So, ah, for any other Christians out there... http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602 Itzika Does anyone else think Revelation is a load of crap written by a hack with only a passing familiarity with the New Testament and a *lot* of bitterness toward the people who exiled him? I just read it today, straight through, because my newest story deals with the apocalypse quite a bit (though I'm going to take some--read: a lot--of liberties), and, well... by the time I was done with the letters to the seven churches I was pretty sure this guy had never spoken to Jesus, seeing how thoroughly he discounted some of Jesus's most well-known teachings. Then I got to the actual account of the apocalypse and Jesus started killing people and around this point I had to laugh because the alternative was to be outraged. How did *this* make it into the Bible? No, seriously. They cut out a bunch of books and left *this* in? It's like someone read the Old Testament, heard there was some dude named Jesus in the New Testament, stuck his face on the Old Testament God and wrote a new book about the end times. NOTHING that happens in this apocalypse lines up with Jesus's teachings. It does, however, line up with the vengeance fantasies of a guy who was exiled away from his home (presumably for preaching Jesus's teachings). Non-Christians are free to reply as well, but I will point and laugh at anything that says "This proves the Bible is all crap" because really guys, this is one book. I can discount one book that wasn't even written by an apostle or anyone who personally spoke to Jesus and still believe the rest (or most of the rest) is divinely inspired and/or an account of the Messiah's life. Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:00:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1013552 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1013552 Phoenix There's no evidence that any of the gospels were written by anyone who had met Jesus (if he existed). There is, iirc, some internal evidence that suggests that "John" was actually better acquainted with first century Palestine than many other contributors to the New Testament. A devil's advocate might suggest that "John" was in an infinitely better position to know what an actual historical Jesus said, as opposed to what very political groups of church leaders later decided comprised acceptable teachings. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:31:06 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1013930 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1013930 Itzika Really, none of the books of the New Testament were written by anyone who could have been alive during Jesus's lifetime. I think the first gospel was written around 70 AD, long after Jesus died. I do believe, however, that the gospels were written by people familiar with Jesus's teachings, possibly by being passed down through oral tradition or recorded in other places before being compiled into the books of the Bible. Revelation was written between 60 AD and 95 AD (still long after Jesus's death)--and was probably written in parts, meaning it was almost certainly *not* an account of a single prophetic revelation like it claims. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:35:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014106 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014106 Gerd D. Ah c'mon, Revelations is the only bok that is actually fun to read. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:55:34 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014180 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014180 Itzika Sure, if you don't take it seriously. Like I said, I was pretty much laughing through it (when I wasn't enraged) because the alternative was to be furious. But it pretty obviously doesn't belong in the New Testament. I have no idea how it made it into the Bible. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:21:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014233 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014233 Gerd D. Well, I don't see how Christians can reconcile the actions in the Old Testament with the teachings in the New Testament, so honestly, Revelations being canon or not isn't something I worry about much. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:26:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014425 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014425 Phoenix [quote=Itzika] Really, none of the books of the New Testament were written by anyone who could have been alive during Jesus's lifetime. I think the first gospel was written around 70 AD, long after Jesus died. ... Revelation was written between 60 AD and 95 AD (still long after Jesus's death)... [/quote] Seriously, dude? Thirty or forty years is your idea of "long after"? I remember the '50s and '60s pretty clearly--are you suggesting that now would be "long after" that period and that there would be no eyewitnesses available to report the events? One of the weaknesses of the New Testament, imo, is that it's all hearsay. Honestly, if the events had been that huge, do you imagine that no one actually there would have recorded them? That those accounts would not have been preserved? Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:40:02 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014793 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1014793 MalcolmCooms No, I think the book is extremely symbolic and extraordinarily difficult to interpret correctly without a LOT of knowledge about the symbolism used during the time the book was written as well as a lot about the symbolism and prophecies of the Bible in general. In any case, I don't discount it, no. I just try my best to reconcile its message with the rest of the Bible (which I think is possible, but difficult). I'm not accusing anybody here of this but I think a lot of the reason many people dislike Revelation is because if you accept it as canon you have to accept a Hell and people find it very difficult to reconcile that with Jesus's message. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:24:06 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1015166 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1015166 MalcolmCooms It's very possible somebody who knew Jesus could have been around by 60 or 70 A.D. Say they were twenty when Jesus died around 30 AD. That would make them 60 by 70 A.D. Old at the time? Yes, very, but absolutely NOT impossible. Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:28:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1015190 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1015190 beanza3 New testament discounts Old testament. Not completely, but many things just don't count anymore. It's like if your school hasd rules (Like, Cell phones can only be used in hallways, hats must be worn at all times, and you must were a uniform) and then new rules are added years later which say cell phonescan be used in class, you can decide not to wear hats if wanted, and the uniform only disallows certain clothing. Everything else is wearable. This takes away the meaning of the cellphone rule, because you can still use them in the hallway, of course, but you can use them anywhere else too. The hat rule's been completely changedm and the uniform became a dress code. But the rules weren't re-written, only added to. Some just cancel out others. Thou shalt not judge disallows punishments like stoning and such death penalties. So does love your neighbor as yourself. Heaven and Hell cancel out previous notions of the afterlife. It's really not contradictory, just progress. OT and NT are two different monsters entirely. :D Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:20:20 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1016925 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1016925 MalcolmCooms [Note: This reply is really meant for Christians and takes the truth of the Old and New Testaments as a given. If you're not a Christian and don't believe this go ahead and reply anyway if you want to, I have no authority to stop you. Honestly though my mind is made up at this point and I'm not interested in that discussion.] This is really a debate for another time, but I would say (agree or disagree with this as you please) that in the Old Testament the Jews had a lot of specific restrictions because they were meant to be a seperated people that were specifically called upon to pass God's teachings down from generation to generation. They were being specifically set up to create an environment for the Messiah to come forth into, and God prepared for this with very strict rules and regulations. It's like a father with a young child. When you're little you have lots of rules like "don't go near the stove, it's hot" "don't talk to strangers" "don't cross the street without your mother"-things like that. Of course, when you're older you can go near a stove all you want, you just need to be careful with the flame, talking to strangers is the only way to make friends and you need to develop your own judgment on when this is and isn't appropriate, and eventually you'll need to cross the street without your mother, you just need to learn to be careful. In the Old Testament the Israelites were like little children in that respect-they weren't ready for all of the responsibilities of "adulthood", so God gave them a lot of rules to avoid "dangerous" behavior and nurtured them until the proper time for the arrival of the Messiah, who would tell them the "adult" rules. Like real adulthood, these new rules both freed you (eating pork is no longer taboo and women who blood are no longer considered unclean) and made life more difficult because you had more responsibility (looking at a woman with lust in your heart is considered adultery and divorce except for "porneia" is forbidden). When Jesus replaced the Old Covenant with the New Covenant all of the rules and regulations made specifically for the Jews no longer applied. All that mattered now were the commandments Jesus gave us and the natural law that could be discovered by human reason-hence the ten commandments still apply since all of them could be justified under natural law. Does this make any sense at all to you, or is it just a useless block of words? Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:00:18 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017101 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017101 Christina Huling Once, the priest at my church suggested you smoke a joint before reading the book of Revelations and it would make more since ;) Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:03:54 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017249 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017249 Christina Huling Gahhhh. <strong>sense</strong>. And I hate it when people do that, too. Stupid autocorrect phone. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 00:05:47 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017260 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017260 Earthsick I'm currently reading a book about druids which also picks up on how a lot of stories in the bible were inspired or completely taken from much older stories from much older religions. A lot of rites and festivities were taken from other religions as well. Christmas is basically Yule. Santa Claus is basically a mix of other mythical beings (funny enough, includin Odin or Wodan/Wotan). So meh, your religion is just a remix of other religions, like the religions that came before. The Roman religion was after all just another version of the Greek religion. If you see it from a realistic point of view, you don't have to trust any word of a book you don't think is good as long as you believe what you want. If you say your religion is about accepting each other, so be it. I'm all good with that. I personally don't believe a thing of it because lol, I could as well believe in pagan gods. It would have the same effect. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:08:54 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017435 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017435 MalcolmCooms The modern Santa Claus myth isn't really that similar to the historical Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas. He was, indeed, known for great charity. What people DON'T know is that his other claim to fame is punching the heretic Arius in the face during the Council of Nicaea. That's a fun story. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 08:58:57 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017761 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1017761 DemiReb The feast of St. Nicolas of Myra you are talking about is mainly celebrated in the Low Lands (Netherland, Flanders) and parts of Germany on the Eve of his death (5 December - some parts of Germany on the 6th). We call it "Sinterklaas". He's dressed as a bishop with mitre and staff and rides a white horse. He's accompanied by "Zwarte Piet" (Black Pete) who carries the presents and candy. His feast is celebrated by giving presents accompanied with a poem poking some friendly fun on the receiver. We don't have a tradition of giving presents on Christmas over here. Santa Claus has an entirely different origin. The original version is called Yulebocken in Sweden and Youlupukki in Finland, where he lives on a mountain not far from the pole circle. Santa is a direct descendant of the Yule/mid winter solstice feasts of the northern Germanic peoples. As for Revelation: difficult book that I find very hard to interpret. I don't think it was written by someone who was bonkers, neither is it to be read literally. We just don't understand the original meaning anymore. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:44:03 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1018587 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1018587 MalcolmCooms The modern Santa Claus is a combination of the various myths you mentioned plus the historical St. Nicholas (he's my Confirmation Saint). Saint Nicholas is a variation on the Dutch name Sinterklaas which eventually gets translated to St. Nicholas. The tradition of hanging stockings over a fireplace so that gifts could be placed in them comes from a traditional story about St. Nicholas. The details of the story vary, but basically three daughters needed money for their dowry or else they'd be sold into prostitution, so St. Nicholas (who didn't want to be seen doing the good deed out of humilty) threw coins through the chimney that fell into the daughters' stockings which were hung outside the fireplace to dry. I had a theology teacher in High School eho gave small gifts to his kids on St. Nicholas's feast day and gave them the big stuff on Christmas. All of the other stuff you mentioned contribute heavily to the modern Santa Claus myth, however. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:51:32 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1018608 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1018608 Itzika I was under the impression that lifespans of the time were such that people who were adults (i.e. the apostles) during Jesus's lifetime would have been dead by the time the gospels were written down. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:46:50 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019021 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019021 Itzika It's a lot more than there being a Hell (though honestly, yeah, that annoys me--what about those people who never hear Jesus's message?). In Revelation, Jesus is the one to break the seals that unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. In the letters to the churches, Jesus apparently says he will kill the children of a sinner, where it's pretty clearly not meant to be taken metaphorically. And then it's the attitude of the whole thing. Not just the book itself, but the notes my Bible has about Revelation. The whole thing is so vindictive. "Yes, we're sinners--but we've accepted Jesus, so we'll live forever while everyone else is cast into Hell! Isn't this great?" And it sickens me. This is not how Christians are supposed to act. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:06:25 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019089 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019089 Itzika Since posting this, a quick Google search has informed me that Martin Luther declared Revelation "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and relegated it to an appendix in his translation of the Bible. He may or may not have recanted this view later in life--Wiki says he did but doesn't provide a citation. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:10:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019105 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019105 MalcolmCooms Yeah, Martin Luther put a few books in the appendix of the Bible that, for various reasons, he didn't think should be considered canonical Scripture. Protestants call these books the "apocrypha". As for the Catholics, the books that Luther calls the "apocrypha" we call the "deuterocanon". We consider them to be inspired scripture like every other book of the Bible (they're only called the "deuterocanon" because they were declared canon a little bit later than the other books-the "protocanon". It's a purely scholarly distinction among Catholics with no real practical application). Some examles of books I can think of off the top of my head that are in the deuterocanon/apocrypha include the Book of Wisdom and 1 and 2 Maccabees (point of interest-2 Maccabees (I believe it's 2) is one of the books that Catholics use to point out that prayer to the dead is considered acceptable. This doesn't add much to the conversation except that I find it interesting). There are others but those come to my mind immediately. I also heard once that Martin Luther at one time wanted to remove the Epistle of James from the Canon because of the famous "faith and works, not by faith alone" passage (he didn't think the epistle was actually heretical, he just thought that it was too confusing to interpret). I don't remember my source though, and I think it was a guy on a Catholic website so take it with a mountain of salt. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:20:08 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019402 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019402 MalcolmCooms I see what you're saying. I think that unless you have an extremely extensive knowlege of Biblical history and prophecy the book is nearly impossible to understand, though. It's sort of like reading Joyce's Ulysses if Ulysses were originally written in a dead language and translated to English and it was set in a society that is both foreign to ours as well as several thousand years older. (As an aside Itzika, have you ever read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity"? The arguments in it for the existence of God are, in my opinion, terrible, but the book is a theological goldmine that I think you'd enjoy. It's supposed to be a kind of manual for a sort of "lowest common denominator" for Christians. I think Lewis uses the analogy that if Christianity is a mansion than Mere Christianity is supposed to give a description of the hallway while the individual rooms in it are the denominations. You seem to me to be the kind of person who'd like it. Just a suggestion.) Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:36:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019460 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019460 Itzika I haven't read Ulysses and had to look it up to get your analogy. (I'm not exactly well-versed in the classics.) I think I get it, though. But further research has told me I'm not the only one--not the only *Christian*--who has disputed the validity of Revelation. I'm actually reading Mere Christianity now, on the recommendation of my pastor. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:27:16 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019932 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1019932 MalcolmCooms You're definitely not the only Christian who has some issues with Revelation's validity, so I'm not dismissing you at all. This is just my point of view on it. Interesting that your pastor thought the same way I did! Lewis is a genius. He has an essay outside of "Mere Christianity" titled "Man or Rabbit?" that you might be interested in. It deals with the salvation of non-Christians. I think it's brilliant. If you're interested in reading it, say so and I'll put up a link. If not, I'll quit bugging you. Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:12:34 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1020402 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1020402 Itzika I'm definitely interested in reading it. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:16:08 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021187 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021187 Itzika Believing whatever you want doesn't make sense in any other context; I don't see why we try to apply it to religion. Not all Christians are Christian because it's convenient or popular or because we're afraid of Hell. Some of us, myself included, believe because we have reasons for believing, reasons beyond "The Bible says so". So while I appreciate your saying that not believing Revelation is fine, I would also appreciate if you didn't belittle my beliefs in a thread meant primarily for believers, particularly in a way that has nothing to do with the thread topic (i.e. the entirety of your first two paragraphs). I was also Wiccan for a time and recently took a class on Western Religions, so I know a few of the similarities between Christian festivities and older pagan ones. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:37:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021231 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021231 MalcolmCooms http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/09/16/man-or-rabbit-by-c-s-lewis/ I love this essay. It articulates my thoughts on salvation for non-Christians almost exactly but it says it in a much clearer way than I ever could. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:03:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021631 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1021631 LordFeanor The book is just highly symbolic. Read some of the other accounts like that in the Old Testament, say in the Book of Daniel. And without really having a good knowledge of the whole of Scripture, and the world and language the author was writing from, it can be very easily totally misunderstood. As for Phoenix's comments, Matthew and John both claimed to be eyewitnesses, and the other two Gospels claimed to be compiled from eyewitness accounts. We can easily date the Gospels to at least before 90 AD. For instance, the Gospel of John (the last one written) was in widespread circulation by 130 AD. There's the Rylands papyrus fragment of John's Gospel dated to 130 AD at the very latest, possibly earlier. It was found at the very edge of the ancient civilized world, nearly 2000 miles from Ephesus which is where John died. If the Gospel had gotten as far as Upper Egypt by 130 A.D., it was almost surely written at least by 90 A.D. Plus there are the New testament letters, some written by eyewitnesses (Peter, James, Jude, etc.) and the others may have been eyewitnesses, but it isn't explicitly recorded. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:18:04 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022074 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022074 MalcolmCooms They <em>might</em> have been dead. Not necessarily <em>would</em> have. In Mark, there's an interesting passage (I don't remember which one and the details are a bit fuzzy) where a boy runs over to Jesus but his loincloth or something like that falls off of him and he has to run away from the scene naked. Some people speculate (by "some people" I'm thinking specifically of my old High School theology book) that the reason that this story is included is because the boy is Mark and the author is pointing out that he was an eyewitness. Also, "hearsay" has some bad connotations that are not necessarily warranted. Yes, eyewitness accounts are the <em>most</em> ideal. However, Luke was an extremely accurate historian. Almost every detail from Acts of the Apostles in particular has matched up perfectly with modern archaeological evidence. Some speculate the Luke got his infancy narratives by actually interviewing Mary after Jesus's death/ascension, which makes sense. Matthew supposedly wrote his Gospel around Antioch, and it is speculated that he actually interviewed one of the wise men for information, which is an interesting theory. As for John, he is supposedly the longest lived of all the apostles, and the only one not martyred. From what I remember John eventually got stuck on the island of Patmos, which is where he supposedly wrote Revelation based on visions he got while on the island. As the longest lived of the apostles it is quite possible, if not normally agreed upon by historians, that John the apostle actually wrote the Gospel given his name. You just have to accept that he wrote it while an old man. The consensus of secular historians is that the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses (and even some Christian scholars). However, I don't think it's fair to discount Christian scholars because if you come to the conclusion that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts you're more likely to be Christian! Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:51:28 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022508 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022508 MalcolmCooms The letters are interesting. Of the two letters of Peter my best (educated) guess is that 1 Peter was written by Peter (or really, spoken by Peter. If Peter wrote it he probably dictated it to a secretary who actually put the words on paper, but that's neither here nor there.) and 2 Peter was written by somebody else entirely. I'm not so sure about the letters of John. Supposedly 1 John is written in a style so different from the Gosepl that it's supposedly doubtful that both the letter and the book were written by the same person but I've read the letter and the Gospel and they certainly seem to me to be written in a very similar style. It's interesting stuff. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:57:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022537 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022537 Phoenix Claims notwithstanding, internal evidence says that the authors of Matthew and John weren't there, and it was accepted practice to ascribe writings to the apostles to bolster their credibility. Actually, I've heard an interesting theory that says that all three synoptic gospels are based on a single source which is long since lost...and there's no evidence it was an eyewitness account either. We've got more reliable evidence and history from Periclean Greece than we do from first-century Judea. (Ephesus to Upper Egypt isn't much of a journey, even in that period, and it would have been part of the standard trade routes. Neither was Upper Egypt "the edge of the ancient civilized world" at a time when the Romans had regular commerce with India and Britain.) Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:07:03 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022580 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022580 MalcolmCooms Your "single source" theory is known as the "Q" hypothesis (Q being the name of this supposed source). The source is supposedly a lost collection of Jesus's sayings that the three synoptics drew on for a lot of their shared stories/parables/sayings. It's a common theory even among Christians. I even have a Catholic Bible with annotations that basically accepts "Q" as a given. I <em>hate</em> this theory, and here's why: there is absolutely no evidence for Q. Nothing. No mention of a "quote book" by the early Church Fathers, no fragments of manuscripts, nothing in the gnostic gospels, and certainly no mention of it by any of the Gospel authors or Epistle writers. It's a theory with absolutely no evidence. It's sort of like if we didn't know anything about gravity but we wanted to explain why things fall so we say, "Well, we don't know why apples and pears fall, so I think invisible strings lash around them and pull them to the ground, but they're so tiny and light that we don't even notice them." Is it technically impossible? I guess. And one of the prerequisites for this little thought experiment is that it doesn't contradict any known evidence. But it's obiously completely ridiculous because we're given no good reason to accept this as an explanation for why things fall. That's sort of what I think of the "Q" hypothesis. Does it explain some similarities between the synoptics? Sure. Does it contradict any evidence we have? No. Do we have a real reason to believe it? No, I don't think we do. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:32:31 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022702 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1022702 Phoenix Actually, no--this is a theory more radical than the old Q, which is normally cited in a dual-source context. :-) (And which does, iirc, have some support in the form of early references.) It's a theorized proto-narrative by an author who later tweaked it to form the basis of Mark. Wish I could find my notes about it--it was rather unusual and a bit counter-intuitive, though oddly persuasive by the end. I don't think I'd put a lot of weight, incidentally, on the "we've never found scraps" argument--if there's anything that should be clear after the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea discoveries, it's that a vast volume of religious and philosophical writings has been lost, some of it in its entirety, from this period. Shoot, we're missing huge chunks of much better-known and widely-disseminated philosophy and literature from the ancient world. How would it be surprising to lose a few notes important only to a minor sect? Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:59:52 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023198 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023198 MalcolmCooms Huh, that is interesting. If you figure out who put forth that theory I'd be interested to hear it. As to your point about missing manuscripts from that era, that's all true. It's theoretically <em>possible</em> that Q could exist. But I'm not making a "we never found scraps" argument. I'm making no argument, just saying that the burden of proof is on the people advancing the "Q" hypothesis-and they're giving no proof. Like my theoretical "gravity" argument, maybe it could turn out in my theoretical universe that it's very difficult to discover any scientific laws at all. That still doesn't give us a good reason to accept the "invisible strings" theory. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:07:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023238 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023238 beanza3 But that doesn't really matter. Whether they were eyewitnesses or not. (Well, it sorta does, but...) Only if it was a primary text (written IN the time the events were occuring, BY people who were there) does finding the dates really matter. You'd have to prove it was all/mostly written around 30 AD. Historically at least. Waiting 30 years doesn't really count it as a true primary source. Can't we all just agree it was written by holy poeple, many of which may have been there, some of which weren't? It being written by holy poeple automatically gives it credit (in a Christian sense) but not so much in a historical sense. :D Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:57:19 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023445 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023445 beanza3 The only thing I don't like about it is that he's dividing the world into Christians and atheists(non-christians) which is a gross over-simplication. But based on the starting question, with his intended audiance, I get it. Everything else I agree with... :D Really cool essay, but, he was a well-written guy, so... That's obvious. :D Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:06:30 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023494 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023494 MalcolmCooms I disagree. It DOES make a difference if it was written by eyewitnesses or not. You really don't think there's any difference in evidence presented by a guy who actually saw Jesus suffer, die, and get resurrected and a guy who merely heard about it? Put it this way: Imagine there's a murder of a big political prisoner. The government has its reasons for wanting this man executed and the trial is basically a mockery. However, it is known that there are eyewitnesses who could corroborrate whether or not this man committed the crimes he was accused of. They're afraid to come out though, because they know they'll be killed. Now let's imagine two scenarios, scenario A and scenario B. Scenario A: 40 years later a man writes a book about this political prisoner claiming that the evidence they used to convict him was completely false. However, it is known that this man never had any relationship with the political prisoner. All of the information that this man got was from friends of the political prisoner. None of the friends ever spoke up and claimed that this man ever actually spoke to them, but none of them ever denied it either. Scenario B: It is still 40 years later, but this time the man who wrote the book was known to be a close friend and follower of the political prisoner. He claims that everything he talks about in his book comes from his own memories of the time he spent with the political prisoner. You really think that Scenario A is just as likely to be true as Scenario B? Because I'd readily believe Scenario B first. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:32:30 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023631 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023631 Phoenix Well, "Q" is, of course, just a theory, one which was advanced to explain the discrepancies and different material in the various gospels. (My personal guess would be that the reality was much less tidy. ;-) ) However, I imagine there are good reasons for the persistence of belief in a Q-ish body of material, though I haven't made a close study of it; my interest lies primarily in medieval (and classical) history. But, returning to an earlier topic, I suppose that the entire discussion of gospel sources does serve to point up the fact that there's no scholarly consensus that any of the gospels was written by anyone who witnessed the events recorded. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:56:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023750 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1023750 Itzika I didn't say hearsay; I said oral tradition. And while oral tradition gets warped horribly over time, it wouldn't get warped beyond recognition in the short time between Jesus's death and the Gospels being written. As for John, my study bible says, and I agree, that John of Patmos and John the apostle are probably not the same person. Thanks for the information, though. I didn't know about those theories. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:59:46 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024069 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024069 Itzika Apparently this thread has gone from a discussion of the validity of Revelation (my original question) to a discussion of the validity of Christianity (not at all the point). I'm not sure why this happened, since I didn't say word one about anyone else's faith or lack thereof, but half the people on this thread seem to want to point out everything wrong with mine. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:09:44 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024124 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024124 MalcolmCooms Right, you need to remember that he had a specific audience in mind here, but it doesn't even need to be atheists he's addressing. I works just as well, in my opinion, for any non-Christian. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:38:31 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024285 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024285 MalcolmCooms Yeah, I was using "hearsay" and "oral tradition" pretty interchangably. I agree with you and I think that, especially because of the time period, oral tradition was actually more reliable than us moderns would think. As for John of Patmos and John the Apostle-I don't know. Maybe they were the same person, maybe not. I'd have to do more research before coming to a concrete conclusion on that. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:42:38 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024315 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024315 Phoenix Not a bad analogy. And quite an indictment of Pauline Christianity! ;-D Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:40:23 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024679 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024679 Itzika Except that if you accept the Bible as true, which if you're Christian you do, then Paul *did* know Jesus--he met him via a vision. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:44:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024693 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024693 Phoenix Even if one credits Paul's sincerity, his claim to know what Jesus thought and taught better than anyone else might be described as...well, "ludicrous" comes to mind. Paul was chiefly a consummate politician, imo. And quite a number of Christians don't read everything in the currently-accepted Bible as literally or wholly true. You yourself have been claiming, have you not, that the inclusion of John is an error? Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:28:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024893 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024893 larelmian Revelation is very symbolic. I don't think I could ever take what it says literally. But looking at it as the promise of eternal life for the righteous and as a representation of the struggle between good and evil, then it makes more sense. Even if I can't tell what each symbol means, I can still see some beautiful truths within it. A lot of the Bible is difficult to understand. I will admit that. And there's a lot we don't know. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:51:17 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024985 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024985 Itzika I'll give you that. Paul was the one to codify a lot of the laws, whether confirming or denying that they needed to be followed by Christians. His goal was to convert people. He did a good job of it. Though really, Jesus appeared to him once to convert him. I tend to think He would appear again if Paul was screwing up his message that badly. I think the inclusion of Revelation is an error. I also think John of Patmos isn't John the apostle, so my stance on Revelation says absolutely nothing about the Gospel of John. Aside from that, there's a great deal that I don't take as literally or wholly true. Most of it is from the Old Testament. I do take the story of Paul's conversion literally, because Saul seems to me to be the kind of person who wouldn't have been swayed by anything less. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:51:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024989 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1024989 Itzika But... there is no struggle. None. It's a Curb Stomp Battle. Evil never has a chance. Or is that what you're getting at? Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:55:44 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025004 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025004 larelmian Well, yes, in the long run, God will prevail. That is part of what Revelation says. The struggle is on a more personal level. It's up to individuals to overcome temptations. And God promises great blessings to those who overcome. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:00:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025022 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025022 Itzika But there aren't really many temptations either. There are false gods, who are much more blatant about their power than the real God. And I have more problems with that, but that's a whole other thing. But then there's the part that really annoys me, the part where God inflicts pain and torment on everyone and then expects them to worship Him. It just made me think of all the dictators who have had their people revolt recently. You don't worship a dictator. You overthrow him. We have agreed, as humans--flawed, wicked, sinful humans--that torture is evil. If God tortures us, then God is capable of evil, and a God who is capable of evil does not deserve our worship. How would you interpret that one? Basically, God is omnibenevolent, and nothing about Revelation can be interpreted as coming from an omnibenevolent God. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:10:33 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025042 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025042 larelmian I don't see God as a dictator, but rather a loving Father, who asks us to clean up our lives and stop hitting our brothers. And when we don't, we get in trouble. Did you ever get in trouble as a child? Was your parent a dictator or torturing you when you had to stand in the corner or whatever punishment they gave you? Revelation 3:19 says, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent." Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:23:04 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025070 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025070 Itzika Sure, I got in trouble. (Occasionally. I was a pretty good kid.) I got yelled at, I got grounded, I got no internet or video games or whatever was the problem. I never got hit. In my family it's pretty much agreed that corporal punishment is a bad thing. Psychologically, it's pretty much agreed that corporal punishment doesn't work. It makes you stop doing the bad thing only when the punisher is around. Which might work in this case, since God is always by our side, but... How many ways can you say "creepy"? That's not loving. Standing over your child to make sure they're always doing good is not loving. Following them to school to make sure they behave is not loving. It promotes resentment and your kid will always be looking for a way out. I don't care if you can be everywhere at once--you shouldn't have to do that. If you've raised your child properly, they should behave because they love you, which is why I behaved for my mom and why I am obedient to God now. Also, it's really, *really* not cool to met out the same punishment to the people who just don't know they're your kid as to the people who have gone around murdering your other children. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:32:54 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025085 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025085 larelmian Not all problems come as a result of punishment. For more on that, I'll just direct you to http://mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/ I hope you find the answers to the questions you're asking. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:34:27 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025089 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025089 Itzika Yeah, ah... I was kind of hoping the conversation wasn't going to go this route. I'm not Mormon. I don't agree with a lot of Mormon teachings. Like all of these: http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/fourteen Actually, could you confirm whether those are actual Mormon teachings? They seem a little... well, I'm confused as to how none of them ever came up when I was talking with the missionaries. Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:41:17 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025105 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025105 MalcolmCooms Well, I don't think scenario A is necessarily innaccurate. Just for me to accept it as true would require more than what it would take for scenario B to be true. I don't want to get into a full-fledged debate on evidence for the Gospel her. My point is simply that eyewitness accounts would have more immediate validity than hearsay accounts. That doesn't mean I discount any Gospels not written by eyewitnesses, it's just that for me to believe them there would need to be a pretty good reason. I like Luke a lot for that reason because he's a very accurate historian. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:15:18 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025546 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025546 MalcolmCooms I have my own reasons for not believing Mormonism. I've been down this road, so suffice to say that you'll not convince me. I like the Mormons though because at the very least they're very sincere, which is a lot less than can be said for many other Christian denominations (or rather, people within those denominations). Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:17:47 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025555 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025555 MalcolmCooms Paul did hang out with the Apostles a lot though, so my guess is that he learned a lot from them. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:19:51 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025563 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025563 MalcolmCooms 2 typos: Just for me to accept it as true would require more than what it would take for <strong>me to believe</strong> <strong>that</strong> scenario B <strong>is</strong> true. I don't want to get into a full-fledged debate on evidence for the Gospel her<strong>e</strong>. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:22:34 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025571 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025571 Lady_Indis_Dress Here's why I don't have a problem with Revelation as written, or with it being included in the Bible. 1) in the ultimate battle of good versus evil, things are going to have to get ugly. 2) highly symbolic, and was written in language and imagery that would have been understood at the time. 3) the world today is looking very much like it's headed in that direction. 4) I don't have a problem with a God who is both loving and vengeful. It's in the scripture. We were made in His image. Clearly He is more than just a nice jolly guy up in the sky. He's complex. And we are not meant to understand Him at this point. The mystery will be revealed in time, as promised (in the Book of Revelation as well as elsewhere in scripture). 5) I don't have a problem with temporary physical suffering because I believe in an afterlife that provides recompense for those who are innocent and/or choose to follow the true path. The afterlife is a key component for me. 6) not all non-believers/non-Christians are going to burn for eternity. Jesus said "No man comes to the Father but through me." That's about judgement day, not about which building you do or do not go to on holy days. 7) Revelation by itself is not meant to be taken as complete. There is no chance of understanding it as a stand-alone. You have to tie in other things from scripture including the words of Jesus himself. It was also written to be undechiperable to all except those who see the things happen. Whether you believe that was the people of the first century A.D. or is yet to come is up to you. 8) This could be considered a quibble but...I don't see God as crushing people in Revelation. Much of it actually speaks of Satan's causing our misery and God just not stopping it. Allowing it to happen to us is not the same as inflicting it upon us. And Jesus leads the forces of God against the forces of Satan, not against humanity as a whole. If you're fighting on Satan's side you're going to be in trouble. By the time that happens everyone will have had sufficient exposure to the truth that there won't be anyone who just "didn't know" about God and about Jesus. The only people fighting on that side will be those who conciously chose to reject the truth. I happen to think there will be atheists who will be fighting against the forces of evil at that point, because ALL human beings are hardwired to know the difference between right and wrong. There will be some, hopefully many, who instinctively shy away from the bad guys. And there will be time to repent. In fact there are plenty of chances given even throughout Revelation. God gives us practically til the very last minute, and even then He doesn't make the decisions, Jesus does and only based on the choices we made while we were on earth. God doesn't send us to Hell, we send ourselves. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:48:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025839 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1025839 Phoenix You regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination, then? Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:07:31 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026447 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026447 MalcolmCooms In polite conversation I don't want to make that an issue here but if you want to get technical no, I do not. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:31:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026534 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026534 MalcolmCooms Just a quick question. In the last paragraph you said, "God gives us practically til the very last minute, and even then He doesn't make the decisions, Jesus does and only based on the choices we made while we were on earth." You don't consider Jesus, God, then? Just the Messiah and Son of God? I'm just wondering. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:35:21 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026549 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026549 beanza3 Well, from the historical perspective, either way it's flawed. So, that way, either way it's practically down the drain. From the religious perspective, if you believe in the Christian God and that these were holy men, you believe they were in some way, shape or form guided by God, and so then, they'd be pretty accurate, right? So, in my opinion it doesn't really matter. Agree to disagree? :D Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:54:23 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026796 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1026796 Lady_Indis_Dress Well that gets into the trilogy which I consider part of the mystery. It's beyond my puny human understand how God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit can be one and separate at the same time. But I don't have to understand it. So it's not exactly that I consider Jesus to not be God as I make the distinction that Jesus is a part of God who has been here and faced the same temptations we face. God the Father has not done the human thing. God the Son has. It's usually easier to explain to others by speaking of them as separate entities...which they are...except that they're not. See my point? Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:50:04 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029414 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029414 Lady_Indis_Dress that should be "puny human understanding" in the second sentence. Oh, for an EDIT button! Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:51:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029421 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029421 beanza3 I know that, but he seperates the world into Christians and atheists/doubting Christians. He doesn't involve anyone who may believe in something else. But, since I know that's not his audiance (I think I said that above) I'm okay with it. It's just a very limited perspective. Because of the original question, if your asking that, you probably don't really believe in another religion... *shrugs* That's the way I look at it. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:47:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029771 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1029771 MalcolmCooms So would you consider them three seperate persons but one being? Because that's the official Catholic understanding. Three different persons who are all one God. In more technical philosophical terms we consider the Trinity to be three seperate persons but one substance-the substance of God. In the Religious genre section I wrote a very detailed post on the Trinity inside of the "Trinitarianism" thread but this is the simplified view. Does this sound about right to you? I'm not asking you to take this view, I'm just wondering if you do. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:27:13 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031197 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031197 MalcolmCooms For the record, I think it's a mystery too-but I still think we should try and understand as much as we could. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:28:31 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031203 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031203 MalcolmCooms But I'd prefer a good historical reason to believe these are holy men. Now, I think there is one, swo it's not an issue to me. And historically both are <em>flawed</em>, yes, but neither are down the drain at all and I think that scenario B is far more likely to be true than the first. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a circular argument here. It seems to me as if you're saying: 1. I believe in the Christian God because of the testimony of the Gospels. 2. I believe in the testimony of the Gospels because I believe they were written by holy men. 3. I believe that the writers were holy men because they were inspired by God to write the Gosepls. 4. And I believe that the Christian God inspired the evangelists to write the Gospels because of the testimony of the Gospels Your argument seems to me to be circular. In a nutshell you're saying "I believe in the Christian God because of the Bible and I believe in the Bible because I believe in the Christian God." It seems as if you're repeating your premise in the conclusion. To boil it down even more succintly it sounds to me as if you're saying "There's no good reason for me to believe the Gospels are reliable but I do anyway." Am I misunderstanding this? If not, what reasons do you have for believing the Gospels are telling the truth about the Christian God? I'm sorry I didn't accept your polite offer to agree to disagree, I'm just not understanding you here. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:40:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031269 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031269 MalcolmCooms I think that what he says applies to people of other religions though too. He's just not directly addressing those people. Like, if somebody is an honest, earnest member of another religion then even though he's technically "wrong" from the Christian perspective he can be saved because, according to Lewis, God probably won't punish somebody for being in honest error. He talks specifically about atheists but I think his words to atheists apply just as well to those of another religion. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:46:10 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031301 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031301 Itzika I... think it makes perfect sense. I also think Jesus being both fully human and fully divine makes perfect sense. Does that make me a bad Christian? Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:58:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031393 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031393 MalcolmCooms No, when did I say that? Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:00:46 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031405 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031405 Itzika Why do you believe in God, then? I haven't actually asked many Christians this question. I've gotten a prudential answer, and the "It makes more sense than anything else" answer. The sense I get is that the majority would say "Because I have faith," which translates in my mind to "No reason." None of those really satisfy me. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:07:12 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031461 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031461 Itzika You didn't. Lady_Indis_Dress just implied that human understanding wasn't sufficient to grasp it, and it reminded me of the quote "If you understand quantum physics and aren't boggled by it, you don't understand quantum physics." So I wondered if implying that God is understandable by "mere humans" is arrogant. It was also partly a joke. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:10:02 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031480 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031480 MalcolmCooms Oh, gotcha. Sorry for the confusion. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:14:10 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031508 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031508 MalcolmCooms I agree with you wholeheartedly about none of the answers satisfying me. I believe in God because of the proofs of Thomas Aquinas (which were really just expanded upon proofs originally conceived by Aristotle). I won't get into a debate about the validity of the proofs here (I've done that, gotten badly beaten, did more research, and am now comfortable with my conclusions as well as more careful with what I say), but I do think they're valid. For me, faith comes after acceptance of the existence of God and the validity of the Gospels. The way I see it: 1. I believe in God because of the proofs of Aquinas. 