Amazing Thread v.2.0
by JoyThis is a response to last arguments and a post to me on the An Amazing First Century thread, which is too long for me to follow using dial-up…
oleg:
Historians are not trying to straighten out theology. It's none of their business. But they are well equipped to study Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Bradford and nullasalus seem to have a problem with that.
Historians are not scientists either, oleg. Why, just in my own lifetime I have witnessed more than a couple of world-affecting events that got completely buggered in the history books – which, you know, are written by 'winners' or at least by those who agree to parrot whatever the official lies are that decade. No science there, these are sociopolitical scribes and Pharisees.
But you are correct that theology is none of their business. Yet here you are asserting that it *is* their business, and suggesting that what they say should directly effect what the theologically faithful must believe about their Holy Writ. THAT is absurd. Particularly since many of those supposed historians and 'theologians' who don't believe in Holy Writ claim there never was such a historical figure as Jesus Christ in the first place.
I can easily see why Bradford and nullasalus would have a problem with it. I have a problem with it too, and I've never been particularly attached to any given theological interpretation of events. I don't even have a problem with the idea of Q, since Jesus did have a scribe among his closest disciples who, logically speaking, would likely have kept a contemporaneous record of the events and teachings. It's the utterly non-evidential extrapolations from that suspicion that make me laugh. Along with your silly insistence that this is somehow 'science'.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
One thing that should be pointed out is that historians are charged, not only with the responsibility to gather historic data, but also with the need to fashion the data within a narrative consistent with the facts. That invites interpretations that, unlike the data itself, entail subjective judgements. Some historians are inclined to interpret through a mindset that excludes the possiblity of God. That would not impact matters like the resurrection, for example, as all sides would pretty much agree that this would fall within the realm of faith and no secular historian would be expected to endorse interpretations favorable to the resurrection. Bias would be more subtle. Q was a good example of subtle bias. It's not that Q is impossible. It's that it is accorded something close to factual status by virtue of a default assumption mentality.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
March 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Especially since there are several early references to a "Hebrew gospel" or "sayings" by Matthew.
In any case, it's easy to follow the logic that leads to something like "Q": there are instances where Matthew specifies the same passages or wording as Luke that are too complex to be explained simply by chance; therefore, there must exist some prior design which both gospels drew on, even if there's no direct evidence of its creator or of the exact nature of this hypothetical source.
Comment by DL — March 6, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
March 6th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Hi DL,
Regarding Q one potential avenue to follow would be that of the Church Fathers. Individuals like: St. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin, Eusebius, etc… from many of these we have their writings (Like St. Clements Letter to the Corinthians).
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 6, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
March 6th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
There is no doubt that some historians are likely biased against supernatural interpretations of history. But isn't it nearly certain that theologians are almost universal biased towards acceptance of the supernatural? If the mere potential for bias is enough to question the historians shouldn't the near certainly of bias require questing religion?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 6, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
March 6th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Todd:
Yes, most are.
A healthy degree of doubt is a good thing for all disciplines. There's nothing wrong with questioning.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Bradford:
I'm just still somewhat amazed at the attempts by historians to re-write history, the at the Jesus Seminar to re-write Writ. That there was at least 'a' contemporary record being kept is not surprising in the least – Jesus was a historical figure in a time when people knew how to read and write (Jews particularly). I don't know anybody who ever believed the Gospels were carved into stone by God like the ten commandments supposedly were. These were real people living historical lives in an 'exciting' period of history. Formalizing the stories and teachings decades down the line might of course refer back to the original record. For accuracy's sake in that purpose.
I just thought "everybody knew" that there were dozens of snippets and collections of parables and teachings and road dog stories floating among churches from Ethiopia to Britain and everywhere in between before there were canonized Gospels and sanctioned epistles, etc. Then I remember not everyone is raised in a faith these days, so would be ignorant of the history. The whole bruhaha strikes me as terminally Duh.
Comment by Joy — March 7, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Joy wrote:
And are you also amazed at attempts by physicists to rewrite physics? It's their job, duh.
Comment by olegt — March 7, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
We have witnessed both history and physics rewritten have we not? Not actually the entire bodies of knowledge of course but parts of the whole. The dynamics differ with respect to changes though. In physics accepted changes in theory will be driven by empirical data. New data can lead to new or revised theories.
Historians can reverse the process. Despite having the same historic evidence as one's predecessors one can introduce a new interpretive framework within which data is incorporated. No new data but a new theory. If it becomes accepted i.e. is popular it can become the prevailing historic lens through which students see the past. The Jesus seminar was an example of this. Change the lens, not the facts and you get a new historic theory. Too much subjectivity to allow this to pass without noting the subjective nature of the process.
Comment by Bradford — March 7, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I personally find the early and pre-Christian era of history to be a fascinating one. These people did live in interesting times, but in those times apocalyptic preachers like Jesus were dime a dozen. Its not too surprising that only a small set of dedicated followers paid close attention to Jesus. It also wouldn't be too surprising if these cult members, much like modern cult members, went to great lengths to glorify their leader.
