nuance in regards to how Mark tells of the
> > > Gethsemane experience of Peter swiping off one of the ears of a servant
> > > of the chief priests. The young man who gets his garment swiped (Mark
> > > 14:51) as the religious "posse" of the chief priests, etc.. arrest Jesus
> > > may well have been Mark. Part eyewitness, yet almost ghost writing..
> >
> > Can't accept any of this sorry.
>
> Why ?
Speculation
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Luke... I've forgotten what evidence there is for Luke, but I think
> > > tradition tells that he went to Mary and to James. He was a doctor under
> > > the Hippocratic Oath.
> >
> > I agree about the tradition but no real evidence.
>
> Err, merely because they are enshrined in tradition does not mean that
> the evidence they bring is *false* ?
Did I say it was false? I just said that you were right that tradition held to this but there was no real evidence. I don't know
if it is false or not.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Disclaimers are in place on these last two in that I may have Mark's &
> > > Luke's history mixed up..
> >
> > No you are right I've read this before
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Jesus is beginning to look more like the eclectic godhead myth that some recent authors have claimed him to be.
> > > > > > If you seriously want a modern educated public to believe this stuff you had better start digging anf find something
> > > > > > to convinces us. The plot is looking thinner and thinner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Convince me of your conspiracy theory regarding Paul, et al. based on
> > > > > your doubt...
> > > >
> > > > No, convince me that Jesus did and was what you say he is.
> > >
> > > Then read the Gospels...
> >
> > I have many times
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You convince yourself, if you want to know this Jesus you speak so highly
> > > of.
> >
> > That the problem. What do I believe and what do I reject?
>
> What do you think you should believe ? Why?
I believe that which can be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
>
>
> What do you think you should reject ? Why?
I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't want to spoon feed faith to anyone. The relationship you have
> > > with God must be your own.
> >
> > I'm an atheist, I don't have a God.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > .........and I never said anything about a conspiracy. This is your hang up not mine.
> > >
> > > It's your hang up, Dave.
> > >
> > > You were the one with the grand idea of who towed the party line under
> > > Paul, or which gospels were "got at". Not me.
> >
> > OK so tell me the gospels haven't been got at then. Come on say it.
>
> The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
So you are a literalist, QED, that was my original contention
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > What you suggest by these ideas is speculative conspiracy.
> >
> > Tell me there is no "filtering" then. That they are pure truth and published as written.
>
> There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
> "filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
> those in the Bible, even with Paul...
Literalism again.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
> > >
> >
> > I can't see much to back up yours either and you are the one making the claims about gods etc. not me.
>
> I do it on the basis of a relationship.
Well I am glad you have this relationship but I tend to choose human beings to have relationships with.
>
>
> You may make your claims on the basis of doubt, leading to conspiracy..
Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
Dave
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
<snip>
> > What do you think you should believe ? Why?
>
> I believe that which can be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
Very well. Let's look at what you say..
You believe that Paul forced others to follow his "party line". Is there
any evidence for this that you have presented ? No. All we have is your
reasoning in speculative ideas..
You believe that Acts is a mixture of things (which you've already
listed, and I don't care to quote atm). Is there any evidence to back up
your statement ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
ideas..
You believe the gospels were 'got at'. Do you present any evidence to
back up this claim ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
ideas..
You believe, it seems, whatever your reasoning arrives at, even when
there is a significant lack of evidence on your part. Might I then
suggest you revise your statement to something akin to 'I believe that
which I can reason, even when there is no evidence to support it' ?
> >
> >
> > What do you think you should reject ? Why?
>
> I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
This begs the questions..
Surely you are not taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence ?
People testify to knowing God, and *testimony* is evidence...Hmm.. Are
you ignoring existing evidence presented, Dave ?
Concerning reasoning (or lack thereof), I'd suggest you would be at a
point where you can't/won't/refuse to understand what truth remains in
the NT, for I've already shown that people can misunderstand, ignore and
reject the truth..
<snip>
> > The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
>
> So you are a literalist, QED, that was my original contention
Err, the fact I say the gospels haven't been got at doesn't make me a
literalist.. It makes me smart, since I don't sell my emotions to
whatever fear or conspiracy theory that gets spun around the world..
<snip>
> > There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
> > "filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
> > those in the Bible, even with Paul...
>
> Literalism again.
Err, you presented no evidence of "filtering", Dave. That don't make me a
literalist. That means I am being logical and rational.
You are basing your claims on doubt, with no evidence to back you up.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can't see much to back up yours either and you are the one making the claims about gods etc. not me.
> >
> > I do it on the basis of a relationship.
>
> Well I am glad you have this relationship but I tend to choose human beings to have relationships with.
>
>
> >
> >
> > You may make your claims on the basis of doubt, leading to conspiracy..
>
> Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
And it is because the foundation for your claims are on doubt that you
can provide no evidence to back up your claims, which means your claims
get thrown out..
If you could provide evidence for your claims, you wouldn't be making
these statements on the basis of doubt..
Why sow doubt, Dave ?
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:40:24 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> <snip>
> > > What do you think you should believe ? Why?
> >
> > I believe that which can be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
>
> Very well. Let's look at what you say..
>
> You believe that Paul forced others to follow his "party line".
No I don't believe this
> Is there
> any evidence for this that you have presented ? No. All we have is your
> reasoning in speculative ideas..
See above
>
>
> You believe that Acts is a mixture of things (which you've already
> listed, and I don't care to quote atm). Is there any evidence to back up
> your statement ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> ideas..
There is evidence.
>
>
> You believe the gospels were 'got at'.
No
> Do you present any evidence to
> back up this claim ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> ideas..
See above
>
>
> You believe, it seems, whatever your reasoning arrives at, even when
> there is a significant lack of evidence on your part. Might I then
> suggest you revise your statement to something akin to 'I believe that
> which I can reason, even when there is no evidence to support it' ?
This seems reasonable. You do this too you know.
sometimes a situation presents itself with no evidence for its ocurrance either way.
e.g. A door slams by itself at the other end of the house, you investigate, no-one is there. It must be the wind
or the dog did it, or whoever it may have been has gone etc. seem reasoned explanations. Answers like It was a
ghost or a fairy or the "spirit of the door did it" are bad reasoning. Why? because we can explain how a breeze
or dog could slam a door but we can't re-create or logically demonstrate or give precedence for the other
explanations. So. when you say for instance that Jesus Resurrected and present your evidence as "It says so in
the Bible" I reject this reasoning. You cannot demonstrate any incidence of anybody ressurecting, you cannot
show me an eye witness account, a piece of video or a recording. All you can show me is a written record from
and unknown source that has obviously been influence by outside parties (i.e. Paul). It is therefore reasonable
to conclude that this resurrection did not occur and the effect of Jesus appearance after his cucifixion was due
to some other cause.
Resonable explanations may include
1. He didn't die but was revived
2. He wasn't crucified in the first place.
3. The whole story is a concoction
4. The witnesses didn't actually see Jesus but somebody else.
5. People lied
6. some other resonable explanation as yet unthought of
Which of these reasonable explanations may be fact I have no idea.
Your explanation of the resurrection is based on your faith and "relationship" with your god.
This, I am sad to tell you, is unreasonable.
Now if it makes you feel better about the world to reason in this manner then OK but what really worries me is
that our secular society has given you and people like you a vote. It also scares the shit out of me that
"believers" like you make laws for us and sit on juries and become judges, believers like you turn up to my
kids' school and spread all manner of 1st century crap during school class time, indoctrinating young minds into
their "belief" mechanism. Believers like you get into parliament and make all sorts of moral-based decisions
based on an unreasonable belief system. Believers like you say "God bless America" and other believers like you
say "Allah achba"! believers like you cannot be reasoned with so don't point your finger at me and say I have no
evidence to support my statements when after 2000 years believers like you have utterly failed to demonstrate
either by reasoned argument or other evidence many of the fundamental bases their belief system.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you think you should reject ? Why?
> >
> > I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> > Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
>
> This begs the questions..
>
> Surely you are not taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence ?
Me? do this? ....never!
>
>
> People testify to knowing God, and *testimony* is evidence...Hmm.. Are
> you ignoring existing evidence presented, Dave ?
People testify to seeing UFO's little green menn, apparitions of Mary, sea monsters, fairies etc etc.
>
>
> Concerning reasoning (or lack thereof), I'd suggest you would be at a
> point where you can't/won't/refuse to understand what truth remains in
> the NT, for I've already shown that people can misunderstand, ignore and
> reject the truth..
Yes people do do this...like you for instance.
>
>
> <snip>
> > > The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
> >
> > So you are a literalist, QED, that was my original contention
>
> Err, the fact I say the gospels haven't been got at doesn't make me a
> literalist.. It makes me smart, since I don't sell my emotions to
> whatever fear or conspiracy theory that gets spun around the world..
I dont have a conspiricy theory about the gospels. It is only you that thinks this and keeps repeating it
ad-nauseum for some reason known only to yourself.
It seems that an earlier poster who claimed that you had some doubts may have a point.
Lawrence are you sure you really believe all this Christianity stuff?
>
>
> <snip>
> > > There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
> > > "filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
> > > those in the Bible, even with Paul...
> >
> > Literalism again.
>
> Err, you presented no evidence of "filtering", Dave. That don't make me a
> literalist. That means I am being logical and rational.
>
> You are basing your claims on doubt, with no evidence to back you up.
Plenty of evidence Lawrence.but you wouldn't dare investigate it yourself. If I gave you some book titles to
read would you? I doubt it.
If you read my reference material as much as I have read yours then I would believe that maybe you know what
you are talking about.
You are a religious believer Lawrence, That puts you in the same category as all religious believers.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've yet to see any evidence to back up your ideas..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can't see much to back up yours either and you are the one making the claims about gods etc. not me.
> > >
> > > I do it on the basis of a relationship.
> >
> > Well I am glad you have this relationship but I tend to choose human beings to have relationships with.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You may make your claims on the basis of doubt, leading to conspiracy..
> >
> > Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
>
> And it is because the foundation for your claims are on doubt that you
> can provide no evidence to back up your claims, which means your claims
> get thrown out..
If you like. I couldn't really give a stuff you you do with my opinions.
>
>
> If you could provide evidence for your claims, you wouldn't be making
> these statements on the basis of doubt..
>
> Why sow doubt, Dave ?
The doubt yours Lawrence.
Lawrence Meckan
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 15:40:24 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > What do you think you should believe ? Why?
> > >
> > > I believe that which can be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> >
> > Very well. Let's look at what you say..
> >
> > You believe that Paul forced others to follow his "party line".
>
> No I don't believe this
Then please put disclaimers on your work.
For you have said:
"the short answer is that they were accepted because Paul accepted them.
Paul was very sensitive to criticism levelled at him. He had strong words
to say about people who disagreed with him. (including the family of
Jesus.) Paul won the war of words. Other material that disagreed with his
beliefs was supressed over the following centruries. some snippetts
remain (e.g Gospel of Thomas)
It is not a case of John (who ever he was) being a liar or a distorter of
facts. It is just that this was one of the texts that didn't contradict
Paul. It is for this reason it survived."(David Castles, "Re:All
Christians are literalists", aus.religion, 6 Sep 2001)
Paul "won the war of words", eh ??
