tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Tormenator: Dude I give you credit for keeping up this charade for this long! Bravo my friend, bravo! It was obvious to me that nobody is as stupid and more cleverly, ignorant, as you pretended to be in this thread. And no matter who ignorant your comment, those with bloated perceptions of their own intellects couldnt help but strike the bait. Those who think that they are the only ones who live in the real world, those with sophisticated minds, and the morbidly smug, just cant help themselves. 1418668[/snapback] it is fun ... but i'm not ignorant ... you're the one who equated hitler with abe lincoln ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 i thought u quite 1418812[/snapback] 5. 5 and a half, tops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 5. 5 and a half, tops. 1418824[/snapback] so and even 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 rbmcdonald - don't waste time posting a reply, I'm sure you are a great guy and all but this is getting old. Let's just agree to disagree on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 i meant your first kind of authentic. we are in agreement. 1418796[/snapback] ok, you mean the first kind of authentic. good. but i'm not sure how to fit that into your statement "you do end up either accepting the NT as authentic or as flawed". an "authentic" (in the first sense) historical document will inevitably be "flawed" in some way, will it not? i mean, we can glean great information from authentic historical documents, but we also accept that any particular account or assertion may be flawed, especially if it's contradicted by other authentic documents or other information in our possession? and not only that, but might our reading of this document itself be flawed...for instance, if we interpret a highly theologized version of a story, presented and organized a certain way for lectionary purposes, as some sort of literal historical timeline? the two choices, "authentic" and "flawed", are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive, for any of the NT writings or any other historical document. if strobel or anyone else tries to tell you they are, they are selling you a bill of goods, pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 rbmcdonald - don't waste time posting a reply, I'm sure you are a great guy and all but this is getting old. Let's just agree to disagree on the subject. 1418837[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 which would lump me into the millions of others who are in the same fog, i assume? the most i can gather from your rantings is that Jesus was a good guy who liked to forgive others and that he went ahead and died as a symbol of forgiveness for future generations. he may or may not have been divine. so to be a true "christian" in your eyes, vs. what i am doing, is to be a nice, forgiving person. is that it in a nutshell? if you dig a little, you might find that "christians" subscribe to a whole lot more, and there are a bunch of them out there. are you skins, today on the 13th of april, in the year 2006, proclaiming your enlightenment beyond the masses who worship Jesus Christ as the son of God? 1418817[/snapback] Yes. :manondog: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 1418858[/snapback] sorry. my energy is expelled on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) ok, you mean the first kind of authentic. good. but i'm not sure how to fit that into your statement "you do end up either accepting the NT as authentic or as flawed". an "authentic" (in the first sense) historical document will inevitably be "flawed" in some way, will it not? i mean, we can glean great information from authentic historical documents, but we also accept that any particular account or assertion may be flawed, especially if it's contradicted by other authentic documents or other information in our possession? and not only that, but might our reading of this document itself be flawed...for instance, if we interpret a highly theologized version of a story, presented and organized a certain way for lectionary purposes, as some sort of literal historical timeline? the two choices, "authentic" and "flawed", are absolutely NOT mutually exclusive, for any of the NT writings or any other historical document. if strobel or anyone else tries to tell you they are, they are selling you a bill of goods, pure and simple. 1418845[/snapback] rbm was making the point about the translations and passing down of the text, saying that there is hugh room for error in all that passing and translating. i replied with the fact that even given all of the passing down, by every imaginable test we can run on the text, it stands up to how it was orginally recorded. in short, it is how it was written, vs. some monk in 1513 deciding to and writing in a major plot twist. so, given it is as it was written, the decision to make is whether the writers were inspired by God and capturing accurate accounts of the gospel, or whether they were, well, making up stuff or capturing accounts of stuff that never happened. my argument is that the stuff they captured was so amazing, so profound ... the life and teaching of Jesus continue to amaze and inspire us today ... that it is very difficult to think of it as fabricated. especially when you study the NT and OT together in context. and it is doubtful that multiple accounts of the life of jesus would be captured and be so consistent. add in all of paul's writings and the later books and wow, it is amazing. could it all be a farce? sure. do i know for a fact that jesus was divine. nope. is faith real or just a state of self-delusion? don't know ... it could be. when i was doing all of my searching (which i still am, by the way), i had a hard time literally accepting the bible and everything it entailed. i asked a christian friend of mine how he dealt with the issue of truth and verification that his faith was real and he blew my mind by saying, "i don't care if it is real or not, this is how i want to live my life. i want to live my life believing." that at least removed one of my walls to at least dig in and try to get past the areas that troubled me and grounded me on what faith really is all about, or what it can be about for me anyway. Edited April 13, 2006 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 sorry. my energy is expelled on this matter. 