As to people raised in faith having better understanding of this period in history, I guess I've just never witnessed anything that would make me reach that conclusion. It seems that those people most aware of the history of the time are various historians whose religious views are irrelevant to their historical knowledge. I'm not hugely knowledgeable myself, but in my experience even my very limited knowledge of the period surpasses that of the average Christian. The church I was raised in did offer an adult education class which touched on the history of the period. But out of a congregation of hundreds less than ten were in this class. My father taught some of those classes, which is part of what lead to my fascination with the time period. So certainly some Christians sought out that knowledge, yet even on this forum people have expressed views which seem to indicate limited understanding of the period. For example, I seem to remember FMM talking about how trivial it would have been for commoners living a thousand miles away to jot over to the holy land to verify the letters of Paul, as if they could just casually jump the next cruise ship then follow a Google map to the empty tomb.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 7, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
History is not science. Mike Gene's point in the DM is that ID should use a historical approach, one of my complaints was that a historical approach, as you point out, is subject to interpretation. I'm glad to see you understand the limitations of the ID approach. The critics here are doing precisely what you suggest is correct, they are pointing out the subjective nature of ID claims.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 7, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
todd raises two snippets that i have also mulled over but never found answers i find particularly satisfying. any info, direction, or answers yall can provide would be much appreciated.
i understand that there was some sort of understanding that this time would be the time for the messiah, and well, lo and behold, the general atmosphere was right but many people got the wrong person (dime a dozen). but why do we choose Jesus? (i have some ideas, but im just not fully in love with the ideas i have)
i think its important not to think Todd is saying that information cannot be gathered from this time period, or that it was a particularly "illiterate" society, but gathering and checking information at any given moment in which one is currently alive, can be difficult (even today, we have a great deal of misplaced trust in our sources of information)
Comment by dantedanti — March 7, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Hold on. Mike never argued that experimental results should be removed from the mix. Experimental results can check subjectivity. Evolution is a historic process whether you like it or not.
If that is based on history then critics would have to impute subjectivity to their own claims.
Comment by Bradford — March 7, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Todd B.:
Yes, it's true that Palestine was as restive two thousand years ago as it is now, and the Jews were actively seeking their prophesied savior – even given that their descriptions and expectations were quite different from the actual mission Jesus engaged. Both the Sanhedrin and the Roman occupiers kept a pretty close watch on Jesus and his crew, so it's reasonable to suspect that his influence on the common folk was rather large and growing.
I don't see why. The Jews weren't looking for a dead hero, you know. They had plenty of those already. I always thought one of the most consistent and foreshadowing of events was the story of Jesus' first miracle at Cana. Sort of sets the tone for all the 'rules' Jesus broke along the way – hanging out with sinners, doing good deeds on the Sabbath, speaking to and for the common folk yet still able to explode Priesthood heads in debate, etc. Turning water into wine at a wedding party is a very useful skill, then as now…
I grew up in a nondenominational situation (Navy, one building, 3 services a week: Jewish on Saturday, Catholics early Sunday, Protestants at noon). Theology was one of our learning projects, along with the histories. Dad had a whole library. As with all collections of human knowledge – and all formal and informal education – it's ultimately up to the student to seek out the knowledge s/he needs/wants. Some are fine to take someone else's word for things, some don't care one bit, and some go for the data so they can make up their own minds.
Obviously, you don't live anywhere near Montreat.
I don't think they're as ignorant as you'd like to believe. Since the introduction of this subject there has been an odd underlying theme that comes with the presentation of the Q hypothesis that doesn't, historically apply. Jews invented universal education. The kids were taught how to read and write Hebrew – and the language of authority (Latin) and the language of scholarship (Greek) in wealthier homes. Everybody knew Aramaic, it was the vernacular. Scholarship was always a most highly valued trait in any family, even to the common country folk.
Some assertions seem to rely on an assumption that Jesus and his disciples and followers weren't literate because they were working class. That doesn't apply to Jews.
Comment by Joy — March 7, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hi dantedanti,
Up until now, I have been intentionally avoiding this thread(s). Partly because a lot of the arguing is over non-issues, but mostly because I didn't want to start something I couldn't properly finish.
However, as usual, you have managed to get to the heart of the matter by asking a very straight-forward question that I would like to respond to.
You asked…
It is my opinion the simple answer to why Christianity survive and thrived is because of the efforts of Saul/Paul and his followers. Here is an except from a link I find useful…
DanteDanti, I hope you find this useful.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 7, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
TP,
The bulk of that bulky section you quoted runs against the oral tradition of the age.
These people weren't just passing down thoughts via written word but through an oral tradition as well. This was a people were oral tradition was very important.
People like to look at the historical development of Christianity like the game "telephone" (or whatever it might be called in your area).
Were person A writes down a message (initially only to be viewed by person A). In front of person are persons B through Z. Person A whispers that message into person B's ear with the direction to "only whispher to the person's ear who is immediately on your right".
Person A steps back and watches B turn to C, C turn to D, D turns to E….. Y turns to Z. Person Z then says the message aloud. Person A displays the actual message and everyone giggles.
Two main factors will contribute to the scrambling of the message:
1) inaccurate recollection (poor quality of sources)
2) intentionally messing with the message (changing the message for other reasons: ideological or whatever)
This is a great example of how Christianity could have been scrambled over the years; maybe some of the source material wasn't that great and the message got altered…. or maybe others wanted to use that message and intentionally twist it for their own reasons. Whatever those reasons are, they are not related to the historical veracity of that message.
But was the transmitting of the message anything like the game?
No. Not at all.
Because we aren't just working with texts. Texts/writings have gaps in between them. One text might be written in 100AD…. then rewritten in 230AD. And, few hands deal with the rewriting of those text; like the hands of the monks in monasteries trying to maintain the writings in the face of barbarian invansions.
But there's something much more continuous at play. The oral tradition. In the case of Christianity, the Church. The message and happenings being spoken regularly and passed to next generations and on and on and on. A continuous oral tradition carrying the same happenings throughout the ages.
So, to reinvision the telephone game. It would be like person A saying the message aloud to B, then B aloud to C, the C aloud to D… Y aloud to Z.
If someone comes in to mess with the message (or they have poor recollection abilities) other people can start to scratch their head and assist in navigating that message back to it's orginal form.