And this statement isn't implying a conspiracy of influence by Paul in
where and how the church developed ? Especially since in the same piece
of work you claim suppression to keep things in line with Paul's work ?
> > Is there
> > any evidence for this that you have presented ? No. All we have is your
> > reasoning in speculative ideas..
>
> See above
See reply to above. Live by your words, Dave.
> >
> >
> > You believe that Acts is a mixture of things (which you've already
> > listed, and I don't care to quote atm). Is there any evidence to back up
> > your statement ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> > ideas..
>
> There is evidence.
Where ?
> >
> >
> > You believe the gospels were 'got at'.
>
> No
Then why try and box me into a corner where I say the Gospels were not
got at, and then on that basis, call me a literalist ?
> > Do you present any evidence to
> > back up this claim ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> > ideas..
>
> See above
See reply to above.
> >
> >
> > You believe, it seems, whatever your reasoning arrives at, even when
> > there is a significant lack of evidence on your part. Might I then
> > suggest you revise your statement to something akin to 'I believe that
> > which I can reason, even when there is no evidence to support it' ?
>
> This seems reasonable. You do this too you know.
> sometimes a situation presents itself with no evidence for its ocurrance either way.
> e.g. A door slams by itself at the other end of the house, you investigate, no-one is there. It must be the wind
> or the dog did it, or whoever it may have been has gone etc. seem reasoned explanations. Answers like It was a
> ghost or a fairy or the "spirit of the door did it" are bad reasoning. Why? because we can explain how a breeze
> or dog could slam a door but we can't re-create or logically demonstrate or give precedence for the other
> explanations. So. when you say for instance that Jesus Resurrected and present your evidence as "It says so in
> the Bible" I reject this reasoning.
The Bible remains as testimony. Therefore, under all the laws of the
land, it is evidence, as testimony is a form of evidence.
Sorry, you can't go around ditching certain forms of evidence as a matter
of personal preference. For then the evidence you gather, if it does not
include all available forms of evidence, will be comprimised, at which
point your case gets thrown out.
> You cannot demonstrate any incidence of anybody ressurecting, you cannot
> show me an eye witness account, a piece of video or a recording.
I can show you an eye witness account. Matthew and John.
I can also show you partial witness accounts (which qualify as secondary
sources of evidence). Luke and Mark.
> All you can show me is a written record from and unknown source that has obviously been influence by outside parties (i.e. Paul).
You presented no evidence that it has been influenced by outside parties,
Dave. You presented your reasoning, but your reasoning alone cannot
qualify as a sufficient burden of proof for it to be considered evidence.
> It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this resurrection did not occur and the effect of Jesus appearance after his cucifixion was due
> to some other cause.
> Resonable explanations may include
> 1. He didn't die but was revived
Ah, the Muslim version of events.
> 2. He wasn't crucified in the first place.
> 3. The whole story is a concoction
> 4. The witnesses didn't actually see Jesus but somebody else.
> 5. People lied
> 6. some other resonable explanation as yet unthought of
> Which of these reasonable explanations may be fact I have no idea.
> Your explanation of the resurrection is based on your faith and "relationship" with your god.
> This, I am sad to tell you, is unreasonable.
It has evidence - a whole 2000+ years worth of testimony - behind it. It
has reasoning behind it.
You have reasoning, but no evidence for Paul winning the "war of words".
My case, therefore, is more secure than yours.
> Now if it makes you feel better about the world to reason in this manner then OK but what really worries me is
> that our secular society has given you and people like you a vote. It also scares the shit out of me that
> "believers" like you make laws for us and sit on juries and become judges, believers like you turn up to my
> kids' school and spread all manner of 1st century crap during school class time, indoctrinating young minds into
> their "belief" mechanism. Believers like you get into parliament and make all sorts of moral-based decisions
> based on an unreasonable belief system. Believers like you say "God bless America" and other believers like you
> say "Allah achba"! believers like you cannot be reasoned with so don't point your finger at me and say I have no
> evidence to support my statements when after 2000 years believers like you have utterly failed to demonstrate
> either by reasoned argument or other evidence many of the fundamental bases their belief system.
Yes, Dave, we're all ignorant savages who are totally unreasonable...
not.
Here's a puzzle to get those brain cells working, instead of ranting
emotion:
Tell me, if a case has evidence behind it, will it seen in a better light
by a judge than one which merely has *reasoning* behind it ?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you think you should reject ? Why?
> > >
> > > I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> > > Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
> >
> > This begs the questions..
> >
> > Surely you are not taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence ?
>
> Me? do this? ....never!
You're doing it.. Can you show me some hard, qualified evidence that Paul
won the "war of words" ?
> >
> >
> > People testify to knowing God, and *testimony* is evidence...Hmm.. Are
> > you ignoring existing evidence presented, Dave ?
>
> People testify to seeing UFO's little green menn, apparitions of Mary, sea monsters, fairies etc etc.
Yes, but usually those who testify to seeing UFO's, etc.. have an effect
merely within themselves (this forms the basis of the atheist charge:
that God is created all in the mind).
With Jesus, the area of effect is greater than merely 1 person, and how
they view the world.
> >
> >
> > Concerning reasoning (or lack thereof), I'd suggest you would be at a
> > point where you can't/won't/refuse to understand what truth remains in
> > the NT, for I've already shown that people can misunderstand, ignore and
> > reject the truth..
>
> Yes people do do this...like you for instance.
Going for the low blows, are we Dave ? :-(
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
> > >
> > > So you are a literalist, QED, that was my original contention
> >
> > Err, the fact I say the gospels haven't been got at doesn't make me a
> > literalist.. It makes me smart, since I don't sell my emotions to
> > whatever fear or conspiracy theory that gets spun around the world..
>
> I dont have a conspiricy theory about the gospels. It is only you that thinks this and keeps repeating it
> ad-nauseum for some reason known only to yourself.
"the short answer is that they were accepted because Paul accepted them.
Paul was very sensitive to criticism levelled at him. He had strong words
to say about people who disagreed with him. (including the family of
Jesus.) Paul won the war of words. Other material that disagreed with his
beliefs was supressed over the following centruries. some snippetts
remain (e.g Gospel of Thomas)
It is not a case of John (who ever he was) being a liar or a distorter of
facts. It is just that this was one of the texts that didn't contradict
Paul. It is for this reason it survived."(ibid).
These paragraphs seek to express a charge of conspiracy against the
Church, on the reasoning that Paul "won the war of words", and so
influenced the church beyond all reasonable bounds/justice/etc.. through
the use of suppression and other means.
Tell me why this is not so.
> It seems that an earlier poster who claimed that you had some doubts may have a point.
What he probably didn't tell you is that I aim to resolve my doubts..
> Lawrence are you sure you really believe all this Christianity stuff?
I am.
Are you sure you can continue to claim that Paul won the "war of words"
without any real evidence backing you up ?
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
> > > > "filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
> > > > those in the Bible, even with Paul...
> > >
> > > Literalism again.
> >
> > Err, you presented no evidence of "filtering", Dave. That don't make me a
> > literalist. That means I am being logical and rational.
> >
> > You are basing your claims on doubt, with no evidence to back you up.
>
> Plenty of evidence Lawrence.but you wouldn't dare investigate it yourself. If I gave you some book titles to
> read would you? I doubt it.
Then you are a cynic towards your fellow man.
> If you read my reference material as much as I have read yours then I would believe that maybe you know what
> you are talking about.
Then why not do let me read them ?
> You are a religious believer Lawrence, That puts you in the same category as all religious believers.
Well, gee, that's nice of you.. ;-P
I'm finding it quite humane to be put in a box.. not.
You're not thinking, you're simply speaking with your emotions, Dave..
Why destroy the very trust that you affirmed between us ?
<snip>
> > > Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
> >
> > And it is because the foundation for your claims are on doubt that you
> > can provide no evidence to back up your claims, which means your claims
> > get thrown out..
>
> If you like. I couldn't really give a stuff you you do with my opinions.
Hold on. You're the one saying that Paul "won the war of words". You're
the one saying that there is "Plenty of evidence" backing you up in your
claim.
Your opinions are your opinions. When you claim your opinions are based
on some measure of evidence, it is always fair play to divulge and
discuss
> >
> >
> > If you could provide evidence for your claims, you wouldn't be making
> > these statements on the basis of doubt..
> >
> > Why sow doubt, Dave ?
>
> The doubt yours Lawrence.
Nah.
If there was doubt, I'd be suckered into your conspiracy theory at the
drop of a hat..
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
Conspiracy is the wrong word and If there was a "conspiracy" as you put it I don't think it was Paul's doing.
>
>
> > > Is there
> > > any evidence for this that you have presented ? No. All we have is your
> > > reasoning in speculative ideas..
> >
> > See above
>
> See reply to above. Live by your words, Dave.
I do.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You believe that Acts is a mixture of things (which you've already
> > > listed, and I don't care to quote atm). Is there any evidence to back up
> > > your statement ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> > > ideas..
> >
> > There is evidence.
>
> Where ?
Give me some specifics to present evidence for and I will, I haven't got time to write a thesis
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You believe the gospels were 'got at'.
> >
> > No
>
> Then why try and box me into a corner where I say the Gospels were not
> got at, and then on that basis, call me a literalist ?
Theye were written by Paul followers who genuinly believed what they wrote. I don't think they were "got at"
>
>
> > > Do you present any evidence to
> > > back up this claim ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> > > ideas..
> >
> > See above
>
> See reply to above.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You believe, it seems, whatever your reasoning arrives at, even when
> > > there is a significant lack of evidence on your part. Might I then
> > > suggest you revise your statement to something akin to 'I believe that
> > > which I can reason, even when there is no evidence to support it' ?
> >
> > This seems reasonable. You do this too you know.
> > sometimes a situation presents itself with no evidence for its ocurrance either way.
> > e.g. A door slams by itself at the other end of the house, you investigate, no-one is there. It must be the wind
> > or the dog did it, or whoever it may have been has gone etc. seem reasoned explanations. Answers like It was a
> > ghost or a fairy or the "spirit of the door did it" are bad reasoning. Why? because we can explain how a breeze
> > or dog could slam a door but we can't re-create or logically demonstrate or give precedence for the other
> > explanations. So. when you say for instance that Jesus Resurrected and present your evidence as "It says so in
> > the Bible" I reject this reasoning.
>
> The Bible remains as testimony. Therefore, under all the laws of the
> land, it is evidence, as testimony is a form of evidence.
Testimony by whom? When was it given and to whom?
Sorry inadmissable.
>
>
> Sorry, you can't go around ditching certain forms of evidence as a matter
> of personal preference. For then the evidence you gather, if it does not
> include all available forms of evidence, will be comprimised, at which
> point your case gets thrown out.
I am beginning to think you haven't got the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.
>
>
> > You cannot demonstrate any incidence of anybody ressurecting, you cannot
> > show me an eye witness account, a piece of video or a recording.
>
> I can show you an eye witness account. Matthew and John.
Do.
>
>
> I can also show you partial witness accounts (which qualify as secondary
> sources of evidence). Luke and Mark.
Do.
>
>
> > All you can show me is a written record from and unknown source that has obviously been influence by outside parties (i.e. Paul).
>
> You presented no evidence that it has been influenced by outside parties,
Just read it.
>
> Dave. You presented your reasoning, but your reasoning alone cannot
> qualify as a sufficient burden of proof for it to be considered evidence.
