This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Bible interpretation is not open to interpretation

#221DarkContractorPosted 6/11/2013 4:25:52 PM
What does it matter if Matthew wrote the book that we call "Matthew" today? Or that he used Mark as a source for some of it (or he could have just interviewed the same people)? You haven't addressed the point that it reads exactly like eye-witnesses were interviewed for the creation of the Gospel account.


First, Matthew used word for word verbiage of Mark, with the occasional word edited that dissimilarity arguments can show that Matthew used Mark. You haven't demonstrated how it reads 'exactly like eye-witnesses were interviewed for the creation of the Gospel account', which is something mutually exclusive with two source hypothesis, which I've demonstrated plenty of evidence for and trust me I can keep going.

Is that supposed to be a response to what I said?


Yes.

You need to be clear about who you mean when you say "he" and "thing" because those sentences aren't making any sense to me.


And while you're at it, answer this question that you didn't acknowledge:
I'm an American, I frequently refer to "all Americans" in a collective sense without needing to say "all we Americans." Does that mean I'm presenting myself as a foreigner?


Do you just expect me to read a 5,500 word Wikipedia article? Get over yourself. Tell me where it says that non-Pharisee Jews didn't regularly wash their hands before eating?



You notice how you say you don't understand my answer, but also insist I didn't acknowledge your question? Please, have some humble incredulity.

The way Mark said it is not in the sense "Every single Jew does this" but instead in the sense that this tradition belongs to every group of Jews. Does that make more sense?

I'm not going to google everything for you.

Yes, but if Judas and Jesus' miracles and all these other Supernatural details about Jesus were just legends, why were they written in a specific literary style that wouldn't show up again for 1700 years?


Because they were trying to convince people it happened and not write a novel.

I'm not playing semantics. I said that Paul assumes his readers knew about Jesus and the important details of His life. That doesn't require the Gospels to be written. I don't see why you would say Paul "rarely" or "barely" mentions Gospel events, or why that's even relevant. But you're the one who brought it up.


....the Gospels ARE about Jesus and the important details of his life. I'm arguing that Paul doesn't know these details. And Paul quotes OT ALL THE TIME in order to back up his points. Are you telling me you don't the significance of Paul not having knowledge of the Gospels. *semi edit* okay going by your upcoming comment, yeah you don't. This is incredibly important for figuring out the growth of certain theologies and legends, and it begs the question, why would Paul not know about Jesus' life details?

"How is that at all a response to either paragraph you quoted?"

Because you're acting like these large crowds following Jesus and the 5000 fed bread are reliable numbers, which I find hilarious.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#222DarkContractorPosted 6/11/2013 4:37:44 PM
Demonstrating a legend =/= the Gospels were a legend.


Your point being? I think it's more than likely.

If they said 5,128 people were fed, would you seriously think the account seemed more trustworthy or less? It has nice round numbers because that's how you explain the size of a crowd. Do you know anybody who would go count every head in a crowd of 5,000-ish people, or even 500?


Since Jesus is apparently a miracle maker, yes, I would expect accurate numbers. Furthermore, however, the fact that people like Philo and Pinny the Elder don't mention these things is part of the reason people doubt these numbers.

Nope, I don't see anywhere that you've refuted what I said. It seems your argument is "the number of people who saw Jesus could have been exaggerated; therefore they were." This is not a response to my point, it's just a cop out that has no justification behind it. If there were a single historian who was skeptical about Jesus, he could have easily written an anti-Gospel that talked about the lack of eye-witnesses to Jesus miracles and resurrection.


Contradictory accounts that get obvious details wrong (seriously, how do you forget that an angel rolls a rock away from a tomb for you?)

And the Gospel of Mary (something I used as a central piece in that counteringchristianity blog in my sig) has exactly that: that is, a lack of eye-witnesses to Jesus miracles and resurrection.

We both made claims about Jesus, the burden of proof is on both of us. But you're the one who wanted to have this debate about the historicity of the gospels, so I thought you were going to bring some kind of evidence to the table.

Yes, it's possible someone would create a lie. But who did the lie benefit? If you were one of the disciples, why create a lie that made you look bad? And gave you no personal benefit? And then painfully die for it? And add all these details that only made the lie harder to believe?


I do think the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah. You can in Matthew how he does anything he can to make Jesus fit the Scriptures (and ends up butchering tons of OT prophecies, in the process). They would make things up to convince other people. They were promised seats of power in the upcoming Kingdom.