So, your big reposting might say something…. but it's completely glossing over a fact that should have been so salient it would be hard to ignore.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 7, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Yeah, complete dime a dozen whose message carried on and now has some 2 billion followers. Whose initial group of followers came from diverse backgrounds: religious leaders, general laborers, gov't officials, and zealots.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 7, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
From TP's quote:
I can agree with the basic thrust of the quote and think that the information alluded to is excellent evidence for Christianity. This illustrates how two individuals can take the same set of facts and come to divergent conclusions. So here is how this looks from a believer's perspective:
Paul indeed did do more than anyone else to spread Christianity to the Gentiles. He had that type of zeal. His vision was not illusory but was a divine revelation from a God, who knew that he among all possible humans to chose from, was the ideal ambassador for the new faith.
New Testament refers to a new understanding between God and his followers which now included believing Gentiles. It is neither linguistically or doctrinally surprising that Greek and Hebrew words have different connotations. New doctrines are essentially what a new covenant is all about.
Comment by Bradford — March 7, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I think it is worth commenting on Bradford's and GringoRoyale's reactions to my post.
Bradford maintains his roll-with-the-punches attitude. No matter what the evidence shows, his God is safely tucked away in the metaphysical allowing him to presume everything is God's will. It is very NOMA like, thus limiting the conflict to perceived bias.
I happen to think the historical narrative was reasonably neutral. It didn't claim Paul's visions were "illusionary", only that it was "not uncommon at this time". For all we know, God was being very active and these visions and miracles were all genuine.
GringoRoyale, on the other hand, attempts to find reasons to reject the entire narrative and safely ignore it.
The "oral tradition" was strictly adhered to by the Jews, not the Gentiles. The empirical evidence traces the game of telephone from the Jewish word "Meshiach" to the modern word "Christ". The connotations of these two words have come to mean significantly different things.
It's one thing to suggest the evolving transliteration was all part of God's grand plan, but to deny it happened at all is something else.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 7, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Get over yourself. Seriously.
TP safely ignores my comment:
The oral tradition in this case, TP, was the living body of Christ. The Church, TP. So, TP, something that people were willing to sacrifice their lives for probably better have had some veracity supporting it… at least from their perspectives.
TP, you have this consistent line of followers that are meeting, discussing and spreading the word of Jesus. They are meeting regularly, TP. If new elements start getting injected into those stories of course people are going to object. They'd probably say something like, "where did that come from? I've heard this numerous times over… and now this?".
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 8, 2009 @ 2:22 am
March 8th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Ah, the old "if they were willing to die for it it must have merit" argument. I guess that means the People's Temple, the Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, suicide bombers and numerous other religious crazies were all on to something.
Sorry, but it has been too well demonstrated that people are willing to die for all sorts of crazy reasons for me to buy such an absurd argument.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 8, 2009 @ 10:02 am
March 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am
And let's not forget the communist-leaning Tamil Tigers who practically invented suicide-bombing. There must be some veracity to communism after all, at least from their perspective.
Comment by Raevmo — March 8, 2009 @ 10:08 am
March 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
TP cited an obscure GeoCities page:
TP, it's clear from the actual history as well as Paul's own writings [Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc.] that he was definitely NOT into James' plan for believers to become de facto Jews under the Law. Jesus managed to violate the laws (as applicable in his milieu) on a fairly regular basis. Or, as his followers would have it, fulfilled the law in and of himself. Paul won that argument with James in the first council.
It was Gamaliel who spoke for the Sanhedrin not persecuting the sect out of existence. Paul was an enforcer against the Christians before 'seeing the light' and becoming the most ambitious of evangelists. Once the Sanhedrin could be convinced to let karma take care of the upstarts as God would have it, and the empire's Pagans started to convert in large numbers, the stage was set for eventual elevation to power under Constantine.
There's a reason Paul's theology won out, and why it is Paul's epistles – over all the various letters and theological outlines and sayings/teachings in circulation among the congregations – that served to guide the sociopolitical influence of the church.
Comment by Joy — March 8, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
It looks like Todd wants to display his ignorance with mockery. No matter its still ignorance
There was actually a thriving industry in religious tourism in the early centuries CE the fact that he does not know this is understandable given that he doesen't don’t trust any histororical accounts at all.
There was also a very efficient postal service of sorts using the shipping trade as witnessed by the New Testament itself.
ThePax Romana was not the Jungles of the Amazon and”common” citizens of the empire were not cave men
Once again Todd shows he doesent even understand even the basics of the discussion.
These folks died for ideas the disciples died because they would not deny that an event that they witnessed actually happened. It's like Galileo going to prison because he would not deny that there were moons of Jupiter
It’s apples and oranges.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Instead of taking TP's assessments of particular individuals ways of thinking so offensively, and issuing an easy, "oh please" response, is it possible to "own up" in certain regards, to some extent, about his assessments? in trying to move away from the politics of his statements concerning gringo and bradford, and move more toward recognizing our own ways of thinking
(perceived or otherwise), ill be the first to say: my weakness is that i typically go after ideas by someone i view as my opposition (usually on a whim, not along political lines), using everything i can do show they have used bad sources or made generalization. i dont go after people on "my own side" nearly as much or with as much energy to prove em wrong, as i do to the opposition. i also let less-endowed christians off the intellectual hook a lot of times, and i really dont know how i feel about that.
though familiar with a good deal of TP's information, having it compacted into one easy location was nice. i particularly found the transliterative information about messiah and christ to be interesting. though i had been familiar with it, i got a few new insights out of it with the way it was stated. but…
when all is said and done, i suppose im just not particularly convinced by any intellectual arguments for anything, and so i find we usually do just make up our minds in a vague psychologically-motivated way. yet even this leaves me unsatisfied when choosing to believe something. there are always cases to made for or against. minds are usually always made up already. im rambling and my wife is saying we must leave for sunday beaching. hurray!