Not in your court. You've got the jury stacked.
>
>
> > It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this resurrection did not occur and the effect of Jesus appearance after his cucifixion was due
> > to some other cause.
> > Resonable explanations may include
> > 1. He didn't die but was revived
>
> Ah, the Muslim version of events.
Is it? Yes I think you're right
>
>
> > 2. He wasn't crucified in the first place.
> > 3. The whole story is a concoction
> > 4. The witnesses didn't actually see Jesus but somebody else.
> > 5. People lied
> > 6. some other resonable explanation as yet unthought of
> > Which of these reasonable explanations may be fact I have no idea.
> > Your explanation of the resurrection is based on your faith and "relationship" with your god.
> > This, I am sad to tell you, is unreasonable.
>
> It has evidence - a whole 2000+ years worth of testimony - behind it. It
> has reasoning behind it.
Pauline Christian reasoning.
>
>
> You have reasoning, but no evidence for Paul winning the "war of words".
Come on Lawrence open up your eyes and do some research.
>
>
> My case, therefore, is more secure than yours.
No it isn't
>
>
> > Now if it makes you feel better about the world to reason in this manner then OK but what really worries me is
> > that our secular society has given you and people like you a vote. It also scares the shit out of me that
> > "believers" like you make laws for us and sit on juries and become judges, believers like you turn up to my
> > kids' school and spread all manner of 1st century crap during school class time, indoctrinating young minds into
> > their "belief" mechanism. Believers like you get into parliament and make all sorts of moral-based decisions
> > based on an unreasonable belief system. Believers like you say "God bless America" and other believers like you
> > say "Allah achba"! believers like you cannot be reasoned with so don't point your finger at me and say I have no
> > evidence to support my statements when after 2000 years believers like you have utterly failed to demonstrate
> > either by reasoned argument or other evidence many of the fundamental bases their belief system.
>
> Yes, Dave, we're all ignorant savages who are totally unreasonable...
> not.
Now you're getting sonewhere
>
>
> Here's a puzzle to get those brain cells working, instead of ranting
> emotion:
>
> Tell me, if a case has evidence behind it, will it seen in a better light
> by a judge than one which merely has *reasoning* behind it ?
You have only one piece of suspect evidence. I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think you should reject ? Why?
> > > >
> > > > I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> > > > Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
> > >
> > > This begs the questions..
> > >
> > > Surely you are not taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence ?
> >
> > Me? do this? ....never!
>
> You're doing it.. Can you show me some hard, qualified evidence that Paul
> won the "war of words" ?
Yep.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > People testify to knowing God, and *testimony* is evidence...Hmm.. Are
> > > you ignoring existing evidence presented, Dave ?
> >
> > People testify to seeing UFO's little green menn, apparitions of Mary, sea monsters, fairies etc etc.
>
> Yes, but usually those who testify to seeing UFO's, etc.. have an effect
> merely within themselves (this forms the basis of the atheist charge:
> that God is created all in the mind).
You're on the right track now.
>
>
> With Jesus, the area of effect is greater than merely 1 person, and how
> they view the world.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Concerning reasoning (or lack thereof), I'd suggest you would be at a
> > > point where you can't/won't/refuse to understand what truth remains in
> > > the NT, for I've already shown that people can misunderstand, ignore and
> > > reject the truth..
> >
> > Yes people do do this...like you for instance.
>
> Going for the low blows, are we Dave ? :-(
I beg your pardon...I never promised you a rose garden
Along with the sunshine...There's got to be a little rain sometime
La La Mmmm (I really hate country music don't you?)
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > The gospels haven't been "got at". I said it.
> > > >
> > > > So you are a literalist, QED, that was my original contention
> > >
> > > Err, the fact I say the gospels haven't been got at doesn't make me a
> > > literalist.. It makes me smart, since I don't sell my emotions to
> > > whatever fear or conspiracy theory that gets spun around the world..
> >
> > I dont have a conspiricy theory about the gospels. It is only you that thinks this and keeps repeating it
> > ad-nauseum for some reason known only to yourself.
>
> "the short answer is that they were accepted because Paul accepted them.
> Paul was very sensitive to criticism levelled at him. He had strong words
> to say about people who disagreed with him. (including the family of
> Jesus.) Paul won the war of words. Other material that disagreed with his
> beliefs was supressed over the following centruries. some snippetts
> remain (e.g Gospel of Thomas)
> It is not a case of John (who ever he was) being a liar or a distorter of
> facts. It is just that this was one of the texts that didn't contradict
> Paul. It is for this reason it survived."(ibid).
>
> These paragraphs seek to express a charge of conspiracy against the
> Church, on the reasoning that Paul "won the war of words", and so
> influenced the church beyond all reasonable bounds/justice/etc.. through
> the use of suppression and other means.
You've finally got it. This is exactly right! except the word conspiracy is inappropriate.
Conspiracy implies that the church conscienciously attempted to distort what they knew was the truth. I don't think it happened this way.
What they actually did was supress what they believed to be untrue. They called these beliefs heresy.
They were trying to guide us along the "correct" path.
>
>
> Tell me why this is not so.
>
> > It seems that an earlier poster who claimed that you had some doubts may have a point.
>
> What he probably didn't tell you is that I aim to resolve my doubts..
Well, good luck!
>
>
> > Lawrence are you sure you really believe all this Christianity stuff?
>
> I am.
Then you have no doubt then
>
>
> Are you sure you can continue to claim that Paul won the "war of words"
> without any real evidence backing you up ?
Yep.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > There is no "filtering" because you can provide no evidence of
> > > > > "filtering". There still are, even today, many more gospels around than
> > > > > those in the Bible, even with Paul...
> > > >
> > > > Literalism again.
> > >
> > > Err, you presented no evidence of "filtering", Dave. That don't make me a
> > > literalist. That means I am being logical and rational.
> > >
> > > You are basing your claims on doubt, with no evidence to back you up.
> >
> > Plenty of evidence Lawrence.but you wouldn't dare investigate it yourself. If I gave you some book titles to
> > read would you? I doubt it.
>
> Then you are a cynic towards your fellow man.
Cynic...yep I guess I am................no I definitely am!
Christianity can take some of the credit for this
>
>
> > If you read my reference material as much as I have read yours then I would believe that maybe you know what
> > you are talking about.
>
> Then why not do let me read them ?
Ok , I'll give you some references to ponder. Maybe on the weekend.
>
>
> > You are a religious believer Lawrence, That puts you in the same category as all religious believers.
>
> Well, gee, that's nice of you.. ;-P
See I'm am nice aren't I?
>
>
> I'm finding it quite humane to be put in a box.. not.
I didn't mean to box you. Categorize maybe.
>
>
> You're not thinking, you're simply speaking with your emotions, Dave..
Thank you.
>
>
> Why destroy the very trust that you affirmed between us ?
sorry didn't mean to destroy anything.
>
>
> <snip>
> > > > Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
> > >
> > > And it is because the foundation for your claims are on doubt that you
> > > can provide no evidence to back up your claims, which means your claims
> > > get thrown out..
> >
> > If you like. I couldn't really give a stuff you you do with my opinions.
>
> Hold on. You're the one saying that Paul "won the war of words". You're
> the one saying that there is "Plenty of evidence" backing you up in your
> claim.
Yep
>
>
> Your opinions are your opinions. When you claim your opinions are based
> on some measure of evidence, it is always fair play to divulge and
> discuss
Yep but I'm not going to die in a ditch if you reject them.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > If you could provide evidence for your claims, you wouldn't be making
> > > these statements on the basis of doubt..
> > >
> > > Why sow doubt, Dave ?
> >
> > The doubt yours Lawrence.
>
> Nah.
>
> If there was doubt, I'd be suckered into your conspiracy theory at the
> drop of a hat..
I'm a little sad to see an obvious intelligent and compassionate person like yourself hold to any belief and and not accompany it with doubt.
I have doubt about much of what I claim. I even change my mind!!!!!
To have no doubt is to freeze thought, philosophy, politics and religion in time.
Jesus had doubt so did Paul. all great thinkers doubted, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer etc.
Some people who never doubted included Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Alexander the Great, Napolean. (get the point?)
To doubt causes unease. Unease causes refinement. Refinement leads us closer to truth.
Think about why you believe what you do. If you were born in a muslim country you would be a non-doubting muslim. If born a Jew , a non-doubting
Jew. Your belief system is, for you, an accident of birth. It has been handed down to you and you have accepted it without question. You are a
sucker Lawrence and I think you are beginning to realise it.
Literalists are non-doubters. They will stay frozen in the 1st century. The are the reason for the decline of Christianity.
I can't understand how anybody can read the bible and not doubt.
What is it that scares you so much that you can't question your faith? Is the prospect of having to spiritually stand on your own two feet so
frightening or is the inevitability of death the problem?
What would you do if some archeaologist dug up Jesus' grave and demonstrated irrefutable evidence that he didn't resurrect? How would this affect
you?
Dave
Lawrence Meckan
Conspiracy is the right word.
Main Entry: conspire (MW-Online)
Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin
conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date: 14th century
transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE
intransitive senses
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or
an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b :
SCHEME
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to
defeat his efforts>
You have repeatedly suggested that Paul exhibited undue influence (i.e.
the war of words) in directing the Church, even if that was to end up
towards a common end, where at times you even state "if it wasn't for
Paul there would be no Christian church". That suggests conspiracy in a
big way..
> > > > You believe that Acts is a mixture of things (which you've already
> > > > listed, and I don't care to quote atm). Is there any evidence to back up
> > > > your statement ? No. All we have is your reasoning in speculative
> > > > ideas..
> > >
> > > There is evidence.
> >
> > Where ?
>
> Give me some specifics to present evidence for and I will, I haven't got time to write a thesis
"Acts is a pot-pouri of writngs from goodness knows where." Answer that
based on evidence..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You believe the gospels were 'got at'.
> > >
> > > No
> >
> > Then why try and box me into a corner where I say the Gospels were not
> > got at, and then on that basis, call me a literalist ?
>
> Theye were written by Paul followers who genuinly believed what they wrote. I don't think they were "got at"
Which brings us back to your perspective of the Church not being in
existence without Paul..
Sorry, you present no evidence that the Church would not have survived
without Paul. You present no reasoning that the Church would not have
survived without Paul. All you present is a conspiracy theory.
<snip>
> > > This seems reasonable. You do this too you know.
> > > sometimes a situation presents itself with no evidence for its ocurrance either way.
> > > e.g. A door slams by itself at the other end of the house, you investigate, no-one is there. It must be the wind
> > > or the dog did it, or whoever it may have been has gone etc. seem reasoned explanations. Answers like It was a
> > > ghost or a fairy or the "spirit of the door did it" are bad reasoning. Why? because we can explain how a breeze
> > > or dog could slam a door but we can't re-create or logically demonstrate or give precedence for the other
> > > explanations. So. when you say for instance that Jesus Resurrected and present your evidence as "It says so in
> > > the Bible" I reject this reasoning.
> >
> > The Bible remains as testimony. Therefore, under all the laws of the
> > land, it is evidence, as testimony is a form of evidence.
>
> Testimony by whom? When was it given and to whom?
Testimony by:
Matthew (Levi), John Mark, Luke and John.
Testimony given between 50AD and 100AD.