1418863[/snapback] twins will have that effect on youre energy level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Yes. :manondog: 1418860[/snapback] i also mentioned a horse ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 i'm not going to go through all of the data for you, but the NT passes every rigorous standard we have in place today to verify any historical document, translations included, as authentic. it is quite an amazing thing. 1418529[/snapback] Obviously, there is not the time or space to discuss the evidence available that suggests that the Bible we have today is an authentic rendition of the original text. So let’s assume that it is. The following two passages are direct quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. They indicated that it is a pretty widely held brief by Catholic Scholars that the four gospels (the sources of all of Jesus’ quotes) were written thirty or more years after his death. My one and only point in this, is that if you work from the assumption that Jesus was not divine, I do not believe that you can establish with any certainty how accurate quotes attributed to him are. It would be like rounding up people that were involved in the early days of the Reagan Revolution, and asking them to write down accurate quotes of what Reagan said in the 1970s from memory. My point in all of this is the danger of absolute statements. You said, “the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God. So either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.” I argue that is not true. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm C. The Year of the Death of Christ According to the Evangelists, Jesus suffered under the high priest Caiphas (A.U.C. 772-90, or A.D. 18-36), during the governorship of Pontius Pilate A.U.C. 780-90). But this leaves the time rather indefinite. Tradition, the patristic testimonies for which have been collected by Patrizi (De Evangeliis), places the death of Jesus in the fifteenth (or sixteenth) year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, forty-two years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. We have already seen that the fifteenth year of Tiberius is either 778 or 782, according to its computation from the beginning of Tiberius's associate or sole reign; the consulship of the Gemini (Fufius and Rubellius) fell in A.U.C. 782; the forty second year before the destruction of Jerusalem is A.D. 29, or A.U.C. 782, twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles brings us to the same year, A.D. 29 or A.U.C. 782, since the conversion of Cornelius, which marks the opening of the Gentile missions, fell probably in A.D. 40 or 41. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm To-day it is admitted that the first Gospels were written about the year 70. The Acts can hardly be said to be later; Harnack even thinks they were composed nearer to the year 60 than to the year 70. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 twins will have that effect on youre energy level 1418869[/snapback] you aint kidding. my are only almost 10 months too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 by every imaginable test we can run on the text, it stands up to how it was orginally recorded. 1418868[/snapback] That is pure returdation. :manonhorse: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 My one and only point in this, is that if you work from the assumption that Jesus was not divine, I do not believe that you can establish with any certainty how accurate quotes attributed to him are. It would be like rounding up people that were involved in the early days of the Reagan Revolution, and asking them to write down accurate quotes of what Reagan said in the 1970s from memory. My point in all of this is the danger of absolute statements. You said, “the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God. So either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.” I argue that is not true. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm 1418875[/snapback] i agree somewhat with your first paragraph here, but if i had 4 people tell me what reagan said and it pretty much jived, what about that? the insane argument is a bit dramatic, i agree. but it does make the point to all who thought jesus was just a nice, forgiving guy and a wonderful teacher that he also claimed to be divine. that has to be dealt with ... that claim is a big one to choose to ignore. if i follow his teachings, then this is part of them. if everything else he did was so profound and wonderful, then why would he slip this in? anyone today who claimed to be divine, regardless of the wisdom they threw down, would probably be called a nut. if it is all false and the stuff is made up, it certainly is the biggest snow job in the history of mankind, no? it could be ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 you aint kidding. my are only almost 10 months too. 1418878[/snapback] Just wait till there 3 and running in opposite directions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 rbmcdonald - don't waste time posting a reply, I'm sure you are a great guy and all but this is getting old. Let's just agree to disagree on the subject. 