I've already demonstrated several legends, showing their progression and everything. You realize there's no such thing as a 'proof' in history, right? It's about what probably happened since you can't put history on repeat to verify things. And my theory has more evidence, explanatory power, and a higher probability than the supernatural raising of Jesus.


You didn't respond to a single point there. I apologize if I missed it, but where did you explain why the Gospel writers would have made women the first eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection, when it was obvious their testimony wouldn't have been valued?


Did I say the Gospel writers made the women the first eye witnesses? No, I argued that the contradictory highly embellished accounts in the Gospels after Mark were made up simply because the women had no credibility.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#223DarkContractorPosted 6/11/2013 4:37:57 PM
LOL at the irony here. You're the one posting alternative theories of Jesus' resurrection with no proof. Your whole argument is "People could have lied about Jesus; therefore He was a legend."


No people DID lie, I've demonstrated the motive based textual variants, the evolution of the various legeneds. You do realize that you haven't demonstrated proof of the Resurrection, and that they're both theories, and that alternative is just a matter of perspective? My point was saying "it could have happened this way!" is not a matter of showing who's right, who's wrong. You need evidence. I've shown lots of evidence for my legend theory, ZERO of which you've been responding to, minus the Trinity thing. And you're more concerned on questioning whether or not the Trinity had any real implications less than you are questioning if it was or was not added. You haven't touched the fact that Jesus was an apocalyptist who made TONS of falsified claims about when the End would happen in Mark, while also being very hesitant of public miracles (you know, miracles that could be verified, as you point out) where as in John, our last, instead of first Gospel, has miracles done to verify who Jesus is all the time, with tons of miracles not found in any of the other Gospels, with all the apocalyptic sayings of the End happening soon being omitted.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#224bratt100Posted 6/11/2013 5:05:29 PM
DarkContractor posted...
bratt100 posted...
OrangeWizard posted...
From: bratt100 | #196

That nothing you read is the word of god and everything is a game of telephone.


Assuming that God doesn't exist, sure, but that's a bit circular isn't?
If however, God exists, then isn't he capable of using his omnipotence to preserve his word?


He sure would have that power but he never used it unfortunately. You can just look at the discrepancies between different biblical scholars to see that. Or certain stories that were stolen wholesale from the Sumerians. These stories in the bible may have had a real life ignition but what we read today is simply story telling. Even your own holy book has changes from the previous ones and guess what every group think that there own book is the most accurate.


You would think between the numerous statistics on manuscript variations and the multiple passages of the Bible that don't belong and the multiple textual variants that have been referenced in this exact topic that people would stop trying to claim that the Word has been supernaturally preserved.


The key word is think. Yes I would think and you would think but they try their very best not to.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#225DarkContractorPosted 6/11/2013 5:06:51 PM
Yes, I offered several reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and you responded to about 1/3 of them and then offered your own reasons why the Gospels were legends. All your reasons seem to say "this is why Jesus could have been a legend" without actually providing proof that they were legend.

I have given you evidence. Some of it you didn't even try to refute, you just didn't accept it. That's the best I can do if you don't want it.


And I offered reasons why I didn't believe that evidence was reliable. I demonstrated that multiple 'proofs' of legends. Again, proof in regards to history is impossible. We look at evidence, probability, and explanatory power. The only comment of yours I haven't responded to is that the Gospels read like eyewitnesses testimony, somehting you've claimed without backing up, so I'm waiting on you for that one.

I don't see how any of those are necessarily problems, except for evidence that the 11 (not 12, because John was exiled to an island) were martyred.


lmao, obviously you didnt read the point about Judas and Paul saying He appeared to the 12 in 1 Corinthians, or at least it flew right over your head.

that's a good question. James' martyrdom is verified in non-Biblical historical writings like from Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius. Simon Peter's death was also verified by Eusebius. Andrews' was by a guy named Hippolytus. Bartholomew had a book written about him called The martyrdom of Bartholemew. Thomas and Philip had some books about them called the Acts of Thomas and Acts of Philip. I'm running out of space, but it probably wouldn't be hard to Google up some more if you really wanted to take the time, but that's half of the apostles right there. I can't imagine even those 6 would have died for a story they all made up.


You should quit googling up arguments to try and support your prior believes and instead genuinely look for evidence.

Because a 3rd of those are gnostic texts that contradict the f*** out of everything the NT teaches. Is the Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles and Acts of John and the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene reliable now too? lmao.