Those gospel which references the "Most Excellent" Theophilus, suggest
that the writer was submitting a copy of their study to a lawyer of the
day. Acts is the second part of their study.
> Sorry inadmissable.
Err, you give no grounds for dismissal.
Under the laws of the land, they can stay..
> >
> >
> > Sorry, you can't go around ditching certain forms of evidence as a matter
> > of personal preference. For then the evidence you gather, if it does not
> > include all available forms of evidence, will be comprimised, at which
> > point your case gets thrown out.
>
> I am beginning to think you haven't got the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.
I do. Do you have any idea that testimony *is* evidence, and that you
can't just ignore it as a matter of personal preference ?
> >
> >
> > > You cannot demonstrate any incidence of anybody ressurecting, you cannot
> > > show me an eye witness account, a piece of video or a recording.
> >
> > I can show you an eye witness account. Matthew and John.
>
> Do.
>
> >
> >
> > I can also show you partial witness accounts (which qualify as secondary
> > sources of evidence). Luke and Mark.
>
> Do.
Then Read The Manual, Dave.
The evidence is there.
> >
> >
> > > All you can show me is a written record from and unknown source that has obviously been influence by outside parties (i.e. Paul).
> >
> > You presented no evidence that it has been influenced by outside parties,
>
> Just read it.
What ?
Read what, Dave ? Where the heck is your case going ?
> >
> > Dave. You presented your reasoning, but your reasoning alone cannot
> > qualify as a sufficient burden of proof for it to be considered evidence.
>
> Not in your court. You've got the jury stacked.
I don't need the jury stacked.
I can simply highlight the lack of evidence you provide to demonstrate
that your reasoning in this matter is right..
<snip>
> > It has evidence - a whole 2000+ years worth of testimony - behind it. It
> > has reasoning behind it.
>
> Pauline Christian reasoning.
You present no proof that it *is* Pauline Christian reasoning, instead of
Christian reasoning.
Sorry. You can do better than this.
> >
> >
> > You have reasoning, but no evidence for Paul winning the "war of words".
>
> Come on Lawrence open up your eyes and do some research.
You're the one making the claim. You tell me..
Obviously you have done the legwork in terms of research, but it seems
silly that you're now operating on a premise of censorship..
> >
> >
> > My case, therefore, is more secure than yours.
>
> No it isn't
You present no evidence. You present reasoning alone.
My evidence includes testimony, and my reasoning is tried and tested.
I'm safe. Are you ?
> >
> >
> > Here's a puzzle to get those brain cells working, instead of ranting
> > emotion:
> >
> > Tell me, if a case has evidence behind it, will it seen in a better light
> > by a judge than one which merely has *reasoning* behind it ?
>
> You have only one piece of suspect evidence. I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you.
One piece of suspect evidence ??
Must you now resort to character assisination since you present no
evidence ?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think you should reject ? Why?
> > > > >
> > > > > I reject that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence or reason.
> > > > > Much of the NT cannot be demonstarted by evidence and quite a lot is unreasonable.
> > > >
> > > > This begs the questions..
> > > >
> > > > Surely you are not taking absence of evidence as evidence of absence ?
> > >
> > > Me? do this? ....never!
> >
> > You're doing it.. Can you show me some hard, qualified evidence that Paul
> > won the "war of words" ?
>
> Yep.
Where, when, how, and by what measure of evidence ?
<snip>
Yet your inital premise on which this paragraph is based has found to
have no burden of proof with it - "if it wasn't for Paul there would be
no Christian church"..
Your initial premise remains without evidence, therefore there should be
no reason why I should take on board what you say here..
> > > Lawrence are you sure you really believe all this Christianity stuff?
> >
> > I am.
>
> Then you have no doubt then
No, I just know whom I trust.
Doubt may come and go..
> > Are you sure you can continue to claim that Paul won the "war of words"
> > without any real evidence backing you up ?
>
> Yep.
Then you're being ignorant of the truth..
<snip>
> > > If you read my reference material as much as I have read yours then I would believe that maybe you know what
> > > you are talking about.
> >
> > Then why not do let me read them ?
>
> Ok , I'll give you some references to ponder. Maybe on the weekend.
OK.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > Doubts most certainly. Conspiracy maybe, but I really don't know
> > > >
> > > > And it is because the foundation for your claims are on doubt that you
> > > > can provide no evidence to back up your claims, which means your claims
> > > > get thrown out..
> > >
> > > If you like. I couldn't really give a stuff you you do with my opinions.
> >
> > Hold on. You're the one saying that Paul "won the war of words". You're
> > the one saying that there is "Plenty of evidence" backing you up in your
> > claim.
>
> Yep
Then where the heck is your evidence ?
> > > >
> > > > If you could provide evidence for your claims, you wouldn't be making
> > > > these statements on the basis of doubt..
> > > >
> > > > Why sow doubt, Dave ?
> > >
> > > The doubt yours Lawrence.
> >
> > Nah.
> >
> > If there was doubt, I'd be suckered into your conspiracy theory at the
> > drop of a hat..
>
> I'm a little sad to see an obvious intelligent and compassionate person like yourself hold to any belief and and not accompany it with doubt.
I don't need to accompany it with doubt. In relationships, do you always
*need* to doubt your partner ?
> I have doubt about much of what I claim. I even change my mind!!!!!
I change my mind as well. We are both free here, Dave..
> To have no doubt is to freeze thought, philosophy, politics and religion in time.
No, it isn't that way.
The doubt I resolve. Yet the doubt I have, when I have it, does not
define me.
The relationship always helps define me. For as doubt tears down trust,
so there must be a way for trust to be built up again..
I prefer to live my life building things up, not tearing them down.. More
on this below as to why I do this..
> Jesus had doubt so did Paul. all great thinkers doubted, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer etc.
> Some people who never doubted included Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Alexander the Great, Napolean. (get the point?)
Yes, you have no idea about me at all..
> To doubt causes unease. Unease causes refinement. Refinement leads us closer to truth.
Main Entry: 1doubt
Pronunciation: 'daut
Function: verb
Etymology: alteration of Middle English douten, from Old French douter to
doubt, from Latin dubitare; akin to Latin dubius dubious
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 archaic a : FEAR b : SUSPECT
2 : to be in doubt about <he doubts everyone's word>
3 a : to lack confidence in : DISTRUST <find myself doubting him even
when I know that he is honest -- H. L. Mencken> b : to consider unlikely
<I doubt if I can go> intransitive senses : to be uncertain
Main Entry: 2doubt
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 a : uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with
decision-making b : a deliberate suspension of judgment
2 : a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or
suspense
3 a : a lack of confidence : DISTRUST b : an inclination not to believe
or accept
synonym see UNCERTAINTY
- no doubt : 1DOUBTLESS
I've said this before, and I'll say it again..
To doubt is okay. It's a human condition. Resolving doubt is healthy to
do. To leave doubt unresolved is unhealthy. To live and speak on the
basis of your doubts is to promote fear and suspicion. Note the words
associated with doubt: fear, lack of confidence, suspect, distrust, a
lack of acceptance..
I do not think it is a healthy thing for man to live in fear, with a lack
of confidence, suspicious of themself and others, and putting up walls
against relationship due to distrust.
Live by your fears if you want to.
> Think about why you believe what you do. If you were born in a muslim country you would be a non-doubting muslim. If born a Jew , a non-doubting
> Jew. Your belief system is, for you, an accident of birth. It has been handed down to you and you have accepted it without question. You are a
> sucker Lawrence and I think you are beginning to realise it.
Would I really ? What you speak here is the catchcry of every
hypothetical argument against faith, trust and relationship.
Which is, basically, what you are pitching. A hypothetical argument with
no basis to back it up..
> Literalists are non-doubters. They will stay frozen in the 1st century. The are the reason for the decline of Christianity.
Then I'm not really fitting well into your mould of a literalist, or a
non-doubter.
I doubt. I resolve my doubts. Simple.
I hold to an idea. Simple.
The two aren't mutually inclusive of each other.
> I can't understand how anybody can read the bible and not doubt.
Because of relationship. That's how. I know who I trust.
You can either foster trust or doubt. Your choice. (3rd option is to do
nothing at all)..
> What is it that scares you so much that you can't question your faith?
I'm not scared of asking questions as to where my faith is going, or
where it's been. One of the questions I ask myself around once a
fortnight is: "What is the next step in regards to my faith?"
Do you ask where yourself where all this doubt you're fostering is
leading you ?
> Is the prospect of having to spiritually stand on your own two feet so
> frightening or is the inevitability of death the problem?
Neither. You present things which I have deal with, and resolved long
ago.
> What would you do if some archeaologist dug up Jesus' grave and demonstrated irrefutable evidence that he didn't resurrect? How would this affect
> you?
I don't know.
There would be a chorus of praise from the atheists around the world,
though.
D.Castles
OK Lawrence, let me see what I have gained from all this so far, I am getting a little confused and feel the need to define your belief system in a
more compact form to understand it a little better:
Your lines of argument tends towards these conclusions:
1. Acts was written by only one reliable person who was not influenced by Paul's unique theology. (by the term "unique theology" I mean a theology that
Paul derived by himself)
2. Paul had no infuence at all over the writing and later acceptance of the Gospels.
3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
a. as a father figure
b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
c.as a ghost or spirit..
Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
being one god.
9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
Please correct me if any of these conclusions are wrong.
Dave
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> more compact form to understand it a little better:
>
> Your lines of argument tends towards these conclusions:
>
> 1. Acts was written by only one reliable person who was not influenced by Paul's unique theology. (by the term "unique theology" I mean a theology that
> Paul derived by himself)
Correct.
> 2. Paul had no infuence at all over the writing and later acceptance of the Gospels.
Hypothetical conclusion. What reasoning can you bring, other than showing
how the timeline of history could hypothetically change if Paul was out
of the picture ? There remains little to no evidence for you to
substantiate the null hypothesis, in regards to this conclusion.
History shows Paul was in the picture. He may not have had influence but
he was in the picture..
> 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
conclusion this way.
> 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
Correct.
> 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
> 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
Correct.
> 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
your understanding at your earliest convenience.
> 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
perspective from your equation..
Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
and perspective.
> 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> a. as a father figure
> b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> c.as a ghost or spirit..
> Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> being one god.
No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
> 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
Correct.
Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:26:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK Lawrence, let me see what I have gained from all this so far, I am getting a little confused and feel the need to define your belief system in a
> > more compact form to understand it a little better:
> >
> > Your lines of argument tends towards these conclusions:
> >
> > 1. Acts was written by only one reliable person who was not influenced by Paul's unique theology. (by the term "unique theology" I mean a theology that
> > Paul derived by himself)
>
> Correct.
>
> > 2. Paul had no infuence at all over the writing and later acceptance of the Gospels.
>
> Hypothetical conclusion. What reasoning can you bring, other than showing
> how the timeline of history could hypothetically change if Paul was out
> of the picture ? There remains little to no evidence for you to
> substantiate the null hypothesis, in regards to this conclusion.
So I guess the answer to this one is no.
>
>
> History shows Paul was in the picture. He may not have had influence but
> he was in the picture..
OK Paul was there but had no influence on the outcome. Is this right?
>
>
> > 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
>
> May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
> your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
> conclusion this way.
From my understandingI you previously argued that Paul did not "invent" theology.