1418837[/snapback] Okie Dokie, however I would like to apologize for my last post on the subject, as you pointed out, I made statements indicating that I had some direct knowledge of the basis or foundation of thought process, which of course I do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) Okie Dokie, however I would like to apologize for my last post on the subject, as you pointed out, I made statements indicating that I had some direct knowledge of the basis or foundation of thought process, which of course I do not. 1418903[/snapback] welcome to the huddle! EDIT I meant tailgate Edited April 13, 2006 by cliaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Okie Dokie, however I would like to apologize for my last post on the subject, as you pointed out, I made statements indicating that I had some direct knowledge of the basis or foundation of thought process, which of course I do not. 1418903[/snapback] ADD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 i agree somewhat with your first paragraph here, but if i had 4 people tell me what reagan said and it pretty much jived, what about that? the insane argument is a bit dramatic, i agree. but it does make the point to all who thought jesus was just a nice, forgiving guy and a wonderful teacher that he also claimed to be divine. that has to be dealt with ... that claim is a big one to choose to ignore. if i follow his teachings, then this is part of them. if everything else he did was so profound and wonderful, then why would he slip this in? anyone today who claimed to be divine, regardless of the wisdom they threw down, would probably be called a nut. if it is all false and the stuff is made up, it certainly is the biggest snow job in the history of mankind, no? it could be ... 1418899[/snapback] Not the biggest, the biggest would be that the Republican Party believes in fiscal responsibility. It seems to me, that to be a Christian requires at its very root, a certain amount of faith. I get really hung up on any statements in the form of “Christians have to ________, because the bible says so” or “Christians can’t _________, because the bible said so”. Just think about all of the things in history that have been held as absolutes or have been justified by Christianity. Did you ever see the Last Temptation of Christ? In it the Devil shows Christ glimpses of the future, and says, just look at what will be done in your name. I can see how the divine side of Christ could deal with that, but how in the world could the human side of Christ deal with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Not the biggest, the biggest would be that the Republican Party believes in fiscal responsibility. It seems to me, that to be a Christian requires at its very root, a certain amount of faith. I get really hung up on any statements in the form of “Christians have to ________, because the bible says so” or “Christians can’t _________, because the bible said so”. Just think about all of the things in history that have been held as absolutes or have been justified by Christianity. Did you ever see the Last Temptation of Christ? In it the Devil shows Christ glimpses of the future, and says, just look at what will be done in your name. I can see how the divine side of Christ could deal with that, but how in the world could the human side of Christ deal with it? 1418945[/snapback] no argument. oh, and i lost my faith in the republican party years ago ... at least with this administration ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 rbm was making the point about the translations and passing down of the text, saying that there is hugh room for error in all that passing and translating. i replied with the fact that even given all of the passing down, by every imaginable test we can run on the text, it stands up to how it was orginally recorded. in short, it is how it was written, vs. some monk in 1513 deciding to and writing in a major plot twist. well, i agree with you there. by and large (there are exceptions, and this is a rich area of study...this book is an example), we can be relatively sure that the texts we have now are the texts as they were written down during the first century or so after jesus died. the role of the bishops over the next several centuries has more to do with what was accepted as canonical, what was branded as heretical, why, etc. so, given it is as it was written, the decision to make is whether the writers were inspired by God and capturing accurate accounts of the gospel, or whether they were, well, making up stuff or capturing accounts of stuff that never happened. there you go with the ridiculous dichotomies concocted in your own head again. it was either inspired by god, or made up out of thin air . come on, get serious for a second and stop with the lee strobel bullchit. my argument is that the stuff they captured was so amazing, so profound ... the life and teaching of Jesus continue to amaze and inspire us today ... that it is very difficult to think of it as fabricated. have you ever considered the possibility that jesus was indeed real, that he taught more or less what the