And what you don't get it is that someone stretching something or making something up doesn't mean a complete denial of their believes. They let the Jesus legend grow BECAUSE they believed he was the Messiah.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#226C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 6/14/2013 10:32:52 AM
DarkContractor posted...
Baptizing in all their names would suggest they're equal, also this is a good article on 1 John 5:7-8 http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/spurious-reference-trinity-added-1-john-57-8%C2%A0/

A few of the early Christian denominations simply had incompatible believes with that. For example, adoptionists believed Jesus was a very righteous but very human individual whom God adopted as his son when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. In fact, our earlier manuscripts read something amongst the lines of "On this day I have begotten you as my Son" when the dove descends upon Jesus. Then later transcripts change that.


Saying the members of the Trinity agree or are in unity does not mean they're equal. If people were falsely trying to say the members of the Trinity were equal in order to manipulate other denominations...why didn't they just add in a line saying "they're equal to each other"? And take out lines like John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I"?

Why would God at least not try? I would certainly be willing to hear out a case made by my children, and if I felt swayed I would compromise as necessary. In the case of a judge, this is done through petitions, systems of checks and balances, etc.


Almost always, it's obvious why God gives His moral rules in the Bible.

You just naively assumed that you and your child would always agree if you just understood each other's perspective, so you obviously never had parents or kids of your own. But since you didn't answer my question, so I'll re-post it:
Say your child was old enough to understand your rules and they still disagreed, would you just not enforce them?

For some reason, you also think that referring to checks and balances means that all citizens agree with all the laws that judges have to impose, so obviously you're from a country that doesn't a legal system. Think about the question as if you're from America and answer it again:

If you were a judge, would you only apply laws to the citizens that agreed with them?

(The fact that you neglect to give a sensible answer and keep dodging shows me that you realize you're wrong. There can be no other reason for this false naivete you keep displaying, except stupidity).

He is demonstrated to have control over the universe in the Bible, makes the universe from ex nihilio, and is equivocated to logic in John 1:1.


But where in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent?

Because everyone knows that judges don't also play the role of prosecuting lawyer, legislator, and enforcer.


Yeah, if these are the kind of answers I can expect from you, this is why we can't have adult conversation. I will finish up this post only to demonstrate further how illogical you are.

Not at all like I was describing? Please, tell me the difference.


Sure. You said: "And the law just so happens to be all about worshiping him or die." Everybody in the Bible died whether they worshiped God or not.

How is that disingenuous? I derived from my conclusion from the 10 commandments, what Jesus said specifically was the most important commandment of all, and one of the most popular verses of the 'Roman Road'. Also, after you demonstrate that it's disingenuous, demonstrate that it being that refutes anything I said.

I didn't say it refutes what you said, I said you were disingenuous, meaning you were being intentionally misleading. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say, "Worship God or die." You're just pasting verses together to make it sound like God's punishment is totally based on our lack of reverence for Him, when that's only a part of it. There are many other bad things we do besides failing to fully appreciate God.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#227OrangeWizardPosted 6/14/2013 10:54:26 AM
I missed this post:

From: bratt100 | #202

He sure would have that power but he never used it unfortunately. You can just look at the discrepancies between different biblical scholars to see that.


So because people are capable of misinterpreting God's word, God didn't use his powers to preserve his word from corruption?


Or certain stories that were stolen wholesale from the Sumerians.


Can you prove that? Can you prove that both weren't stolen wholesale from history?

These stories in the bible may have had a real life ignition but what we read today is simply story telling.

And this is bad why?
Even your own holy book has changes from the previous ones

How is this relevant?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#228JonWood007Posted 6/14/2013 2:36:02 PM
You just naively assumed that you and your child would always agree if you just understood each other's perspective, so you obviously never had parents or kids of your own. But since you didn't answer my question, so I'll re-post it:
Say your child was old enough to understand your rules and they still disagreed, would you just not enforce them?


If they could actually put forward a convincing argument, I would change my mind about them altogether. I think that the whole "IM IN CHARGE DO WHAT I SAY NO MATTER WHAT I SAY" model of authoritarianism is stupid and wrong. It may be good for those who are too immature to think about morality for themselves, but it's not good when you're dealing with highly educated persons who have a different perspective.

The reason children need that kind of basic authority is because they're literally incapable of understanding things...their brains aren't developed enough. And while it's true we humans can't know everything, I believe we're mature enough as a species for God to explain his reasoning. Instead, it seems like Christianity wants people dumbed down and submissive, which is never a good thing, as it is open to abuse. Do parents ever abuse their children? Yes they do. Is it POSSIBLE for God to be abusive? Yes. This does not mean that he is, but the possibility is there.