I just want to see if you mean he just added comment or created "belief"
To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
>
>
> > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
>
> Correct.
>
> > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
>
> Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
>
>
> > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
>
> Correct.
Ok now I'm confused.
did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
>
>
> > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
>
> There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> your understanding at your earliest convenience.
OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
>
>
> > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
>
> Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> perspective from your equation..
>
> Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> and perspective.
OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
>
>
> > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > a. as a father figure
> > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > being one god.
>
> No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
>
>
> > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
>
> Correct.
>
> Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
Lawrence Meckan
wrote:
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:26:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > OK Lawrence, let me see what I have gained from all this so far, I am getting a little confused and feel the need to define your belief system in a
> > > more compact form to understand it a little better:
> > >
> > > Your lines of argument tends towards these conclusions:
> > >
> > > 1. Acts was written by only one reliable person who was not influenced by Paul's unique theology. (by the term "unique theology" I mean a theology that
> > > Paul derived by himself)
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > 2. Paul had no infuence at all over the writing and later acceptance of the Gospels.
> >
> > Hypothetical conclusion. What reasoning can you bring, other than showing
> > how the timeline of history could hypothetically change if Paul was out
> > of the picture ? There remains little to no evidence for you to
> > substantiate the null hypothesis, in regards to this conclusion.
>
> So I guess the answer to this one is no.
>
> >
> >
> > History shows Paul was in the picture. He may not have had influence but
> > he was in the picture..
>
> OK Paul was there but had no influence on the outcome. Is this right?
You're seeking to label me / stick me with a hypothetical foundation
which I don't have, nor wish to profess as a foundation. Therefore it's
unworkable.
The two paragraphs actually go together, Dave. So please don't label me
with something I don't profess/have/agree with..
> >
> >
> > > 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
> >
> > May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
> > your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
> > conclusion this way.
>
> From my understandingI you previously argued that Paul did not "invent" theology.
> I just want to see if you mean he just added comment or created "belief"
Added comment from the times and places of the day. He does reference
Greek philosophy and understanding to show a point he wishes to make in
one or more books..
> To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
Just as much as any other writer.
According to your perspective, from what I can glean, Paul was like the
editor of the Bible. He used his skills to change bits and pieces and get
stuff agreeing with him. This remains pure speculation.
There is no evidence of "influence" for a writer writes from their
perspective and their understanding. People are allowed to have similar
understanding, after all. That's one of the way a community forms..
Paul wasn't the editor of the Bible.. There is no evidence he was.
Therefore your premise and foundation of this understanding need to be
reassessed.
> >
> >
> > > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
> >
> > Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> > thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
>
> ........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
Two challenges to your speculation:
1) We don't know when Saul was given the rubber stamp to arrest and
persecute those who followed Christ. It may have been immediately, it may
have been weeks or months (How long is a piece of string?).
2) Since Saul was travelling in a *group* to Damascus, there *may* have
been other rabbis rubber stamped to do the same job as Saul/Paul. A group
signifies that there was more people involved in the operation to
arrest/persecute those who followed Christ than simply Saul/Paul.
> >
> >
> > > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Ok now I'm confused.
> did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
Some were primary evidence witnesses (Matthew, John) - they were witness
to the lot.
Some were partial and secondary evidence witnesses (Luke, Mark) - they
were witness to bits and pieces and found out the rest from the community
they were in.
>
> >
> >
> > > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
> >
> > There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> > your understanding at your earliest convenience.
>
> OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
> reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
Sorry, my Empower spell isn't working. ;-)
You present no evidence that there was a "war of words" resulting in the
consequences you speculate to have been in existence.
Speculation built on a lack of evidence is nothing, Dave.
> >
> >
> > > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
> >
> > Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> > everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> > perspective from your equation..
> >
> > Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> > then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> > to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> > and perspective.
>
> OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
Exactly. If you don't give creedence to what is testified, you lose out
on the entire picture..
> >
> >
> > > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > > a. as a father figure
> > > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > > being one god.
> >
> > No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> > recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
>
> So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
Nope.
Argument from silence either way, which in this case, annuls your claim.
> >
> >
> > > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
>
> Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
Right on.
> Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
> Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
It'll be stuck somewhere online in 10 years... Why waste paper?
Brown Family
<d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Jews, Christians & Muslims are all literalists.
>
Don't know about the other two, although I suspect that there they can
be also, some Jews are atheists, some are agnostics, some are quite
liberal, I'd say, if anything, Jews are anything but literal.
Rabbinnical Judaism, OTOH, has a long standing tradition, that certain
parts of the Torah are meant to be taken literal, some lateral, some
allegorical, some combinations of all three, plus a few others I'm
sure I haven't even considered.
Consider this:
When the Torah talks about a wife who is loved and another who is
hated, as in Deu 21:15, it does not mean that the wife is hated in the
Oxford dictionary sense, but that she is less loved. Whilst there are
places in the Torah were hate is correctly translated, knowing where
it is to be taken literally and where not, is a tradition known to us
since mount Sinai and is contained within the Oral Law, the Talmud.
Les Brown
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
I didn't realise that i was "labelling " you. I didn't mean to do this.
Attaching labels is not really my style, if I did this then I stand corrected.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
> > >
> > > May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
> > > your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
> > > conclusion this way.
> >
> > From my understandingI you previously argued that Paul did not "invent" theology.
> > I just want to see if you mean he just added comment or created "belief"
>
> Added comment from the times and places of the day. He does reference
> Greek philosophy and understanding to show a point he wishes to make in
> one or more books..
Mmm. Looks like I give paul a lot more influence than he is due.
>
>
> > To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
>
> Just as much as any other writer.
>
> According to your perspective, from what I can glean, Paul was like the
> editor of the Bible. He used his skills to change bits and pieces and get
> stuff agreeing with him. This remains pure speculation.
not entirely, although yes, it is somewhat speculative. Many modern writers are attributing much more of Christian theology to Paul.
>
>
> There is no evidence of "influence" for a writer writes from their
> perspective and their understanding. People are allowed to have similar
> understanding, after all. That's one of the way a community forms..
>
> Paul wasn't the editor of the Bible.. There is no evidence he was.
> Therefore your premise and foundation of this understanding need to be
> reassessed.
Paul did however admit to deception, to being what he was required to be to spread the "correct" message. Paul by his own admission was a slippery character.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
> > >
> > > Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> > > thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
> >
> > ........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
>
> Two challenges to your speculation:
> 1) We don't know when Saul was given the rubber stamp to arrest and
> persecute those who followed Christ. It may have been immediately, it may
> have been weeks or months (How long is a piece of string?).
> 2) Since Saul was travelling in a *group* to Damascus, there *may* have
> been other rabbis rubber stamped to do the same job as Saul/Paul. A group
> signifies that there was more people involved in the operation to
> arrest/persecute those who followed Christ than simply Saul/Paul.
There is a theory about Paul held by many (including Spong) that he was a man consumed by guilt, by his "sin". He saw Jesus in a way that was uniquely Paul. A
saviour from sin. did Jesus really think this? was this a central part of his message?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> >
> > Ok now I'm confused.
> > did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
>
> Some were primary evidence witnesses (Matthew, John) - they were witness
> to the lot.
Where did you get this idea?. I don't think there is reliable evidence for this.
>
> Some were partial and secondary evidence witnesses (Luke, Mark)
don't tell me anybody really knows who these guys were.
> - they
> were witness to bits and pieces and found out the rest from the community
> they were in.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> > > your understanding at your earliest convenience.
> >
> > OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
> > reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
>
> Sorry, my Empower spell isn't working. ;-)
>
> You present no evidence that there was a "war of words" resulting in the
> consequences you speculate to have been in existence.
>
> Speculation built on a lack of evidence is nothing, Dave.
Exactly right. so why do you speculate about the identity of the Gospel writers.?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
> > >
> > > Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> > > everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> > > perspective from your equation..
> > >
> > > Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> > > then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> > > to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> > > and perspective.
> >
> > OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
>
> Exactly. If you don't give creedence to what is testified, you lose out
> on the entire picture..
This is a rather weak argument I'm sorry to say. To rephrase. "if you don't believe what is told you then you won't understand"
Does this mean that the next UFO advocate deserves my attention or I should go hunting for fairies or become a muslim, Jew or Anada Marga because if I don't
believe their nonsense I might miss out on something? This is cart before the horse reasoning. surely you should be able to put an argument to me which is so
compelling that I can hardly find a reason not to believe you. No Christian has succeeded in doing this to me yet? do you require me to believe first and think
later?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > > > a. as a father figure
> > > > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > > > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > > > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > > > being one god.
> > >
> > > No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> > > recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
> >
> > So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
>
> Nope.
>
> Argument from silence either way, which in this case, annuls your claim.
What claim is this? I make no claim about the Trinity...you do.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
> >
> > Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
>
> Right on.
OK so belief allows you to skip over the inconsistancies and mistakes because you, as a believer, realise that these things are just trivial compared to the
message and are not worth considering.
>
>
> > Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
> > Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
>
> It'll be stuck somewhere online in 10 years... Why waste paper?
I think you missed my point.
D.Castles
I am saying that because the belief systen is validated and given
authority by some literary work (i.e scripture) then followers of these
beliefs systems are "literalists".
Without the Bible/scripture/Koran these religions have no authority. No
more that the Aborigine or the Eskimo beliefs.
If God's word is only contained in these writings then any follower must
necessarily be a literalist.
Dave
Lawrence Meckan
Please stand corrected. I don't run my life on hypotheticals.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
> > > >
> > > > May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
> > > > your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
> > > > conclusion this way.
> > >
> > > From my understandingI you previously argued that Paul did not "invent" theology.
> > > I just want to see if you mean he just added comment or created "belief"
> >
> > Added comment from the times and places of the day. He does reference
> > Greek philosophy and understanding to show a point he wishes to make in
> > one or more books..
>
> Mmm. Looks like I give paul a lot more influence than he is due.
Yup.
> >
> >
> > > To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
> >
> > Just as much as any other writer.
> >
> > According to your perspective, from what I can glean, Paul was like the
> > editor of the Bible. He used his skills to change bits and pieces and get
> > stuff agreeing with him. This remains pure speculation.
>
> not entirely, although yes, it is somewhat speculative. Many modern writers are attributing much more of Christian theology to Paul.
It doesn't mean the modern writers are right.
If I understand your statement correctly, the attributions the modern
writers are making are simply speculative, right ?
Why are you following a road without evidence ?
> >
> >
> > There is no evidence of "influence" for a writer writes from their
> > perspective and their understanding. People are allowed to have similar
> > understanding, after all. That's one of the way a community forms..
> >
> > Paul wasn't the editor of the Bible.. There is no evidence he was.
> > Therefore your premise and foundation of this understanding need to be
> > reassessed.
>
> Paul did however admit to deception, to being what he was required to be to spread the "correct" message. Paul by his own admission was a slippery character.
Where does he do this ?
Care to share..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> > > > thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
> > >
> > > ........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
> >
> > Two challenges to your speculation:
> > 1) We don't know when Saul was given the rubber stamp to arrest and
> > persecute those who followed Christ. It may have been immediately, it may
> > have been weeks or months (How long is a piece of string?).