Comment by dantedanti — March 8, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Joy:
I think you need to read Acts again that not exactly what is presented
What actually happened was that James wanted the Jewish believers he was responsible for to obey the food laws etc and he could care less what Gentiles did. Unintentionally this caused problems for the churches Paul was starting because it meant that Jews and Gentiles could not eat together and endangered the fellowship of the new community.
They held a conference and worked out a compromise in which both side gave a little.
End of story
No conspiracy no suppression of alternative view points just Christians struggling to get along with folks who were different than themselves. Something we are still working on today
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Here is the problem with TP's assessments he has shown that he is unwilling to seriously look at evidence that would tend to contradict them.
You can't have a real discussion under those terms
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Oh Please!
In case you didn't notice, I seriously considered Bradford's counter suggestion and accepted it. After all, he is applying NOMA.
Joy's spin on things is reasonable. While she and I don't agree on everything, I rarely (if ever) dismiss her arguments out of hand.
The same goes for Pez, but he and I disagree on quite a bit.
No, I am quite willing to hear and seriously consider counter arguments. In fact, I encourage it.
EDIT-I will comment on the others later since my wife is telling me it is time to go. And, no we aren't going the beach since it is cold and rainy here (curse you DanteDanti)
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
TP
Big flipping deal
You agreed that you would read one little book with a different take on this subject.
You indicated you would and then apparently backed out because it was too hard.
This is particularly annoying to me right now because I’m just finishing 600 plus pages of torture so that Allen Fox will know that I am willing to explore both sides of an issue that I have strong opinions about.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
fmm:
I've read all the books and epistles, numerous times. The issues were quite specific, all the way down to the issue of circumcision, sacrifices, dietary and clothing restrictions, etc. – the Jewish law, under which no Christians were justified. That James cared little for Paul's evangelistic efforts is clear, but as James was the officially acknowledged head of the church, the first council was very much definitive for the simple fact that Paul won. There was not much chance that congregants in the outlying empire were going to break bread with any orthodox Temple-folk, but there was a strong chance that Jewish converts might get together with gentile converts to celebrate their new shared faith together. It changed the entire thrust of the mission and its message, universalizing it far beyond its purely regional hub and purely Jewish milieu. Paul had been a Pharisee – a man of the law, and it was he who claimed independence of the law.
Of course you may view it as entirely dependent on whether or not diners at the same table can douse their steak in milk gravy, but then you'd have to explain why it is that Christians don't have to be circumcised or honor the holy days or undergo ritual purification or wear magic underwear…
Christianity is rooted in the Jewish saga, but is not the Jewish saga. I realize that some twigs of the faith like to embrace Judaic (and Levitical) law in order to justify their prejudices and pronouncements of anathema, but none of them revere the entire body of those laws they wish to impose on others. If you wear polyester-cotton shirts, non-magic boxers or briefs, eat shrimp, bacon, milk gravy with your meat, let your wife sleep inside the house when she's menstruating or mow your lawn on Sunday, you're breaking some laws.
Not all early Christians were Jewish converts, even while Jesus was walking the earth. Paul recognized the popular appeal beyond his own strict judgmentalism under Judaic law (the reason for persecution), and ran with it, theologically speaking. He was a much smarter theologian than James was, so all of us who come from a Christian tradition can be thankful he won the debate.
Comment by Joy — March 8, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Joy:
How exactly we get saved is the most important part of the Gospel for individuals. It’s also sounds too good to be true so it’s something that Christians keep having to revisit and clarify even today.
Keep in mind that this controversy happened while the temple was still standing. The radical changes that the new covenant ushered in took a while to soak in and their implications took a while to be worked out.
The Jewish Christians were still offering sacrifices at this time and Paul had no problem joining them when he was in town to show that he was not apposed to their customs as long as they were not considered Justifying. (Acts 21).
Peter had only just begun to abandon kosher despite the fact that Jesus had already declared all foods to be clean
Everything became much clearer when the temple was destroyed and the Mosaic covenant officially came to an end. It all happened in the life time of the Disciples just as Jesus had predicted.
Remember Paul participated in the circumcision of Timothy. He had no problem with such customs as long as they were not seen to be required for salvation and they did not disrupt the all important fellowship of the new community.
This issue seems to be trivial today but we are talking about very religious Jews who's whole world view had been based on the idea that one showed their love to God by such stuff.
Almost , He was proclaiming the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Jesus and its replacement with the Law of Christ for the new covenant community.
Although James was not the deep theological thinker that Paul was he grasped this truth as well. (James 1:1, 1:25, and 2:8)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
You wrote…
Actually, I didn't ignore it and initially wrote an extended comment about the evolving Christian doctrine and the extreme diversity of beliefs in people who call themselves "Christian" today (e.g. compare Rev Moon followers to Catholics). However, I chose not to post it in an attempt to keep the thread focused. DanteDanti asked a simple question, why Jesus?
You have spent quite a bit of energy trying to discredit my answer but very little on providing your own.
I will go into this more with my response to FMM’s comment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
And the answer is?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Let me preempt a possibly embarrassing situation. The main reason I have been absent recently is because I have been in the hospital for the last couple of months with a large percentage spent being unconscious in ICU. I am fine now, but I have a large backlog of work to catch up on as soon as the doctors say it is ok to go back to work.
That being said, your "little book" is 800 pages and I didn't back out. I could give a comprehensive argument presenting N.T. Wright's answer to DanteDanti's simple question.
Which brings us to a salient point. Why haven't you offered this argument?
You need to do more than provide a link to an 800 page book as if it has all the answers (it doesn’t).
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
TP
I’m sorry about your illness but it looks like you’ve got plenty of time to read right now perhaps it’s providence.
Cool I look forward to discussing it with you once you finish it until then I’ll have to assume you don’t take this discussion seriously.