If you were a judge, would you only apply laws to the citizens that agreed with them?


No, laws apply to everyone.

However, we do have open discussions regarding the validity of laws, people are entitled to their opinions, they're free to express them, and if a ruler doesn't support laws they want, or supports laws they oppose, they can vote them out of office.

You're also forgetting that we do have checks and balances in our system. A judge is not a legislator, and a legislator is not a judge. One makes the laws, one enforces them. God is supposedly both. So he could choose to abolish laws rather than enforcing them.

The problem with your line of thinking, cmat, is it has led to abuse in the past, and is prone to abuse in general. You assume God is perfect, that he would never abuse power, and that we're too dumb to argue. This is very backwards thinking in the 21st century. You know, once we vested God's power in human kings under the premise of divine right, that God wants those leaders in charge and you're supposed to listen to everything they say. And it sucked. Which is why we don't use it any more.

The thing is, seeing God as an aloof king, immune from all criticism is a dangerous idea. No one is immune from criticism, and I'm sorry, but if you think differently, then you're a sheep. If God's ideas are half as good as you assume they are, they should withstand all legitimate criticism. They should be demonstrably correct, where debating against them is stupid and pointless. The fact that you even need to attempt to suppress discussion shows this is not the case. And this is something that pisses me off about half this board any more. You guys don't want to have a debate about the validity of Biblical law, and God's actions in the Bible. You just want to ramble on about God's supposed superiority and how he doesn't HAVE to listen to us because he's automatically better and we're automatically wrong without having a decent debate about the external validity of God's actions. This is circular and suppresses debate.

I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#229OrangeWizardPosted 6/14/2013 2:42:26 PM
From: JonWood007 | #228
they should withstand all legitimate criticism. They should be demonstrably correct, where debating against them is stupid and pointless.


It actually is stupid and pointless to debate against them. It's just that humans often do stupid and pointless things.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#230DarkContractorPosted 6/14/2013 5:15:25 PM
Saying the members of the Trinity agree or are in unity does not mean they're equal. If people were falsely trying to say the members of the Trinity were equal in order to manipulate other denominations...why didn't they just add in a line saying "they're equal to each other"?


But they're putting Jesus on an equal step AS the Father. Baptizing in all 3 names doesn't make sense from a non-tritintarian perspective; why, if baptized in the Father's name, would the Son's name or the Spirit's name even be necessary? The objective was to demonstrate them as a set of 3. Unity. Working together. Oneness. Something mutually exclusive with pretty much every non-proto orthodox denomination.

And take out lines like John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I"?


You are literally the most linear thinker ever. Did any of the changes I claimed take place in the book of John? You know this is considered by the majority of historians to be a relic of the original Jesus; the apocalypticist God had sent to establish a Kingdom here on Earth, ending the suffering of the righteous.

Almost always, it's obvious why God gives His moral rules in the Bible.


I would looooove for you to explain homosexuality, or the blatant sexism, pretty much the whole OT.


You just naively assumed that you and your child would always agree if you just understood each other's perspective



Quote me where I did this.

Say your child was old enough to understand your rules and they still disagreed, would you just not enforce them?

For some reason, you also think that referring to checks and balances means that all citizens agree with all the laws that judges have to impose, so obviously you're from a country that doesn't a legal system. Think about the question as if you're from America and answer it again:

If you were a judge, would you only apply laws to the citizens that agreed with them?


No I wouldn't but I would be open to discussion about it, that's the point I'm getting going over your linear, black and white fundamentalist head. I would not necessarily punish/pardon the citizens questioning them. I would hear their case though. I would weigh it out. And I would explain my reasoning. Regardless if they agree with my reasoning.

"(The fact that you neglect to give a sensible answer and keep dodging shows me that you realize you're wrong. There can be no other reason for this false naivete you keep displaying, except stupidity)."

No, it's just that you didn't get an answer with a concrete Yes or No so you couldn't use the arguments you were waiting to counter with it, since it was built as a leading question. Go google another apologist; whichever one you found this search isn't providing you with the attacks you need.

"But where in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent?"

Ah, excuse me, please allow me to revise. A God that has control over this universe cannot be all-peaceful and/or have the best intentions for us.

Have you ever heard of Dennet's etiquette for debate? It's good form to address more of what it seems like that your opponent is going with his points than a strict literalist interpretation. Then again, you're a YEC, so I don't know why I would expect anything besides strict literalism.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.