> > 2) Since Saul was travelling in a *group* to Damascus, there *may* have
> > been other rabbis rubber stamped to do the same job as Saul/Paul. A group
> > signifies that there was more people involved in the operation to
> > arrest/persecute those who followed Christ than simply Saul/Paul.
>
> There is a theory about Paul held by many (including Spong) that he was a man consumed by guilt, by his "sin".
It's a theory. Where's the evidence to support it ???????
> He saw Jesus in a way that was uniquely Paul.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Speculative statement either way.
> A saviour from sin. did Jesus really think this? was this a central part of his message?
Well, when Jesus starts forgiving people their sins (which in some cases
was pretext for healing), the religious establishment couldn't handle it.
The Pharisees, a part of that religious establishment, are recorded as
saying that only God could forgive sin during one discussion with Jesus.
Now there are two possible implications of this:
1) The Pharisees were right, and if Jesus could demonstrate tangible
'release' from sin (healing, etc..) as he forgave them, He was God.
2) The Pharisees were wrong, and forgiveness from sin is not something
that God is into.
Saul was a Pharisee according to his own testimony. Therefore he would
have seen the implications of a man who could demonstrate forgivenness
and salvation in a way that nobody else in the world could. He was
present at Stephen's stoning (and most likely his testimony to the
Sanhedrin) after all.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > >
> > > Ok now I'm confused.
> > > did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
> >
> > Some were primary evidence witnesses (Matthew, John) - they were witness
> > to the lot.
>
> Where did you get this idea?. I don't think there is reliable evidence for this.
Where did I get this idea ?
Well, the church during it's early growth, documented itself and its
foundation. It needed to, due to the enormous persecution it was under.
You're decrying tradition as a means of ascertaining evidence because ..?
a) You think modern writers know it all better than those who actually
experienced it.
b) You think modern writers write better speculative theories about
people they never knew or met. Therefore you follow the modern road.
c) You don't like tradition, so your only source of understanding is
modernism (conspiracy based modernism at that).
d) All of the above.
e) Other <.......>?
> >
> > Some were partial and secondary evidence witnesses (Luke, Mark)
>
> don't tell me anybody really knows who these guys were.
Sometimes tradition bears truth in ways contemporary understanding cannot
fathom.
> > - they
> > were witness to bits and pieces and found out the rest from the community
> > they were in.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> > > > your understanding at your earliest convenience.
> > >
> > > OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
> > > reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
> >
> > Sorry, my Empower spell isn't working. ;-)
> >
> > You present no evidence that there was a "war of words" resulting in the
> > consequences you speculate to have been in existence.
> >
> > Speculation built on a lack of evidence is nothing, Dave.
>
> Exactly right. so why do you speculate about the identity of the Gospel writers.?
Because traditions may still be message bearers for the truth as much as
anything else which can bear truth is. That's why.
I'm not 100% sure, but I've got a good idea as to why these records
remain the way they are.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> > > > everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> > > > perspective from your equation..
> > > >
> > > > Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> > > > then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> > > > to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> > > > and perspective.
> > >
> > > OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
> >
> > Exactly. If you don't give creedence to what is testified, you lose out
> > on the entire picture..
>
> This is a rather weak argument I'm sorry to say. To rephrase. "if you don't believe what is told you then you won't understand"
> Does this mean that the next UFO advocate deserves my attention or I should go hunting for fairies or become a muslim, Jew or Anada Marga because if I don't
> believe their nonsense I might miss out on something? This is cart before the horse reasoning. surely you should be able to put an argument to me which is so
> compelling that I can hardly find a reason not to believe you. No Christian has succeeded in doing this to me yet? do you require me to believe first and think
> later?
It's a rather good argument from a matter of understanding.
I can testify to something. I can point that thing out to you in my life.
Yet if you refuse to see it with the eyes and understanding that I have,
you may not see the same thing. Let's take music (since we both seem to
have a musical inkling) for example..
Does all *music* sound the same to you as it does to your friends or do
you have differing, unique perspectives ?
As this example shows, it isn't about "if you don't believe what is told
you won't understand". It's about your own refusal to let someone else
offer a different or conflicting perspective on the same thing.. Vive la
difference, remember ??
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > > > > a. as a father figure
> > > > > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > > > > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > > > > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > > > > being one god.
> > > >
> > > > No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> > > > recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
> > >
> > > So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Argument from silence either way, which in this case, annuls your claim.
>
> What claim is this? I make no claim about the Trinity...you do.
Your claim has two parts:
1) Luke and Matthew were not influence by Paul. Speculation ? Why ?
Because there is no way of ascertaining that "influence".
2) Paul giving validity to the 3 in 1 god belief. Speculation ? Why ?
There is no way of ascertaining that this was/wasn't already within
Jewish culture.
Arguments from silence, basically, to silence. No claim, for there is no
evidence..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
> > >
> > > Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
> >
> > Right on.
>
> OK so belief allows you to skip over the inconsistancies and mistakes because you, as a believer, realise that these things are just trivial compared to the
> message and are not worth considering.
No.
I read Scripture with an understanding that recognises the
inconsistencies and mistakes *AND* still understands the message which it
is trying to bring, and what relevance that message has to my life and
the life of those around me.
You read with an understanding of conspiracy and inconsistencies, from
what I can gauge of your views.
You want understanding ? Let go of your fear..
> >
> >
> > > Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
> > > Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
> >
> > It'll be stuck somewhere online in 10 years... Why waste paper?
>
> I think you missed my point.
You've definitely missed mine as well. Par for the course.
lawrence
D.Castles
Lawrence Meckan wrote:
No, I've changed my mind. I think I'll remain seated.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Paul's unique personal theology was not included in the NT
> > > > >
> > > > > May have. May not have. You can't write a letter and not include some of
> > > > > your own perspective in it. I'm unsure as to why you're phrasing this
> > > > > conclusion this way.
> > > >
> > > > From my understandingI you previously argued that Paul did not "invent" theology.
> > > > I just want to see if you mean he just added comment or created "belief"
> > >
> > > Added comment from the times and places of the day. He does reference
> > > Greek philosophy and understanding to show a point he wishes to make in
> > > one or more books..
> >
> > Mmm. Looks like I give paul a lot more influence than he is due.
>
> Yup.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
> > >
> > > Just as much as any other writer.
> > >
> > > According to your perspective, from what I can glean, Paul was like the
> > > editor of the Bible. He used his skills to change bits and pieces and get
> > > stuff agreeing with him. This remains pure speculation.
> >
> > not entirely, although yes, it is somewhat speculative. Many modern writers are attributing much more of Christian theology to Paul.
>
> It doesn't mean the modern writers are right.
>
> If I understand your statement correctly, the attributions the modern
> writers are making are simply speculative, right ?
Yep, just like Paul's ideas.
>
>
> Why are you following a road without evidence ?
I'm on your road simply asking if we are headed to wrong way.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of "influence" for a writer writes from their
> > > perspective and their understanding. People are allowed to have similar
> > > understanding, after all. That's one of the way a community forms..
> > >
> > > Paul wasn't the editor of the Bible.. There is no evidence he was.
> > > Therefore your premise and foundation of this understanding need to be
> > > reassessed.
> >
> > Paul did however admit to deception, to being what he was required to be to spread the "correct" message. Paul by his own admission was a slippery character.
>
> Where does he do this ?
>
> Care to share..
Bugger, I haven't got my bible here.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> > > > > thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
> > > >
> > > > ........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
> > >
> > > Two challenges to your speculation:
> > > 1) We don't know when Saul was given the rubber stamp to arrest and
> > > persecute those who followed Christ. It may have been immediately, it may
> > > have been weeks or months (How long is a piece of string?).
> > > 2) Since Saul was travelling in a *group* to Damascus, there *may* have
> > > been other rabbis rubber stamped to do the same job as Saul/Paul. A group
> > > signifies that there was more people involved in the operation to
> > > arrest/persecute those who followed Christ than simply Saul/Paul.
> >
> > There is a theory about Paul held by many (including Spong) that he was a man consumed by guilt, by his "sin".
>
> It's a theory. Where's the evidence to support it ???????
The Bible.
>
>
> > He saw Jesus in a way that was uniquely Paul.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. Speculative statement either way.
No, evidence is in the Bible
>
>
> > A saviour from sin. did Jesus really think this? was this a central part of his message?
>
> Well, when Jesus starts forgiving people their sins (which in some cases
> was pretext for healing), the religious establishment couldn't handle it.
Why not? can't anybody forgive sin? Isn't the whole point that we forgive each other?
>
>
> The Pharisees, a part of that religious establishment, are recorded as
> saying that only God could forgive sin during one discussion with Jesus.
Yep, that is what these particular clerics believed.
>
> Now there are two possible implications of this:
> 1) The Pharisees were right, and if Jesus could demonstrate tangible
> 'release' from sin (healing, etc..) as he forgave them, He was God.
Total bullshit, you know quite well that healing the body and sin have nothing to do with each other. This is first century superstition Lawrence, get real.
>
> 2) The Pharisees were wrong, and forgiveness from sin is not something
> that God is into.
Who knows what god is really into. According to the bible he is into mass murder, racism, involving himself in war, taking sides, bringing on disease and pestilence,
getting his son killed, dividing into 3 at will, impregnating virgins etc etc.
This god of yours is a totally confusing entity, hardly lovable is he?
>
>
> Saul was a Pharisee according to his own testimony.
so he says but this is probably bullshit like many of his claims. He was after all a self confessed liar.
> Therefore he would
> have seen the implications of a man who could demonstrate forgivenness
> and salvation in a way that nobody else in the world could.
Jesus may have frogiven some pepole (as we all do) but salvation? how did he demonstrate that?
> He was
> present at Stephen's stoning (and most likely his testimony to the
> Sanhedrin) after all.
Present at the stoning? I think you are being kind. ("persued them 'til death")
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > Ok now I'm confused.
> > > > did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
> > >
> > > Some were primary evidence witnesses (Matthew, John) - they were witness
> > > to the lot.
> >
> > Where did you get this idea?. I don't think there is reliable evidence for this.
>
> Where did I get this idea ?
>
> Well, the church during it's early growth, documented itself and its
> foundation. It needed to, due to the enormous persecution it was under.
This documentation was much later Eusebius et al
>
>
> You're decrying tradition as a means of ascertaining evidence because ..?
>
> a) You think modern writers know it all better than those who actually
> experienced it.
No, modern writers have studied those that didn't experience it (like the gospel writers)and came to the conclusion that much of it is dubious in fact.
>
> b) You think modern writers write better speculative theories about
> people they never knew or met. Therefore you follow the modern road.
You Christians are the masters of speculation.I follow no road remember? you are the follower. I am just wandering at will.
>
> c) You don't like tradition, so your only source of understanding is
> modernism (conspiracy based modernism at that).
Ooooo modernism. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>
> d) All of the above.
> e) Other <.......>?
>
> > >
> > > Some were partial and secondary evidence witnesses (Luke, Mark)
> >
> > don't tell me anybody really knows who these guys were.
>
> Sometimes tradition bears truth in ways contemporary understanding cannot
> fathom.
Yeah, traditions about witches, black cats, walking under ladders, breaking mirrors, the number 13 etc. etc.
If your tradition has validity then demonstrate it. show me that only God forgives, show me your God!.I have challenged you on many occasions to demonstrate the
truth of your belief system without constanly reyling on you bible to give it authority. you have consistantly failed to show any evidence what so ever. You can't
even prove Jesus existed.