Because folks like Todd and Pixie will try to disrupt the discussion with irrelevant nonsense and constantly spew hatred for God or anything that resembles Christianity as if that is an argument.
Then Zach will pipe in with his faked neutrality and all the while you will hover over the conversation pretending to be an uninterested bystander that is merely sharing information and provoking thought.
Before long no one is listening to anyone else. You just can’t discuss controversial things with that sort of stuff going on.
I can and do defend the Gospel from such drivel but if we want to have a real discussion it requires a little more commitment than I’ve seen so far.
by the way the resurrection (not the book) is the answer if it happened then I’m right and you are wrong end of story
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man,
Well, if you won't do it. I guess I will have to. Hopefully. my efforts will embarrass you enough to actually provide constructive comments instead of sitting on the side lines whining about unfairness…
WARNING – THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY ACTUAL OPINION…
The key to understanding Jesus and the success of Christianity is to recognize the resurrection as a historical fact and not just a theological instrument.
While any historical claim can be questioned, there are some where the surrounding circumstances provide enough support that becomes unreasonable to doubt it. For example, the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) is generally accepted as historical fact because of multiple sources of referencing the event and, just as importantly, the facts behind the story were unprecedented with little reason for fabrication.
The same is true for Jesus’ resurrection.
Jesus’ resurrection was witnessed by multiple sources and it was unprecedented. The idea that a person could physically rise from the dead isn’t something contemporary Jews and Gentiles would consider as a possibility. It sure wasn’t consistent with the Meshiach prophecy. Which gets us to the next point; it would be counter-intuitive to make up such a lie. Attempting to offer such a ridiculous story risked being shunned by “right thinking” individuals and ruining Jesus’ teachings.
By all accounts, Paul was a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. He would not be someone who could be taken in by a fabrication. Paul’s actions demonstrate that he truly believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead which engenders profound implications.
It was the strength of the truth behind the words of Paul (and other Christian leaders) that compelled people to believe and have faith in Jesus Christ. The strength of this truth has prevailed through two millennia and continues to gain acceptance to those willing to open their hearts and minds to it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Hey TP.
Your summary is enough show that you have not read the book perhaps I can illustrate this by asking a few questions
Why not? What about the mystery religions and their dying and rising Gods
What about passages like Isaiah 53?
Did Paul base his teaching on the truth of the story he had been told?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
one more thing
Please list those implications as they relate to the information you posted earlier
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 8, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
fmm:
I know about "salvation issues," fmm. These are absolute requisites, not conformity pleasantries. I am one of the petitioners to the GA from PCUSA back in 1971 on the issue of infant baptism. Turns out (after hundreds of years) that sprinkling babies with blessed water isn't as much an issue of salvation as the Catholics or the more staid Protestant orthodoxy believed it was for so long. We've determined (by argument and votes) that God doesn't send innocent babies to hell just because someone with a theology degree didn't splatter them before they died. I'm rather glad of that, but by the time the General Assembly ruled on the matter we were gone from the worshipful scene.
It was a bit sticky, given both families had long ties to the Scottish parliamentary version of Theology By Committee and Majority Vote. I told a joke at the last GA I attended (covering it for a mission umbrella) about my husband's brother, who 'found God' in a dramatic fashion and became a Baptist minister of the Southern variety, breaking from tradition. He's one of the most inspirational and genuinely funny humans I've ever known, and I enjoy his preaching every time I'm visiting. What bugs me is that his congregation "Amens" every other sentence, en masse. We Presbyterians don't do that – we'll argue endlessly for decades and generations over the precise wording of a petition, the findings of committees in all the churches in the Presbyteries and Synods, and the final pleas before the GA to reach a prayerful vote. We argue about articles like "if and the and also." We don't 'Amen' anything until we've submitted it for review!
I know. My Godparents were Jewish, I spent time growing up in a Jewish neighborhood, all my friends started Torah School at the same time we started kindergarten. Got in some serious trouble once when the school prayer ran afoul of my friends' teachings, so (being a logical 5-year old) I suggested to the teacher that if she'd just leave off the "In Jesus' Name We Pray" part, everything would be cool. Got immediately suspended, thought my parents would likely kill me for flunking kindergarten. Turned out the neighborhood parents all supported me, kept their kids out of school for the totality of my 3-day suspension in a show of solidarity. It was a few years before the SCOTUS case, but we did win. They dropped the offending part of the prayer.
Out in the real world things are not as cut and dried as various theologians and culture warriors like to portray. Never have been. I never did feel a need to 'convert' to anyone else's faith or denomination thereof, because my relationship with deity is my own and beyond challenge from outside my experience. Maybe I am unusual in that way, but I don't really think so. I've seen not a lot of evidence in favor of that hypothesis over the decades of my life. I of course could be entirely wrong. In which case I'll take it up with The Man/God if I ever get an audience.
I know some stuff. Don't know a lot. I try to separate the two realms, not claim too much knowledge of the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell [h/t Reinhold Niebuhr].
Comment by Joy — March 8, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I see you have decided to continue throwing stones.
If you do not like my summary, by all means provide your own.
Meanwhile, I will continue to imagine geometries where square circles exist and accept the possibility that our universe is a grand science fair project created by a supernatural being (and delight at the thought).
I do not feel threatened by many ideas and many Truths. The threat comes from those who are certain they know the one and only Truth for all.
It is by accepting that we don't know the Truth that we can all live together in…
peace
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 8, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
March 8th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
TP,
My apologies.
I was acting like an ass. And I have been acting like that on here for a good couple of weeks.
Thanks for being more patient in your replies to me, than I was to you.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 8, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Bradford-
In the previous thread (v1.0) you twice ignored this question:
Is it possible that some historians offer real, tangible evidence which is independent of their own preconceptions?