gospels say he taught, that he went more or less where the gospels say he went, that he died on the cross and rose again (whatever we take that to mean), that jesus was indeed the son of god, Logos incarnate...but that the stories about him were written by men? deeply moved and devoted men, but also flawed men, men addressing a certain political situation and theological viewpoint. different men, who heard different things from different people about jesus, who remembered differently and emphasized different points. christian men who were embroiled in theological disputes with other christians. men who may have even barrowed certain supernatural and mythological elements from the larger hellenistic culture in order to make their story a bit more compelling. isn't it possible that something utterly unique and touched by the divine happened in the life, death and resurrection of jesus of nazareth, but that all of the human accounts of this divine event are just human accounts...and that if we truly want to discern what happened we should view these accounts critically and weigh every bit of evidence we can find? here's the way i view it personally. something totally unique and magnificent in this world (amazing and profound in your words) happened in the life of jesus. something that holds the key to my own spiritual aspirations, and the answers to innate, universal human longings. that event, that incarnation, is somehow "divine" in my eyes. now, thankfully, we have a rich literary tradition in the new testament which enables us to really know quite a bit about that event, and how the first generations of jesus' followers reacted to it. these writings point to the divine event. but they are NOT divine themselves. to confuse them with the inspiration behind the event itself is to be like a dog who stares at his master's pointing finger instead of the bird on the horizon he's pointing at. everything in the bible is the work of very human hands, even though it points to something so much bigger. to say the bible is by god's pen is to debase god and to make scripture into an idol. especially when you study the NT and OT together in context. and it is doubtful that multiple accounts of the life of jesus would be captured and be so consistent. add in all of paul's writings and the later books and wow, it is amazing. they're consistent in some respects, wildly at odds in others. each of the gospels tells a very different story, from a very different theology. mark came first, and then each of the subsequent gospels used at least one of the other gospels as a primary source...which they expanded, redacted, modified to suit their own purposes. one other thing to keep in mind is that literally every book in the new testament was written, at least in part, as a polemic against some other group of christians. could it all be a farce? sure. do i know for a fact that jesus was divine. nope. is faith real or just a state of self-delusion? don't know ... it could be. when i was doing all of my searching (which i still am, by the way), i had a hard time literally accepting the bible and everything it entailed. i asked a christian friend of mine how he dealt with the issue of truth and verification that his faith was real and he blew my mind by saying, "i don't care if it is real or not, this is how i want to live my life. i want to live my life believing." that at least removed one of my walls to at least dig in and try to get past the areas that troubled me and grounded me on what faith really is all about, or what it can be about for me anyway.1418868[/snapback] all i can really add to that is, we have to always be careful what we're putting our faith in. biblicism is a doctrine of men, employed to impose legalist conformism on the world around them, out of fear and pride. to elevate the doctrines of men can be to close off a lot of connections to the divine. woe to the scribes and pharisees. gotta always remember that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 all i can really add to that is, we have to always be careful what we're putting our faith in. biblicism is a doctrine of men, employed to impose legalist conformism on the world around them, out of fear and pride. to elevate the doctrines of men can be to close off a lot of connections to the divine. woe to the scribes and pharisees. gotta always remember that. 1419028[/snapback] points taken ... you momo eunuch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 it is fun ... but i'm not ignorant ... you're the one who equated hitler with abe lincoln ... 1418821[/snapback] Well, in the spirit of your "Jesus was the son of God or he was Insane" arguement, let me say this: You are either on a wonderful fishing expedition, or your are an ignorant ass bible thumpin moran whose every post sounds more imbecilic than the last. There really is no other option. I choose to believe the former rather than the latter. BTW, In terms of pure satanic evil, Lincoln makes Hitler seem like Mother Teresa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well, in the spirit of your "Jesus was the son of God or he was Insane" arguement, let me say this: You are either on a wonderful fishing expedition, or your are an ignorant ass bible thumpin moran whose every post sounds more imbecilic than the last. There really is no other option. I choose to believe the former rather than the latter. BTW, In terms of pure satanic evil, Lincoln makes Hitler seem like Mother Teresa... 1419055[/snapback] PSST, pick the wonderful fishing expedition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.