Yes, you can give me a few lines in Tacitus or Josephus and these almost convince me that he existed but this hardly constitutes proof.
>
>
> > > - they
> > > were witness to bits and pieces and found out the rest from the community
> > > they were in.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> > > > > your understanding at your earliest convenience.
> > > >
> > > > OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
> > > > reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
> > >
> > > Sorry, my Empower spell isn't working. ;-)
> > >
> > > You present no evidence that there was a "war of words" resulting in the
> > > consequences you speculate to have been in existence.
> > >
> > > Speculation built on a lack of evidence is nothing, Dave.
> >
> > Exactly right. so why do you speculate about the identity of the Gospel writers.?
>
> Because traditions may still be message bearers for the truth as much as
> anything else which can bear truth is. That's why.
So some traditions are based on truth. So what ? and how do we sort out the false traditions?
>
>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I've got a good idea as to why these records
> remain the way they are.
So do I, because they are a basis of faith. That's all.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> > > > > everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> > > > > perspective from your equation..
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> > > > > then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> > > > > to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> > > > > and perspective.
> > > >
> > > > OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
> > >
> > > Exactly. If you don't give creedence to what is testified, you lose out
> > > on the entire picture..
> >
> > This is a rather weak argument I'm sorry to say. To rephrase. "if you don't believe what is told you then you won't understand"
> > Does this mean that the next UFO advocate deserves my attention or I should go hunting for fairies or become a muslim, Jew or Anada Marga because if I don't
> > believe their nonsense I might miss out on something? This is cart before the horse reasoning. surely you should be able to put an argument to me which is so
> > compelling that I can hardly find a reason not to believe you. No Christian has succeeded in doing this to me yet? do you require me to believe first and think
> > later?
>
> It's a rather good argument from a matter of understanding.
>
> I can testify to something. I can point that thing out to you in my life.
> Yet if you refuse to see it with the eyes and understanding that I have,
> you may not see the same thing. Let's take music (since we both seem to
> have a musical inkling) for example..
>
> Does all *music* sound the same to you as it does to your friends or do
> you have differing, unique perspectives ?
YepIi see your point but we are talking about subjective thought here. The facts (or not) of your belief system are surely not to all be taken subjectively?
>
>
> As this example shows, it isn't about "if you don't believe what is told
> you won't understand". It's about your own refusal to let someone else
> offer a different or conflicting perspective on the same thing.. Vive la
> difference, remember ??
You can give a perspective but please don't claim that it is fact just because the bible says so.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > > > > > a. as a father figure
> > > > > > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > > > > > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > > > > > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > > > > > being one god.
> > > > >
> > > > > No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> > > > > recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
> > > >
> > > > So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Argument from silence either way, which in this case, annuls your claim.
> >
> > What claim is this? I make no claim about the Trinity...you do.
>
> Your claim has two parts:
> 1) Luke and Matthew were not influence by Paul. Speculation ? Why ?
> Because there is no way of ascertaining that "influence".
Yes there is.
>
> 2) Paul giving validity to the 3 in 1 god belief. Speculation ? Why ?
> There is no way of ascertaining that this was/wasn't already within
> Jewish culture.
Absolute bullshit Lawrence!. Ask the Jews today. Ask the Jewish scholars. The 3 in 1 god is an abomination to Jews. They have died in droves to protect the one god
belief.
have you got a Jewish friend? have you met a Rabbi? have you been into a Jerusalem Synagogue? have you attended a passover meal? did you go to a Jewish school?
I did all these things and am sure no Jew, ever would have held the 3 in 1 view of god.
Learn your Jewish law and tradition before you spout off your Pauline crap.
>
>
> Arguments from silence, basically, to silence. No claim, for there is no
> evidence..
Your right. That is what i have been trying to tell you. I am glad the massage is sinking in.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
> > > >
> > > > Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
> > >
> > > Right on.
> >
> > OK so belief allows you to skip over the inconsistancies and mistakes because you, as a believer, realise that these things are just trivial compared to the
> > message and are not worth considering.
>
> No.
>
> I read Scripture with an understanding
HUH!
> that recognises the
> inconsistencies and mistakes *AND* still understands the message which it
> is trying to bring,
I understand the message too . The message is obvious and I agree with most of it.
It is the nature of the man that is the problem.
> and what relevance that message has to my life and
> the life of those around me.
It has relevence to me too. I'm not a complete Pagan you know.
>
>
> You read with an understanding of conspiracy and inconsistencies, from
> what I can gauge of your views.
Partly right. but I read with appreciation and admiration also
>
>
> You want understanding ? Let go of your fear..
Fear, Lawrence I am the worlds expert on fear, if I could let go of it I would have when I was a kid but it is still there, my ever present companion. I've sort of
got used to the little bugger, he keeps me alive, he keeps me sane, he keeps me making an annoying prick of myself. Long live fear...he makes us all human. A person
without fear is the most dangerous creature on earth. Please, please tell me you still have some fears.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
> > > > Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
> > >
> > > It'll be stuck somewhere online in 10 years... Why waste paper?
> >
> > I think you missed my point.
>
> You've definitely missed mine as well. Par for the course.
No, your point is pretty obvious. I have been hearing the Christian point all my life.
Why do you think I'm here/
Lawrence Meckan
>
>
> Lawrence Meckan wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:50:29 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:16:33 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lawrence Meckan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:26:40 +1000, D.Castles <d.ca...@latrobe.edu.au>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > To what extent do you think he influenced the writngs in the NT?
> > > >
> > > > Just as much as any other writer.
> > > >
> > > > According to your perspective, from what I can glean, Paul was like the
> > > > editor of the Bible. He used his skills to change bits and pieces and get
> > > > stuff agreeing with him. This remains pure speculation.
> > >
> > > not entirely, although yes, it is somewhat speculative. Many modern writers are attributing much more of Christian theology to Paul.
> >
> > It doesn't mean the modern writers are right.
> >
> > If I understand your statement correctly, the attributions the modern
> > writers are making are simply speculative, right ?
>
> Yep, just like Paul's ideas.
Who says Paul's ideas are speculative ?
Isn't it the modern writers who say Paul wrote speculatively based on
their own speculative ideas ?
> >
> >
> > Why are you following a road without evidence ?
>
> I'm on your road simply asking if we are headed to wrong way.
You're not on my road. You're heading in a different direction.
I'm building stuff. You're seeking to tear down with fear and doubt.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of "influence" for a writer writes from their
> > > > perspective and their understanding. People are allowed to have similar
> > > > understanding, after all. That's one of the way a community forms..
> > > >
> > > > Paul wasn't the editor of the Bible.. There is no evidence he was.
> > > > Therefore your premise and foundation of this understanding need to be
> > > > reassessed.
> > >
> > > Paul did however admit to deception, to being what he was required to be to spread the "correct" message. Paul by his own admission was a slippery character.
> >
> > Where does he do this ?
> >
> > Care to share..
>
> Bugger, I haven't got my bible here.
Find it then.
Or use an online one (e.g. bible.gospelcom.net )
<snip>
> > > > > > > 4. There was no collusion or conspiracy to exclude any material that did not agree with Paul's unique theology
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. The Christian Church would have been basically the same without the influence of Paul.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct. It was already being scattered and grown into new communities
> > > > > > thanks to the persecution post Stephen's stoning..
> > > > >
> > > > > ........and Paul didn't have a hand in the stoning or the scattering?
> > > >
> > > > Two challenges to your speculation:
> > > > 1) We don't know when Saul was given the rubber stamp to arrest and
> > > > persecute those who followed Christ. It may have been immediately, it may
> > > > have been weeks or months (How long is a piece of string?).
> > > > 2) Since Saul was travelling in a *group* to Damascus, there *may* have
> > > > been other rabbis rubber stamped to do the same job as Saul/Paul. A group
> > > > signifies that there was more people involved in the operation to
> > > > arrest/persecute those who followed Christ than simply Saul/Paul.
> > >
> > > There is a theory about Paul held by many (including Spong) that he was a man consumed by guilt, by his "sin".
> >
> > It's a theory. Where's the evidence to support it ???????
>
> The Bible.
Generalistic statement. You need to show how this generalistic statement
gives ground to a specific conclusion that he was a man consumed by guilt
and "sin". If you can't, it's automatically in the garbage with it.
> >
> >
> > > He saw Jesus in a way that was uniquely Paul.
> >
> > Perhaps. Perhaps not. Speculative statement either way.
>
> No, evidence is in the Bible
Yes, for you're still thinking of everything but the relationship with
God in terms of what following Christ is about.
Relationships, by nature, are going to contain unique perspectives.
Everyone sees each other in unique ways. So your point is moot.
> >
> >
> > > A saviour from sin. did Jesus really think this? was this a central part of his message?
> >
> > Well, when Jesus starts forgiving people their sins (which in some cases
> > was pretext for healing), the religious establishment couldn't handle it.
>
> Why not? can't anybody forgive sin? Isn't the whole point that we forgive each other?
You need to recognise sin before you can forgive people of it, otherwise
you're kidding yourself.
God is the ultimate law and judge as to what sin is.
We can forgive each other of wrongdoing against each other. We can't
remove and heal each other of sin, though.
> >
> >
> > The Pharisees, a part of that religious establishment, are recorded as
> > saying that only God could forgive sin during one discussion with Jesus.
>
> Yep, that is what these particular clerics believed.
>
> >
> > Now there are two possible implications of this:
> > 1) The Pharisees were right, and if Jesus could demonstrate tangible
> > 'release' from sin (healing, etc..) as he forgave them, He was God.
>
> Total bullshit, you know quite well that healing the body and sin have nothing to do with each other. This is first century superstition Lawrence, get real.
Total bull, eh ?
Why then did the Pharisees kick out of the temple a man born blind whom
Jesus had healed on this very point ????
Why then did Jesus say to people "Your sins are forgiven" as he healed
them ?
Stress affects a person. Discouragement and depression affect a person
physically. Broken relationships will affect you in one way or another -
nobody is immune from emotional pain and its consequences.
Sin is brokenness towards man and God. It will affect you, even if you
are blind to the consequences of it.
> >
> > 2) The Pharisees were wrong, and forgiveness from sin is not something
> > that God is into.
>
> Who knows what god is really into. According to the bible he is into mass murder, racism, involving himself in war, taking sides, bringing on disease and pestilence,
> getting his son killed, dividing into 3 at will, impregnating virgins etc etc.
And this remains an emotional charged retort. I was hoping you'd show how
the Pharisees were wrong. I guess I should hope for such things.. (not).
> This god of yours is a totally confusing entity, hardly lovable is he?
Perfectly lovable. Confusing at times, but any relationship is confusing
at times.. <g>
> >
> >
> > Saul was a Pharisee according to his own testimony.
>
> so he says but this is probably bullshit like many of his claims. He was after all a self confessed liar.
Proof, Dave... All I'm getting is claims, claims and more claims from
you, but no proof.
> > Therefore he would
> > have seen the implications of a man who could demonstrate forgivenness
> > and salvation in a way that nobody else in the world could.
>
> Jesus may have frogiven some pepole (as we all do) but salvation? how did he demonstrate that?
Who else in the world would prophecy his own death and resurrection ?
And deliver on that prophecy..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. The Gospels and Acts are the testimony of eye witnesses , not heresay , and therefore reliable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok now I'm confused.