Is there any scholar whose findings diminish or contradict your religious beliefs and whose findings are not, in your opinion, explainable by mere bias?
I look forward to whatever responses this may bring.
Comment by terrycvn — March 9, 2009 @ 1:56 am
March 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am
TP
If asking you to live up to your promises and engage in an informed conversation is throwing stones. What would a lively debate be, murder?
Apparently you do or you would not resist learning about ideas that might upset your apple cart a little bit.
Trust me if you ever met the one and only Truth (a person not a proposition) you would find him to be threatening and liberating all at the same time.
AS CS Lewis said when talking about Aslen
“He’s not a tame Lion but he’s good”
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 9, 2009 @ 7:17 am
March 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
TP;
That would bug me to. Since Baptists are congregational in polity you never quite know what to expect from one church to another
Ever been to a Southern Baptist business meeting? In general we will argue for hours about the color of carpet in the Sunday school classrooms and unlike most Presbyterians we just might split the church over the issue.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 9, 2009 @ 7:33 am
March 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Hi, TP. I'm very sorry to hear about your time in the hospital. Welcome back.
You wrote (regarding FMMs response to your summary of NT Wright's book):
Naah. I've been working on Wright's book myself, off and on. I've read about 3/4 of it. And I could tell from your summary that you haven't read it.
I do hope you'll stick with it, though.
Comment by Lutepisc — March 9, 2009 @ 11:07 am
March 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,
Apology accepted but unnecessary.
My style is to be intentionally provocative and, therefore, requires that I maintain a rather thick skin.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Are you familiar with the concept of Quid Pro Quo?
If you review our discussion concerning N.T. Wright's book it was you demanding that I read it with no promise on your part in return.
The final resolution was that I would probably read the book FOR MY OWN PURPOSES IN MY OWN GOOD TIME and I wasn't going to waste any effort trying to discuss it with you since you offered no commitment to try and defend it.
I was and am well aware that N.T. Wright's explanation is quite convoluted (800 pages worth) and doesn't match the short answer I offered. My comment wasn't meant to be a summary of N.T. Wright's book. If I had meant it to be, I would been obligated to give him credit.
I had hoped (obviously in vain) that you would be encouraged to offer further explanations to better define your answer to DanteDanti's simple question.
Instead, you demand that I jump through more hoops for you.
Sorry, but you have all but guaranteed that I will do no more hoop jumping for you. If you think you have a good answer for DanteDanti then offer it. If you don't, or don’t want to offer it, then quit complaining that others won’t do your work for you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Thanks TP.
Something which I am lacking
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Hi Lutepisc,
Thank you, but I will be going back to lurker mode soon. I have too much work piling up.
As I indicated to FMM, my explaination wasn't meant to be a summary of N.T. Wright's position. I am sorry for the confusion.
I will look forward, with interest, to see if you and Fifth Monarchy Man will be willing to try and defend N.T.Wright's evidence and logic he offers in his book.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Hi again, TP. You wrote:
A project I didn't sign up for. But it does look as if the ball's in anyone's court but yours, doesn't it?:???:
Yet earlier, you wrote:
Mission accomplished?
Comment by Lutepisc — March 9, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Hi Lutepisc,
I have offered two answers to DanteDanti's simple question. The first of which I am more than willing to defend. Although Joy has been doing quite a bit of defending for me (thanks Joy).
I'm of the attitude having an opinion you aren't willing to test and defend is all but worthless.
However, you are correct that you didn't sign up to defend N.T. Wright's position. For all I know, you disagree with him.
I don't understand your "Mission Accomplished?" question.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Have you accomplished what you set out to accomplish in recapping NT Wright, so that no further effort is needed on your part?
Comment by Lutepisc — March 9, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Good day TP. I've been in lurker mode lately, too, and have been enjoying the "vacation".
However, I do feel the need to de-lurk after a recent comment of yours.
So if I'm interpreting your comment correctly, you are saying anyone who makes a Truth (big-T) statement aren't interested in peace or are trouble-makers? I do take issue with that since Jesus himself said "Blessed are the peacemakers…" It would appear to me that (IMHO) the Way, the Truth and the Life values peace.
But then again, saying there is no Truth is in itself a Truth statement. So are you looking for trouble or peace?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Another point that relates to my above comment…
"[A]ccepting that we don't know the Truth" would create a vacuum in which someone else's Truth (big T) would rush in to fill. It appears that humans are "programmed" to believe in something, whether it transcends humanity or not. Eliminating the standards Truths would create a need for another Truth.
Now, is eliminating the "standards Truths" even logically possible? I believe C.S. Lewis effectively argues it isn't in The Way.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Hi Lutepisc,
You asked…
As with you, I never signed up to recap NT Wright. In fact, I had told Fifth Monarchy Man that I would not in the previous thread when the subject of the 800 page book first came up.
Again, I apologize for the confusion. I had no intention of recapping NT Wright’s opinion, now or in the future.
What I have been trying to focus on is answers to DanteDanti's simple question.
So far, I have been the only one to offer answers. One that I am willing to defend and another that I felt was a generic answer an average Christian might offer.
Do you have a better answer to DanteDanti's question?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
TP
Yes I think so. That's what I'm offering you.
The implied promise is that I will engage in an informed conversation about Jesus if you prove that you are trully interested. I’ve restated as much in this very thread.
I'm would be more than willing to return the favor by reading a book if you somehow doubt my interest in the resurrection of Christ but given my history here I find it hard to believe that anyone would doubt my interest.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 9, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Hi JJS P.Eng,
Thank you for your response.
I think you missed an important part of my statement…
"The threat comes from those who are certain they know the one and only Truth FOR ALL."
Your Truth may not be my Truth. I suggest you can't know my Truth.
Attempts to force one's Truth on others is what leads to unhealthy conflict.