> > > > > did these eye witnesses write down their testimony or did they tell it to the Gospel writers.?
> > > >
> > > > Some were primary evidence witnesses (Matthew, John) - they were witness
> > > > to the lot.
> > >
> > > Where did you get this idea?. I don't think there is reliable evidence for this.
> >
> > Where did I get this idea ?
> >
> > Well, the church during it's early growth, documented itself and its
> > foundation. It needed to, due to the enormous persecution it was under.
>
> This documentation was much later Eusebius et al
The Canon of Eusebius (from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7):
"At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New
Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be
put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of
the Acts of the Apostles.
After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the
extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be
recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the
Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions
at the proper time".
He gives a summary of books already in existence, not a rubber stamp that
these books are to be produced.
The earliest Gospel record was around 50/60AD if I remember correctly..
> >
> >
> > You're decrying tradition as a means of ascertaining evidence because ..?
> >
> > a) You think modern writers know it all better than those who actually
> > experienced it.
>
> No, modern writers have studied those that didn't experience it (like the gospel writers)and came to the conclusion that much of it is dubious in fact.
See first point in this post.
> >
> > b) You think modern writers write better speculative theories about
> > people they never knew or met. Therefore you follow the modern road.
>
> You Christians are the masters of speculation.I follow no road remember? you are the follower. I am just wandering at will.
You are wandering around in a circle of fear and conspiracy, that is why
you follow no road. For if you were following a road, you would be going
somewhere..
It's always fun to have yet another label tacked on to my reportiore.
Where do you want me to stick "master of speculation" ? On my ass ? ;-P
> >
> > c) You don't like tradition, so your only source of understanding is
> > modernism (conspiracy based modernism at that).
>
> Ooooo modernism. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I do.
You don't think that your mindset is limited, simply because you follow
ONLY contemporary, modern scholars ?
> >
> > d) All of the above.
> > e) Other <.......>?
> >
> > > >
> > > > Some were partial and secondary evidence witnesses (Luke, Mark)
> > >
> > > don't tell me anybody really knows who these guys were.
> >
> > Sometimes tradition bears truth in ways contemporary understanding cannot
> > fathom.
>
> Yeah, traditions about witches, black cats, walking under ladders, breaking mirrors, the number 13 etc. etc.
> If your tradition has validity then demonstrate it. show me that only God forgives, show me your God!.
I am.
If you want to see God, take a good look at Jesus.
> I have challenged you on many occasions to demonstrate the truth of your belief system without constanly reyling on you bible to give it authority. you have consistantly failed to show any evidence what so ever. You can't
> even prove Jesus existed.
Why ? Don't you *like* tradition as a means for gaining truth ?
> Yes, you can give me a few lines in Tacitus or Josephus and these almost convince me that he existed but this hardly constitutes proof.
For you.
Here's the curveball:
Dave, why does everything have to conform to the specifications you set
out for things to be real ?
> >
> >
> > > > - they
> > > > were witness to bits and pieces and found out the rest from the community
> > > > they were in.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7. There was no theological "war of words" between Paul and others and if there was Paul didn't win it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no evidence for a "war of words". Ditch this conclusion from
> > > > > > your understanding at your earliest convenience.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK Paul had no-one that disagreed with him. Everyone saw things his way. There was no dissention. He did not rail at length against his detractors, I am
> > > > > reading the NT incorrectly. (run this by you local cleric will you? humour me)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, my Empower spell isn't working. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > You present no evidence that there was a "war of words" resulting in the
> > > > consequences you speculate to have been in existence.
> > > >
> > > > Speculation built on a lack of evidence is nothing, Dave.
> > >
> > > Exactly right. so why do you speculate about the identity of the Gospel writers.?
> >
> > Because traditions may still be message bearers for the truth as much as
> > anything else which can bear truth is. That's why.
>
> So some traditions are based on truth. So what ? and how do we sort out the false traditions?
So what ?
You're discounting and discarding *THAT* truth because you prefer (due to
a modern mindset) only those that are contemporary to your time and
place. That's what. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it, Dave ???
You sort out the false traditions from the false ones by looking through
history as to when and why the traditions started. Simple.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 8. Christians who believe everything in the NT are not literalists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct. Due to your own perspective of "Christians who believe
> > > > > > everything" removing the context of a Christian's own understanding and
> > > > > > perspective from your equation..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, you're looking through your own fishbowl of understanding, and
> > > > > > then concluding that Christians are literalists, without giving credence
> > > > > > to what Christians may testify for themselves of their own understanding
> > > > > > and perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, because Christians have some kind of understanding or experience that seems to evade me they can read the NT and believe everything they read.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. If you don't give creedence to what is testified, you lose out
> > > > on the entire picture..
> > >
> > > This is a rather weak argument I'm sorry to say. To rephrase. "if you don't believe what is told you then you won't understand"
> > > Does this mean that the next UFO advocate deserves my attention or I should go hunting for fairies or become a muslim, Jew or Anada Marga because if I don't
> > > believe their nonsense I might miss out on something? This is cart before the horse reasoning. surely you should be able to put an argument to me which is so
> > > compelling that I can hardly find a reason not to believe you. No Christian has succeeded in doing this to me yet? do you require me to believe first and think
> > > later?
> >
> > It's a rather good argument from a matter of understanding.
> >
> > I can testify to something. I can point that thing out to you in my life.
> > Yet if you refuse to see it with the eyes and understanding that I have,
> > you may not see the same thing. Let's take music (since we both seem to
> > have a musical inkling) for example..
> >
> > Does all *music* sound the same to you as it does to your friends or do
> > you have differing, unique perspectives ?
>
> YepIi see your point but we are talking about subjective thought here. The facts (or not) of your belief system are surely not to all be taken subjectively?
Some are.
Some aren't.
Relationship is subjective and objective. It qualifies for both.
> >
> >
> > As this example shows, it isn't about "if you don't believe what is told
> > you won't understand". It's about your own refusal to let someone else
> > offer a different or conflicting perspective on the same thing.. Vive la
> > difference, remember ??
>
> You can give a perspective but please don't claim that it is fact just because the bible says so.
I'm not claiming it as fact. Reason, perhaps. Understanding, yes.
You're the one trying to shove me into a corner where any word I say you
intepret as "Lawrence is saying facts here".
You can do better..
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9. Your conviction about the truth of your religious beliefs is based on a relationship with a god and this god presents itself as 3 entities.
> > > > > > > a. as a father figure
> > > > > > > b. the only son of that father figure (Jesus)
> > > > > > > c.as a ghost or spirit..
> > > > > > > Although these 3 entities exist your god is still only one god and there absolutely no conflict in this with Jesus' jewish perspective of there only
> > > > > > > being one god.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No conflict. Even Jesus recognised the Spirit (Luke 4:17-19). He also
> > > > > > recognised His Father (Matthew 10:31-34).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Luke and Matthew who were not in any way influenced by Paul give validity to the 3 in 1 god belief.
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Argument from silence either way, which in this case, annuls your claim.
> > >
> > > What claim is this? I make no claim about the Trinity...you do.
> >
> > Your claim has two parts:
> > 1) Luke and Matthew were not influence by Paul. Speculation ? Why ?
> > Because there is no way of ascertaining that "influence".
>
> Yes there is.
Where ? How ? On what evidence ?
> >
> > 2) Paul giving validity to the 3 in 1 god belief. Speculation ? Why ?
> > There is no way of ascertaining that this was/wasn't already within
> > Jewish culture.
>
> Absolute bullshit Lawrence!. Ask the Jews today. Ask the Jewish scholars. The 3 in 1 god is an abomination to Jews. They have died in droves to protect the one god
> belief.
The Messiah was already part of their culture. Who are they expecting
these days ? A politician of sorts? When Jesus was around, they expected
a military leader like Maccabee(sp?) to be the Messiah - get nasty on the
Romans.
The Spirit was already part of their culture.
> have you got a Jewish friend? have you met a Rabbi? have you been into a Jerusalem Synagogue? have you attended a passover meal? did you go to a Jewish school?
> I did all these things and am sure no Jew, ever would have held the 3 in 1 view of god.
That really kills off the testimony of the Spirit of God in the OT, then.
Perhaps that's why throughout the OT Israel kept on murdering (or trying
to murder) the prophets of God. (black joke, but hey?)
> Learn your Jewish law and tradition before you spout off your Pauline crap.
Ask about the Holy Spirit, then.
Ask about the Messiah, then.
The Spirit's OT. The Messiah's OT.
> >
> >
> > Arguments from silence, basically, to silence. No claim, for there is no
> > evidence..
>
> Your right. That is what i have been trying to tell you. I am glad the massage is sinking in.
I already understand the message. Now here's the fun part.
It applies to you.
Preach to yourself before you preach to me. <g>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9. You had doubts about all this but you have resolved them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Merely because I don't doubt them doesn't make me a literalist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course not! You believe the lot but you are not a literalist because you read it with some understanding that I don't appear to have.
> > > >
> > > > Right on.
> > >
> > > OK so belief allows you to skip over the inconsistancies and mistakes because you, as a believer, realise that these things are just trivial compared to the
> > > message and are not worth considering.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > I read Scripture with an understanding
>
> HUH!
>
> > that recognises the
> > inconsistencies and mistakes *AND* still understands the message which it
> > is trying to bring,
>
> I understand the message too . The message is obvious and I agree with most of it.
> It is the nature of the man that is the problem.
And thanks to God, the nature of man can be redeemed through the Messiah.
> > and what relevance that message has to my life and
> > the life of those around me.
>
> It has relevence to me too. I'm not a complete Pagan you know.
You're not a complete follower of God either.
You're letting either side fight it out while you sit in the middle,
trying to adjudicate.
Stop being a bystander in life and live for once..
> >
> >
> > You read with an understanding of conspiracy and inconsistencies, from
> > what I can gauge of your views.
>
> Partly right. but I read with appreciation and admiration also
If that were so, why do you reject the Gospel testimony of Christ ?
> >
> >
> > You want understanding ? Let go of your fear..
>
> Fear, Lawrence I am the worlds expert on fear, if I could let go of it I would have when I was a kid but it is still there, my ever present companion. I've sort of
> got used to the little bugger, he keeps me alive, he keeps me sane, he keeps me making an annoying prick of myself. Long live fear...he makes us all human. A person
> without fear is the most dangerous creature on earth. Please, please tell me you still have some fears.
Nah, I have my innocence. I have no need to fear.
You can either have love or fear to guide your life. I have the former.
For the former conquers the latter, and will always conquer the latter.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you for answering my questions. I see more clearly now where you stand and it is obviously a long way from where I stand. Still, "viva la difference"
> > > > > Do me a favour will you Lawrence. Print off this post and put it in an envelope. In 10 years get it out and read it.
> > > >
> > > > It'll be stuck somewhere online in 10 years... Why waste paper?
> > >
> > > I think you missed my point.
> >
> > You've definitely missed mine as well. Par for the course.
>
> No, your point is pretty obvious. I have been hearing the Christian point all my life.
> Why do you think I'm here/
To preach yourself into believing it.
D.Castles
This thread is getting a bit convoluted so I will start a new one with a new theme and address some of your previous ideas/comments there.
It is also scrolling off the top of my message viewer.
Dave