While you aren't the first to point it out, I will give you credit for noticing the inherent illogic of my NOMA position. It is my position that metaphysics and philosophy are inherently illogical which means I tend to be more comfortable with concepts like square-circles than others are.
Your C.S. Lewis link makes reference to Tao (the way). The first principle of the Tao is that the way named is not the way.
I disagree with C.S. Lewis that it is necessary for people to hold similar basic Truths in order to have meaningful conversations. However, it does take more effort to understand thought processes that are significantly different than ones own.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
TP
It’s this sort of statement that proves to me that you aren’t really serious. I have provided the answer twice, once with a link and once explicitly. You some how have failed to even notice…
So let me help you out by answering yet again but this time with a very old formula that was passed on by Christians beginning as early as three years after the events it describes in the town where it happened.
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 9, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Good day TP.
I will add one word (in bold and italics) to your statement in an attempt to bring our viewpoints in agreement:
In all Truths (big T), there is the potential for using it to force one's worldview onto others. However, IMHO, Christianity is different. The Truth of Christianity is one that someone is attracted to by gentle persuasion, not forceful.
That's not to say others have not used Christianity in a forceful manner. I believe those are the ones Jesus referred to as those that say "Lord, Lord" yet will not see the kingdom of heaven (no Bible in front of me so I can't quote the exact verse).
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
fmm:
LOL!!! Well, Ridgecrest is right in between me and Montreat, the Junaluska Assembly right down the road. There's a reason we decided to live here on the "Christian side" of the mountains, though if it were up to me I'd turn that gigantic cross (visible from I-40 for miles) at Ridgecrest into a huge Buddha just for comedic value. I mean, it's really just a cell phone tower, after all…
TP:
I too am sorry to hear about your recent health issues. Accidental or other? At any rate, good to see you again arguing like you haven't skipped a beat. The simple question, if I recall, is "Why do we choose Jesus?"
I'd answer that by simple acknowledgement of there being a living presence in my heart that I was taught to call "Jesus" before I ever learned any of the actual history of this man. At this end of my life I'm not so sure that's his/her/its/their real title, but I no longer think it matters. Knowing it's there and enough a part of me to converse with about things I don't generally discuss with others is enough. I think humanity is a highly evolved example of one of life's prime indicators – the ability to differentiate between self and other.
At the level of faith, the other that is always with us is hard to quantify. Too personal to be an omnipotent, unknowable God-god, too universal to be a mere historical figure from ancient times. That's mystical for sure, but on this subject I doubt it's possible to be anything but mystical.
Comment by Joy — March 9, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I am not interested in forcing you to read a book you don't want to read or having an "informed conversation" where you politely reject concepts and avoid lines of reasoning without feeling a need to justify your position.
As you know, I am interested in debate.
N.T. Wright makes a lot of assertions I feel won't hold up under scrutiny.
However, the whole thing is moot, at least in the short term. I don't have the time to engage in an extended debate, especially one you clearly aren't interested in having.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Ok, you have submitted your answer.
I will be curious as to DanteDanti's reaction.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hi JJS P.Eng,
Would you agree that forcing public school children to say a pledge that includes the words "one country UNDER GOD" is an inappropriate imposition of a worldview?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Good day TP,
If it was forced, yes. IMO, the Pledge is not forced upon children but is akin to a tradition that is passed along. These children have every freedom to reject it when they grow up.
There is a similar issue in Canada: forcing children in public schools to sing O Canada each morning. While I am a patriotic Canadian, I think love for one's country is deeper when it is voluntary and gently encouraged, not enforced by law.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — March 9, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you for your concern but the danger has passed.
I had come down with a serious case of double pneumonia.
The scary part is I didn't realize I how sick I was, but when I felt some tightness in my chest I went to the emergency room as a precaution.
The next thing I knew I was in the ICU with all kinds of tubes in my arms, legs and down my throat. I didn't respond to treatment for three weeks (during which time they kept me unconscious).
Another scary aspect to this is that if I didn't have health insurance, there is little doubt I would be dead, if for no other reason than I wouldn't have gone to the costly emergency room with my "minor" complaint.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 9, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
TP:
Whoa. Scary! Glad you caught it in time. We here in the boonies of Appalachia have no health insurance, and Medicaid has a strict funding cap that means you have to wait several years (and lots of deaths) before they take anyone, including children. In my county less than 15% are insured, about that many have Medicaid. We all qualify for food stamps, but it's way too much trouble to hoop-jump twice a month. So we grow our own and trade for what we don't grow.
The ER isn't exactly "cheap," but it's all we've got. George Bush told us that it's the equivalent of Universal Health Care, didn't he? So we use it when we have to, mostly we do without. It's been a hard few months around here with lifelong friends and relatives dying right and left. Still hoping we make it to retirement so we can have health care and start getting back some of what the kids are paying in, but it's beginning to look like they've no intention of letting us see any of it. For all our friends dying at 60, another whole lot of 'em will die before 65, and now they're talking about raising eligibility age for Medicare to 72. We boomers will mostly be gone by then, thanks. It was only blood money all along.
Glad you're better now.
Comment by Joy — March 9, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
terrycvn:
Of course.
There could be findings that would be used to argue against my beliefs. They could be derived objectively.
Some specific historic claims made in the Bible have been verified by archeologists. I do not know of archeological findings that refute a biblical claim.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Very sorry to hear that, TP.
Glad you're doing better.
Tom Gilson over at Thinking Christian (who posts here as well) is dealing with a pretty bad bout of pneumonia that just won't seem to leave. At last least time I read his posts.
PS -did you retire from facebook already?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 9, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
So the next question would be, Which authors have you read?
In my experience, Christians are largely unfamiliar with the historical biblical analyses of non-Christians. What they do know are the talking points they receive from other Christians on which scholars can be trusted and which are "morons." But no first-hand knowledge.
We all know how easy it is to dismiss things we do not understand or agree with. With the simple ruling of "moron," we don't have to bother investigating further.
Having grown up in a fundamentalist household, I understand the psychological forces behind avoiding those things which could diminish your faith. In fact I have seen explicit warnings from clergy to avoid exposure to certain authors. After all, what could possibly be worse on this earth? Your eternal soul lies in the balance.
But I am only speaking from my own experience. For me, long ago, I was able to consider that the scariness associated with considering another viewpoint was possibly not a warning from God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit. It could possibly be the all-too-human instinct telling me that great peril awaits if I abandon the tribe.
And ultimately I see the Christian/non-Christian divide as following the patterns of tribalism.
Comment by terrycvn — March 10, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
terrycvn:
Sorry terrcvn. I don't fit your stereotying. I grew up in an atheist household. About the only thing that had in common with TT critics is unrelenting hostility to Christianity. I had the "other viewpoint" before I adopted the Christian one.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
terrycvn
I have exactly the opposite experience. From what I’ve seen it’s the average atheist who is afraid to look at evidence that conflicts with their preconceptions this thread has only served to reinforce that notion.
I’m not sure about the fundies you grew up around but the ones I know consider a faith that needs that kind of protection to be no faith at all,certainly not Christian faith.
1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 10, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Interesting rose colored glasses you have there.
What answers do you think the average Christian would give to the following questions…
1. How many children did the "Virgin Mary" have?
2. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who preached to mostly Jewish audiences. How, then, did the Christian religion come to be founded exclusively by gentiles?
3. The Christian priest Arius was a very influential scholar and prolific writer around 300 AD (Arianism was named after him). What happen to him and his ideas?
4. St. Cyril of Alexandria was credited with unifying the Christian church. How did he accomplish this?
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 10, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Or how about this question:
5. How many popular religions contemporary to Jesus had a main figure who died, was buried in a rock tomb, rose from the dead, on the third day, and women discovered his missing body?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 10, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Excuse a follow up…
First there is Pez's favorite bible passage…
Matthew 19:17
"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:"
Then this passage I had in my distant memory but didn't remember where it was, until now…
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; "
I was reminded by this interesting link…
The Church of Arian Catholicism
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 10, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Bradford-
Bradford, in fact I previously read your recent comments about how you grew up with atheists. Which is in fact why I mentioned it. And why in fact I added for clarity, "But I am only speaking from my own experience."
There is no indication at all that I have stereotyped you.
I would suggest that your assumption of me doing so, together with the other very negative apparent judgments you cast toward me previously, is an indication of tribalism. If we were talking about math equations or English grammar, you would not be responding in this manner. But once tribal beliefs are part of the conversation, disproportionate responses and demonization are commonplace.
Comment by terrycvn — March 10, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 12:24 am
terrycvn:
Perhaps not but fmm made an excellent point about what you wrote- quoting:
Sounds like strereotyping to me.
Right you are fmm. Terrycvn, you might want to examine your own tribal tendencies.
Comment by Bradford — March 11, 2009 @ 12:24 am
March 11th, 2009 at 7:27 am
I’ll have a go . I’ll answer the way a typical uneducated fundie in my neck of the woods would answer
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
His ideas were and are refuted by scripture as for him personally that’s a Catholic matter not a Christian one. (By the way Arius had a much higher view of Christ than you do)
It is Jesus who unifies the church not a man and it's been unified from the day of Pentecost . This is despite the best efforts of Popes and heretics to divide it.
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Cyril like lots of folks at the time spent lots of effort trying to capture what the Scripture says about Christ in a few words. such efforts might be helpful but our final authority is the word of God not the words of man.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 11, 2009 @ 7:27 am
March 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Sounds like a call for a zealot revolution against the Gentile occupation thus strengthening the Jewish people to me, which certainly fits the history of the time.
And yet it was Paul and then Emperor Constantine who created what we'd today recognize as Christianity, not Peter.
I was hoping you'd take a stab at answering my question too
. Do some googling, you will find that apocalyptic resurrection cults were both common and popular at the time.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 11, 2009 @ 9:21 am
March 11th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
fmm:
My favorite caution comes from 1 Corinthians, 18-20:
If any man among you seems wise in the ways of this world, let him become a fool, that he may be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. He will entrap the wise men in the web of their own cleverness.
Comment by Joy — March 11, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Hi Joy,
lol
I like that passage. It's a keeper.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Hi Todd,
that's a pretty bold claim.
Care to detail the specifics?
Also, might any of those resurrection cults you're refering to be later additions (post-Christ's resurrection) placed upon earlier works?
Like with Mithra, there was an early iranian conception as well as a later roman conception. And some have tried to attribute to the earlier iranian claims the roman claims.
Also, what are the sources for your claims. Meaning, what historical sources are there. I'm going to guess that you disregard the Bible as a source of historical information (or at least the veracity of the claims), but do you trust these other sources that are yielding this information, that you feel correlates heavily with the Christ narrative in the New Testament?
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Todd:
I wish I could because I find your question to be laughable in it’s ignorance of first century Palestine but alas I promised you that I would not interact with you on this subject so that you would have more time to compile that list that you said would be so easy to make.
No need to thank me it's the least I could do.
Joy
I love this section too especially it’s climax in 23-24
but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 11, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Bradford-
I wrote a polite reply to your last response. Was it deleted or moved somewhere? It looks like the Memory Hole is for deleted posts, but I do not see it there.
Comment by terrycvn — March 11, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I haven't sent any posts to the hole, terry. I'd go look for it in the spam filter (sometimes that happens), but this computer crashes whenever I try to go to admin. Someone else look?
Comment by Joy — March 11, 2009 @ 11:43 pm