2. I believe in Christianity because I think the conception of God in the Old Testament as "I am" fits with the Thomistic conception of God, I think the Gospel story of Jesus's birth, passion, and resurrection fits astoundingly well with the Thomistic conception of God and as an incredibly theologically rich fulfillment of the Old Testament and don't find that to be merely coincidental, and most importantly I think there are valid historical reasons to accept the Gospels as accurate. (3a. From here I look at history and decide that the Catholic Church is most likely to be correct, but most Christians don't make this step. I'd be dishonest not to include it though. And honestly, accepting this step is tantamount to accepting step 3, just all at once, but I'll lay out step 3 in detail either way. Also, this Catholic step would include Sacred Tradition, a whole other kettle of fish!) 3. Acts of the Apostles fits astounding well with historical evidence so I definitely believe that Acts is incredibly accurate. I also notice that all of the remaining books in the New Testament once again fit incredibly well with both a Thomistic conception of God and the Gospel message, so I believe them. 4. Now that I believe that Jesus is real and the New Testament tells the truth about him I have faith that all of things Jesus promises us are true as well. This is faith. I don't believe in blind faith. It must be wed with reason. I have faith that if I realize I am a sinner and repent, then Jesus will save me. I might not have proof but I trust Jesus, so I have faith in what He tells me. Make sense? Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:30:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031631 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1031631 Itzika Yep. Perfect sense. And much more valid than blind faith. Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:45:44 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1032105 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1032105 Lady_Indis_Dress No, I implied (or rather said outright) that MY human understanding wasn't sufficient. Not anyone else's. Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:01:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1033681 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1033681 Lady_Indis_Dress Agreed on both points, Malcolm. Though try as I might there will always be things beyond my grasp. Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:02:08 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1033686 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1033686 Itzika Okay. I read it with the emphasis on "human" rather than "my". Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:44:16 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034021 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034021 beanza3 I guess. I'm just saying believers of other religions probably wouldn't care, beacause they believe that they're right. *shrugs* I wouldn't ask the same thing about Daoism, or Islam, or Hinduism because I believe that I'm right. And thus, they wouldn't be asking the question because of that. And he does mention Confusius which makes his stance applicable. But they're not the target audiance... Do you also feel like we share the same opinion and just insist on expressing it in different ways? &gt;.&lt; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:27:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034706 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034706 MalcolmCooms Yes, I think we do share the same opinion. You're right-people of other religions would roll their eyes at the essay because they think they're right and we're wrong. But the essay is starting off with a premise. The premise is, "Christianity is true." Right, we have that premise. So from there he talks about "Well what about non-religious people?" and explains that if they're very honestly non-religious, as in, they really, truly think that they're right with whole-hearted earnestness, then they can probably be saved. Lewis never states it in his essay, but it would follow from that that if somebody is very honestly convinced that their religion (not Christianity), whatever it may be, is correct with whole-hearted earnestness they will probably not be going to Hell. I think we agree on that. You can see a good example of Lewis's view on this in his book <em>The Last Battle</em> of Chronicles of Narnia fame. One of the followers of the false god Tash ends up being saved using basically the same logic that Lewis uses in this essay. Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:32:52 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034877 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1034877 queenoftheoutlands I'm not one for debates, so I'm just going to put in my opinion, which is that Revelation hurts my head, so I generally ignore it :) Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:53:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1041019 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1041019 beanza3 Well I was working off a basis that God exists because I assumed that you were Christian, or at least I am. If your christian, you believe in God, and therefore, either way the Bible is pretty dang correct, because it was written bny his followers. But working off a basis God doesn't exist (historical) then it doesn't matter whether they were witnesses or not, because so much time has past, that the book wouldn't be considered completely historically accurate. That was my only point.... Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:08:14 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1041330 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1041330 Itzika I am Christian. I also have reasons for believing in God. If I didn't, I would find another religion where I did have reasons for believing. Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:58:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042037 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042037 beanza3 Okay... Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:36:41 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042564 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042564 Itzika If faith is enough for you, then that's fine. It's not enough for me--never has been. Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:14:46 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042715 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042715 MalcolmCooms I think there's some confusion here about what people mean when they say "faith". I don't think I mean the same thing that beanza does. To me, faith is something you get after you come to the conclusion that God exists and Christianity is true. I don't use faith to <em>come</em> to the conclusion that God exists and Christianity is true. Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:36:00 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042831 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1042831 White Lily I'm not a big fan of the Revelation. Don't get it, really ... but there are many things in the Bible I don't get. In both Testaments. And we can't just skip the OT and say it has no meaning after NT, because Jesus said something like "every word in the scripture will be fulfilled" - and that includes the Old Testament ... That said, I ofter wonder ... IF the author of Revelation really DID get a glimpse into the future ... He wouldn't have had a clue about what he saw. Everything we take fro granted would make his head hurt - cars, planes, rifles ... No wonder it's hard to understand if he tried to describe that with his own words. Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:59:01 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1070235 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1070235 beanza3 I was confused at your reply... How I come to my conclusions wasn't relevent, because I believe it's different for every person. I started a few steps ahead. You said you're Christian. You have your reasons for believing in God. Thus, you must believe the Bible is pretty true. But I was just highlighting the fact that, if you're working from a historical perspective (as it doesn't matter/God doesn't exist) then, it wouldn't be considered as historically accurate as it would've been if it'd been written during the time Jesus was alive. That's all. O.o Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:09:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1071806 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1071806 Earthsick I think it's funny what rock I broke loose. Please go on discussing because this is really fun. We can't know for sure anyway. Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:21:32 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1087376 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1087376 xxbvbarmygirlxx So long as it's in the Bible, it's enough for me. It's God's will for it to be there or else He wouldn't let it be spread and everyone learn it, I'm sure. See, 'cause if anyone comes to the point of God-consciousness, and goes on positive signals toward believing after that, they will hear Doctrine. That's just the way it works. So even though we have volition and can pick to to print fake stuff in the Bible, I'm sure it wouldn't be so widespread if it wasn't God's will, and if it's God's will for it to be spread as truth, it is truth. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:51:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102078 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102078 Itzika You realize that the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon were also spread as truth? And if you believe the Bible, you probably don't believe either of those. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:07:59 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102136 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102136 xxbvbarmygirlxx I'm not saying anything that's said as truth should be believed. But those are by humans pretending to know things from God. Or Allah, in the case of Muslims. See, God doesn't say those are truth. He didn't write them or help people write them. They're falsity and lies though perhaps there may be some good concepts in both. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:15:50 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102140 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102140 Phoenix It must be cool to be so special as to know which things God really says as opposed to things that other people just *think* that God has said. Of course, there's that embarrassing business about the Bible, its translation, and its interpretation changing over time...and the fact that quite a few other religions predate it. Seems a bit careless of God to have withheld Truth for so long and to have given it to so few. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:18:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102856 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1102856 MalcolmCooms You make good points, but I'll hold my tongue because I'm not interested into getting into such a complex debate on the subject. In any case I'll merely say that your question is not a new one and hundreds-maybe thousands-of theologians have sspent a great deal of time writing thoughtful, intelligent answers. Whether you're convinced by them is your own matter. I'm certainly not saying you are or will be. I'm just pointing out that your question isn't exactly a new one. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:12:28 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103461 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103461 Phoenix Of course it isn't; it just seems to have been overlooked by the earlier poster. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:34:57 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103681 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103681 Itzika You pretty much said it as well as I could, honestly. I wouldn't believe in God if my only evidence was the Bible. I spent a lot of time not believing in God when that was my only evidence, actually. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:11:26 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103764 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103764 Itzika I thought you were replying to my question--which may just be a flaw of the new forums--in which case it would have been very relevant. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:12:46 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103768 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1103768 MalcolmCooms Oh, my mistake. I misunderstood your comment. Sorry about that, threads like this tend to make me very cautious which tends to have the unfortunate flip side of very reactionary. Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:08:33 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1108896 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1108896 XVisiEX This thread has been a very interesting read @.@ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:06:20 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1111768 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1111768 Horselover150 The book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John in his old age when he was exiled on an island. He knew the Lord Jesus Christ and was in fact one of his disciples. If you say that the book or Revelation is false and it is no good, then what can you say about the rest of the Bible? If you think that one book out of the whole Bible, which claims to be the whole word of God, is wrong and false and not the word of God, then is the rest of the BIble the word of God? Not in that way of thinking. The book of Revelation was written by John with God using something called Plenary Verbal Inspiration. God inspired John as to what to say.No one left anything out of the Bible, every book in the Bible is there for a reason and anything that is not in there is not in there for a reason. If you research all of the books of the Bible and if you research some other religious books that aren't in the Bible, then you will realize why they aren't in the Bible. All of the Books of the BIble fit together and are cohesive. And yes, Jesus will kill people. The people that he will kill have already been given ample chance to repent of their sins and to choose Jesus as their Savior. The Book of Revelation is a true prophecy as to what is coming when Jesus comes back. The Book of Revelation doesn't go against Jesus's teachings. Yes, Jesus told us to love our enemies and to care for our enemies, but he also said in Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD." God doesn't want us to take care of our troubles, God wants to take care of them for us. If you take away the Book of Revelation, you take away the deity of God because you are calling Him a liar by saying that the Book of Revelation is not the Word of God. Which Bible version did you read, anyhow? Some of the Bible versions are inaccurate and some of them cut out whole verses and chapters. Try reading the King James Version(KJV). It is the most accurate as it was translated into English from the orginal Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew manuscripts. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:25:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1111845 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1111845 Itzika You do know it's under debate as to whether the John who wrote the Gospel of John was the same John who wrote Revelation, right? And what's your stance on the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books in that case? And the fact that Orthodox churches leave Revelation out of their in-service readings? Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:33:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112126 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112126 Phoenix There is no scholarly consensus regarding the authorship of Revelation. And the King James Bible is now widely acknowledged to be a simply dreadful translation. Your argument is essentially circular and unsupported by anything beyond your conviction that you recognize the *real* words of God when you read them. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:38 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112733 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112733 MalcolmCooms I've never actually read the King James Bible translation but since it's very popular I'd be interested to see your sources on why the KJV is a bad translation. Would you be willing to post them, please? Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:36:32 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112853 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1112853 Horselover150 I only use the King James Translation and I have several pamphlets showing how it is the only true version. Most of the modern versions(not the KJV) were translated from faulty manuscripts. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:57:15 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113158 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113158 Horselover150 I think that if the Apocyrpha was supposed to be in the Bible it would be. The BIble as it is has been around for almost 600 years. IF there had been an error and IF books had been left out, then the error would have been corrected by now. There are many religions that are similar to Christianity and some that even take the name Christian, but they aren't Christian. Yes, by literal deifinition, a Christian is anyone that believes that Christ lived on earth and died and rose again. But there are a lot of pseudo-Christian churches out there that are just playing church, and they give true Christianity a bad name. I believe that John wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. My Bible says that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95. We know that by that time John was very old. Accordding to Wikipedia, the Apostle John lived to approximately A.D. 100 and he walked with Jesus Christ. If we take that information into perspective, John knew Jesus, wrote the Gospel of John, and he was old enough to write the book of Revelation. Just because the Orthodox church leaves the book of Revelation out of their teaching, that doesn't mean that it isn't true. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:09:19 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113184 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113184 Horselover150 My Bible says that the book of Matthew was written around A.D. 50(approximately 20 years after Jesus died and rose again), the book of Mark was written approximately A.D. 68, the book of Luke was witten approximately A.D. 60, and the book of John was written around A.D. 85-90. If you are a true Christian, then you believe that the Bible is the true and infallible Word of God. It doesn't change and every single part of it is true and correct. By arguing that certain parts of it don't belong, you are saying that the Word of God is not true and that it is fallible. If you take away a book or even a chapter, you are saying that you don't believe in the Bible. Because, if that part is wrong, what keeps the rest of it from being wrong? Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:15:06 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113207 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113207 Horselover150 Hmm, I don't think that it is "fun", but it certainly is interesting because it tells us what will happen in the last days. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:15:54 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113211 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113211 Phoenix Sorry--don't have sources per se; the quality of the KJV was just one of those things mentioned in passing in college history and historiography classes. In general, though, there are a couple of key issues. One is that we now have more and better (earlier) source materials, also more and better linguists, translators, and cultural historians. The other is that the KJV "authors" brought a considerable agenda to the project, and it shows in their choice of pretty over accurate, in their Christianizing of the OT, and in their slanting of the translation to favor or reinforce the C of E doctrines of the time. Iirc, the leading Hebrew scholar of the time denounced it as rubbish. Many people love it just for the language and for the weighty, traditional feel, but I think that, as a historical document, it provides a much better snapshot of 17th-century England than of anything else. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:04:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113345 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113345 Itzika The Apocrypha ARE in the Bible. They're just not in the Protestant Bible. Catholics still take them as divine word. And Revelation was originally in the Apocrypha. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:08:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113353 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113353 Itzika So what did that class say is a good translation? Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:09:07 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113355 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113355 Horselover150 The Apocrypha is a group of books that is not included in the Biblical Canon due to the fact that it doesn't mesh with the rest of the Bible. The Catholic Bible and the Christian Bible are quite different. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:11:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113360 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113360 Phoenix [quote=Horselover150] I only use the King James Translation and I have several pamphlets showing how it is the only true version. [/quote] Ah, pamphlets! I've got those, too. I've got a cool one that proves that George W. Bush is the illegitimate grandson of Hitler and another that proves that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. My favorite, though, is the one that proves irrefutably that the world will end in May 2010. But it's cool that you read Aramaic and Koine and learned epigraphy and all so that you can distinguish the good from the "faulty" manuscripts. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:14:59 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113369 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113369 Itzika No. The Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is divinely <em>inspired,</em> not divinely dictated. You're confusing the Bible and the Qur'an. The story of the Qur'an is that Allah put words in Muhammad's mouth. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is not like that. It is humans writing down what has been divinely inspired in them to say. If you want proof, compare the stories told in the Gospels. They're not word-for-word identical, even when telling the exact same stories. Therefore, the entire Bible can't be true and correct. I believe Jesus is God. That makes me a Christian. But I also believe that God didn't come down from Heaven and write the Bible Himself, because he <em>didn't.</em> Humans wrote it. And that means that it's subject to a little thing called "human error." I also don't believe the world was created in six days, because God has gone to a great amount of trouble to provide evidence to the contrary; and I don't believe the rainbow only came into existence after a great flood, because I find the idea that God would add some major scientific laws halfway in absolutely ridiculous. I am still a Christian, and I still believe in the Bible as a whole. And you, my friend, are taking the wrong parts of the Bible literally. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:15:09 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113370 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113370 Itzika So Catholics aren't Christian in your little world. That's... wow. That's some impressive denial you have there. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:16:30 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113372 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113372 Phoenix "...It doesn't change and every single part of it is true and correct..." If that were true we'd still be reading it in the original languages, and we'd be reading every single gospel produced, because if someone wrote them, God obviously inspired them. So let's all learn Aramaic and Koine and enjoy the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Judas, and Mary, yeah? Staggering as it may seem, quite a number of excellent Christians understand that the Bible was written and compiled by a number of very fallible humans. Yup, parts may be wrong. It may be wrong in its entirety. Hundreds of repetitions of that old chestnut "You know that the Bible is true because it says it is." don't alter that possibility. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:31:17 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113413 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113413 MalcolmCooms Wow, I didn't know that I'm not Christian. Looks like I'll have to call my pedophile Pope and have him send out the Jesuits to silence you for your slight against the Catholic Church. I mean, if we don't shut you up now you'll be spreading all sorts of our secrets, like how we're actually the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the antichrist, or about how we worship statues and believe that all Protestants are going to Hell. Oooooh, perhaps I've said too much... Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:18:03 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113752 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113752 MalcolmCooms ...BTW, if you want to get really technical (just to cover our bases) the Apocrypha is also part of the Protestant Bible. It's just not technically canonical Scripture. That doesn't mean that the books have no merit or don't contain any (or even a lot of) theological merit. They're just not considered to be on the inerrant level of the rest of Scripture. All of this comes from conversations with a Lutheran I know. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:23:19 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113767 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113767 Bicicletta "Allah" means God in Arabic. Your comment appears to imply that Allah does not refer to God; that's like saying only the English translation counts. Many Arab Christians also refer to God as "Allah." Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:26:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113781 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113781 MalcolmCooms The Catholic Church's explanation is actually quite complex, and most Catholics don't even realize it. For example, we don't actually consider the modern translations inerrant. We consider the original versions, in the original languages they were written in, inerrant-and we consider the Latin Vulgate inerrant only on matters of faith and morals. Modern Bibles could have any number of errors due to translation. And we also realize that the humans who wrote the Bible were very fallible indeed and take that into account. Does this raise a whole host of other problems and questions that all need to be addressed? Of course! But it does, at least, give you some idea of the complexity of the issue. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:29:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113795 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1113795 Phoenix Oh, golly...it's been 40 years... One of my classes used the New English Bible. Another used one of the other modern translations, probably the New American. I think the question is what you're using it for. If you're trying to get a sense of what the message might have sounded like to its first audience, then you might like a more literal translation--and a short course in the cultural context and referents. However much one might think of a message as eternal, any expression of it is an artifact of a particular place and time. So you have to decide whether your needs are best served by a formal equivalence or a dynamic equivalence or even a paraphrastic translation. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:09:53 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114353 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114353 Phoenix I knew it! I knew it! Ha! Your eeeevil is now revealed!!! (While I'm not really a fan of Christianity in any of its variants, I do think it's ludicrous to imply that Catholics are less "Christian" than any other group. Oy.) Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:52:51 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114410 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114410 Horselover150 Look, I am not saying the the Catholic church is the antichrist or that the Pope is evil, but the way that the Catholic church is set up, you basically have to go through the Pope and the priests to get to God. I guess that i will have to dig up a video about the Canonicity of the Bible and post it on Youtube for you guys. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:28:52 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114624 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114624 Horselover150 No, I can't read Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew--yet. I am planning on being a Linguist/Missionary. Believing what I have been taught is no different than you believing what you have been taught, but I have proof. Every time that the Bible has stated some scientific fact, the "scientists" of the age have said "No, that can't be right. The BIble must be wrong." And then the scientists discover that "Oops, the Bible was right!" Examples of this are the heliocentric solar system, ocean currents, and the Hittites. Anwyas, back to the debate. The people that put together the pamphlets are respectable people, pastors, and Bible scholars, not some maniac trying to get their claim to fame. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:38:07 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114639 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114639 Horselover150 If you go back and read one of my other posts, I said that the Word of God(the Bible) was written by Plenary Verbal Inspiration. The Gospels were written by four different men. God used human beings to write the Bible, not automatons. The whole idea of plenary verbal inspiration is that God, using the Holy Spirit, inspired them to write the books of the BIble. If you have four different men and not four different automatons, you are probably going to get different parts of Jesus ministry. Some Gospels contain more specific accounts of certain miracles and Jesus' works. You don't believe that the world was created in six days? You think that God gives us proof that it wasn't created in six days? Please give the evidence, because pretty much every thing points to a literal six day creation. For example, the plants were made before the sun and stars were made, and we all know that plants need the sun so that they can create chloryphyll so that they can survive, correct? Are you also saying that you don't believe in the Flood? Because if you're saying that, we're going to have to debate on that, too. As to me taking the wrong parts of the Bible literally, which parts am I taking too literally? You can't "believe in the Bible as a whole." You either believe it or you don't. Also, please tell me what parts of the BIble I am taking too literally, really I am interested to know what I am doing so that I can tell if it is wrong or not. If I am doing what you say that I am doing, I shall correct myself, otherwise, I shall not correct myself because I will have been correct. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:50:25 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114657 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114657 Itzika The Bible depends on a non-heliocentric solar system. There's one point where the sun stops in the sky. If the Earth stopped its rotation, there would be tidal waves and other disasters. That story depends on the sun revolving around the Earth. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:15:13 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114844 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114844 Itzika Evolution. Look it up. There's way more evidence for evolution than there is for the world being created in six days or humans being created wholecloth from mud. Any site you cite can be refuted by five others. The parts of the Bible you should take literally are the ones about loving your neighbor, forgiving those who wrong you, and giving what you own to the poor--in other words, Jesus's teachings. That's what makes you a Christian. Believing <em>everything</em> the Bible says makes you a fundamentalist and ill-equipped to survive in the world. And really, this is not the point of this thread. The point was the validity of Revelation. You have stated your opinion on that. If you want to debate the literal truth of the Bible, I recommend making a new thread. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:18:49 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114851 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1114851 MalcolmCooms Yeah, your one youtube posting will convince me that my beliefs are wrong. I'm sure it will be so good that the hours and hours of arguments I've looked at, both Catholic and non-Catholic, to come to the conclusion that I have now will be completely overturned by your one video. Because I've never ever read arguments about the canon of Scripture or about how we have to "go through Priests" to get to God before, right? Oh, wait, I have-and I've come to my own conclusions about them. I find the fact that you think that you can convince me that my firmly held and well-researched beliefs are wrong with one video rather insulting, actually. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:58:42 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115568 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115568 MalcolmCooms Not really. All the story depends on is a particular optical occurrence of the sun <em>appearing</em> to stop in the sky. The people of the time period would, of course, all be convinced that the sun had actually stopped. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:00:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115572 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115572 Phoenix In a word: nonsense. You have no "proof;" you've studied nothing in a context broader than your handful of "respectable" "experts". The Bible's track record with regard to both history and science is piss-poor. (Oh, and I've been taught by actual scholars at an actual top-ten university which has--unlike your pamphleteers--no particular agenda apart from uncovering or debating truth.) Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:18:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115605 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115605 Phoenix That effectively leaves you with *no* surviving inerrant version, then? And would apply only to the originally penned copy, since transcription error starts to show up immediately? Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:23:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115613 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115613 MalcolmCooms I'm going to be totally and fully honest with you here: I honestly don't know how this is all worked out. I know a decent amount I suppose, but in Catholic theology this is extremely high level scholarly stuff we're talking about. You wouldn't think that it would be this complex, but it really is. I know somebody who has a masters degree in this subject and when I asked him about this (he told me about it in the first place) he basically said that to have everything explained I'd have to take a graduate class. So I'm afraid that there's not much more I could do to help you. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:45:07 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115654 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115654 Horselover150 I wasn't thinking that I would actually convince you, I was thinking that maybe it would clarify where I am coming from. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:12:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115815 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115815 Horselover150 [quote=Phoenix] In a word: nonsense. You have no "proof;" you've studied nothing in a context broader than your handful of "respectable" "experts". The Bible's track record with regard to both history and science is piss-poor. (Oh, and I've been taught by actual scholars at an actual top-ten university which has--unlike your pamphleteers--no particular agenda apart from uncovering or debating truth.) [/quote] The Bible's record is ompletely accurate. Look up the Hittites, until the 1900's historians said that the Bible was wrong and that such a people froup had never existed. And then they found an archeological site and they discovered the Hittites. That is only one insntance! Also, many universities have agendas, but they cover them up.. Which university did you go to? I am curious. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:14:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115824 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115824 MalcolmCooms I know exactly where you are coming from. I just think it's insulting and completely devoid of real factual evidence. I have seen the arguments you're advocating, and I believe them to be ridiculous. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:25:01 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115850 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1115850 Phoenix Sticky issues! Personally, I think that one could easily make the case that if the message is good enough--or "true" enough--then it will survive and transcend the differences in culture, language, and so on. But how to prove that...? Frankly, I don't know that we're entirely sure exactly what the message *was*--or was supposed to be. I'm not sure there's even a good enough consensus on what part of the gospels might actually be Jesus speaking and how *he* might have defined his core message. We know that the gospels were being tweaked right from the beginning and that not all the "Jesus material" was committed to paper--the gospels themselves tell us that. Given the political situation and the context of the times, one might reasonably suspect that early Christians conceived of their faith as a mystery religion and didn't commit key teachings to paper. If that were true, and given the power struggles among early Christians, how sure is anyone that all of the unwritten material survived? (I know that the Catholic Church is--at least publicly--quite certain they've preserved it all, but they'd have to be, wouldn't they? ;-) I'll withhold judgement on that one.) Tangentially--I wonder if you've read Tepper's After Long Silence? She makes a quiet--but emphatic--point about Truth and individual perceptions. You might find it interesting. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:08:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116142 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116142 Phoenix Yeah, Biblical "scholars" leapt to identify the Hatti as the Hittites of the Bible. They also enthusiastically championed the notion that archeologists had discovered a "Flood layer" of silt in early Near East excavations. The Hatti were never "lost," and there's considerable debate about whether they were in fact the Biblical Hittites. There is, however, no doubt that the "Flood layer" is completely bogus; there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood. Bible scholars of a certain sort are dreadfully prone to seize on random evidence--often of dubious value--to shore up their interpretation of the Bible Did you know that until last decade there was not one scrap of archaeological evidence that the entire "House of David" even existed? I attended the University of Chicago. You'll find its agenda in its motto: Crescat scientia; vita excolatur. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:29:16 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116178 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116178 Phoenix In fairness, though, Malcolm, I do think a YouTube video is *way* more apt to be credible than a pamphlet. One *could* film an actual scholarly lecture, whereas a pamphlet is pretty much guaranteed to be pure predigested propaganda, neatly arranged with bullet points. So...you know...it could be a step up. Possibly a hair less insulting. Maybe. Just sayin'. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:36:41 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116185 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116185 Phoenix [quote=Itzika] Evolution. Look it up. There's way more evidence for evolution than there is for the world being created in six days or humans being created wholecloth from mud. [/quote] Actually, there's *no* evidence that the world was created in six days. (And of course none of the Flood.) ("If I am doing what you say that I am doing, I shall correct myself, otherwise, I shall not correct myself because I will have been correct." Nearly sense-free...and incorrect.) Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:09:13 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116248 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116248 MalcolmCooms That's true enough in principle. But here's the thing-the youtube video may be a scholarly lecture, but I know exactly what the arguments will be. I was nearly convinced by them (I nearly became a Presbyterian, and then an atheist). The fact is, in my opinion as a pretty well-researched, battle hardened Catholic I've come to the conclusion not only that the claim that Catholics need to "go to the Pope to get to God" doesn't hold any water but that for somebody to believe this claim they'd either have to have a deep-seated, if honestly held, blind prejudice against Catholics, or they'd have to be lying. I mean, to be fair I will say I've met nice people, some family, who have held that belief, and I've let it slide because I know that they weren't actually trying to offend me and sincerely believed what they did. But I also knew that none of them had done anything close to what might be called "doing their homework". And I did tell them that. Anybody who has done any research into that claim should know it's total, utter hogwash. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:25:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116284 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116284 Itzika Well, the Bible says so. Stories are evidence of a kind. Very flimsy evidence that wouldn't hold up for any rational person, but it works for some people. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:29:50 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116297 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116297 MalcolmCooms "After Long Silence", huh? That'll go on my list along with "God's War" and "The Screwtape Letters" as religious reading list books (this is a new list, so it's small). (And yes, for the record The Screwtape Letters is fiction, but from the couple of chapters I've read it looks to be a theological gold mine, like most of Lewis's work. I like his "inner-Christianity" theology a lot-he won't convince anybody to become a Christian with his arguments, but if you're already a Christian I think he offers a lot of theological insight.) Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:31:35 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116300 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116300 MalcolmCooms I tend to think of the flood as allegorical, but I think there's some debate on the translation of the word "world" as in, "The flood covered the whole world" (extremely inaccurate paraphrase, but you get my meaning). I've seen a few arguments where they try and claim that "world" actually only refers to a very large area. The matter never much interested me since I considered the debate rather pointless, but I have no idea what the value of the scholarship on such claims/translations is. Accepting that it is an allegory (which I do), I find it interesting that so many different ancient cultures have flood stories. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because the center of these civilizations is almost always based around a source of water (Rome along the Tiber, Babylon by the Tigris and Euphrates, the capital-of-Egypt-whose-name-I-forget by the Nile, et cetera). Of course, this raises another question: Why did the ancient Greeks have a flood story? Their city-states were located in many different isolated areas not necessarily close to water. I guess the best theory for the Greeks is that the sea was an essential part of trade and intercultural communication? After all, without the sea there wouldn't even be a shared Greek mythology. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:41:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116319 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116319 MalcolmCooms Actually, it doesn't even need to depend on an optical illusion technically. God simply could have stopped the Earth for a moment and then used His "powers" (it sounds as if I'm talking about a superhero, but I have to use this term for lack of a better word) to keep disaster from occurring all over the rest of the Earth. I mean, I suppose the optical illusion thing would be more simple, but hey, I don't know... Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:54:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116341 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116341 Phoenix Fair point. In this particular instance you really aren't going to hear anything that hasn't already been said--probably better--many, many times in the past several centuries. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:44:19 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116865 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116865 Phoenix I think that there are a couple of good candidates for big floods in the Near East, and both, iirc, were the result of glacial melting after the last Ice Age. The Greeks could easily have picked up the story on their way to Greece--they were relatively new invaders, after all. Which raises the question of whether the other Indo-European groups also have flood myths. If not all do, it should be possible to figure out the point of origin for the story. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:01:18 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116884 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116884 Phoenix I found Screwtape wicked funny, as I recall. If I hadn't mentioned it before, you might find Shute's Round the Bend an interesting read. It's also fiction, but it's a thought-provoking read in its quiet way. Often, I think, it takes a good work of fiction to provide a genuinely different perspective on life and ideas. Possibly the most disconcerting novel I've read is Grant's Winged Pharoah, which is steeped in an understanding of "justice" that is so removed from the Western Judeo-Christian norm that it initially gave me the mental stutters. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:56:35 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116944 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1116944 Horselover150 I think that you are forgetting something here. God can make all of those things happen because he created the world and all of it's scientific laws--God is above all of the laws. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:36:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117173 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117173 Horselover150 About the flood, there is all kind of evidence that the flood did happen! There are clam shells on top of Mount Everest, how did they get there? There are petrified trees standing straight up in two layers of coal at coal mines that supposedly took millions of years to form. The tree obviously would have rotted instead of petrified, not to mention the fact that it is going through two different seams of coal. Also, how did the tectonic plates come to be here? All of there questions and more are answered by the flood. And if you are wondering how this relates to the book of Revelation, it relates to that debate because you are and were attacking the deity of the Bible. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:53:20 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117178 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117178 Itzika The writing of the story and its phrasing, however, does indicate that the people who wrote it down perceived the sun as revolving around the Earth. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:39:09 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117407 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117407 Itzika No, I'm <em>not</em> attacking the deity of the Bible. I'm attacking a human who I don't believe had any contact, <em>ever,</em> with the deity of the Bible. There's a big difference. You, however, are attacking me, my family, and many of my friends in a thread I started that was not meant for such. Again, I recommend you make a new thread. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:42:10 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117414 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117414 Phoenix [quote=Horselover150] I think that you are forgetting something here. God can make all of those things happen because he created the world and all of it's scientific laws--God is above all of the laws. [/quote] Unproven and unprovable. Simply a statement that "anything can happen because I'm positing a deity who can do anything." Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:41:51 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117758 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117758 Phoenix So you're as ignorant of geology and tectonic processes as you are of biology. This proves that there's a god how, exactly? Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:44:18 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117768 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1117768 Phoenix Argh--no edit function. That's "proves the agency of a god." Look--tossing out random factoids whose significance (if any) you can neither explain nor, obviously, understand, doesn't constitute an argument. One could as meaningfully squawk "But the platypus! There could be no platypus without a Flood!" I give big points, though, for the pretzeloid pseudoscientific rationale that one would have to generate to imagine that plate tectonics "proves" the Flood. Ten points for Sheer Crazy! Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:38:28 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118237 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118237 Horselover150 If you are a Christian then you should believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. If that is so, then God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present. God created everything in six days and he has power over everything that he created. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:12:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118339 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118339 Horselover150 By saying that the book of Revelation isn't true and that it doesn't belong in the Bible, you are attacking the deity of the Bible. You are saying that it doesn't belong. But if we are the ones that decide which books do and don't belong in the Bible, then we are basically saying that we know everything and that God isn't God anymore. The Bible is the Word of God, if you take it apart and say that this doesn't belong here and that doesn't belong here, then where do you end up? If you get rid of the book of Revelation, then you are saying to everyone out there that it's ok to obey only certain parts of the Bible. If we do that then we are basically saying that you should just obey the parts that you want to obey. If that happens then people will get rid of the Ten Commandments and the loving your neighbors and enemies. Do you see where this would lead in a hurry? Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:18:32 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118354 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118354 Phoenix But I'm not a Christian. And even most Christians don't believe in a literal six-day creation. Your remarks are endlessly circular: "God is omnipotent because God is omnipotent." Because, evidently, you say so, and you must be correct, because you are. I suggest a close reading of Hoffer's True Believer. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:28:59 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118378 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118378 Horselover150 [quote=Itzika] Well, the Bible says so. Stories are evidence of a kind. Very flimsy evidence that wouldn't hold up for any rational person, but it works for some people. [/quote] What do you think that you are believing when you believe Evolution? Stories. Also,there are six differet definitions of the word "Evolution", which one do you mean? 1.Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. 2.Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3.Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. 4.Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. 5.Macro-evolution- Origin of major kinds. 6.Micro-evolution – Variations within kinds. Now, I believe in number 6 because that has been seen. Take dogs for instance. You have a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, they look quite different, but they are still dogs, right? All of the other 5 kinds of evolution have never been witnessed and yet they are some of the main building blocks of evolution. There has never been any proof for Evolution types 1-5, but there is plenty of evidence for the sixth. The Biblical account of Creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. Also the Biblical account of creation has the order all wrong according to the evolutionary view. Do you think that God should have inspired an account more in keeping with evolution, the truth as you see it, if He did use evolution to create everything? Why do you think God had an account recorded that was not accurate to the evolution view? The Bible says that Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” and when he died he would ” return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” If you believe that the dust Adam was created from represents an ape from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape when he died? Believing in God and beliving in Evolution require the same thing: faith. There is no evidence for either. I know, I know, the sicentists are always saying "Look! A missing link!" but it always turns out to be a fabrication or a skeleton that is 100% human or 100% Ape. I can cite several of these false missing links. For instance, Piltdown man and his entire family was created from a tooth that they found. They were so excited that they published it widely as a missing link. And then they found out that it was a pig's tooth. The scientists were so bent on finding a missing link with which to "prove" their theory of evolution that they jumped on the pig's tooth and made a whole family from the tooth. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:38:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118402 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118402 Phoenix Oh, honestly! Have you ever viewed even *one* episode of a relevant National Geographic program? There have been dozens of varieties of hominids spanning the "ape to human gap." And against that your rebuttal is: "But look at Piltdown Man!"? Your whole argument is lifted from a very silly and very inaccurate rewrite of evolutionary biology, and contains flatly ridiculous arguments. "Did Adam die and become an ape?" indeed! Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:14:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118906 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118906 Phoenix We decided what to put in the Bible to begin with. Spend a little time reading the accounts of the various Church Councils involved. And I suspect you *are* just following the parts you want to. I'm looking at your clothing labels... Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:19:10 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118925 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118925 Horselover150 There is not one particle of evidence for evolution types 1-5! There is evidence for a six-day creation! National Geographic twists the truth to make it look like Evolution is true when in reality all of the evidence points straight back to a creator making the earth! Many scientists have said that there is evidence of intelligent design, so that leaves with two choices. Either the earth was made by God, or the earth made itself, which do you think is more logical? Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:22:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118935 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1118935 Phoenix I think that your ignorance can only be described as epic. The scientific community has long since laughed intelligent design out of the room. No evidence "points back to God". No evidence points to a six-day creation. The world (and universe) is brimming with evidence of evolution. And no one (outside your crackpot pamphleteers) imagines that the entirety of cosmological theory can be reduced to "Either the earth was made by God, or the earth made itself." Yes, NatGeo "makes it look like evolution is true"....because that's the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and absolutely nothing that has been discovered since the theory was first proposed has cast any serious doubt on its essential correctness. Do you honestly imagine that all of the tens of thousands of archaeologists, anthropologists and paleontologists who have excavated piles of ancient hominid bones and artifacts are completely wrong about what they're seeing? That your handful of "respectable" pastors possesses some amazing occult knowledge that negates all of the experience of actual experts in the field? Where's the logic there, sugar? Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:36:40 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1119321 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1119321 Itzika Actually, the Bible demonstrates in about the first three chapters that God is not omniscient. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:12:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120547 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120547 Itzika While the mixed fabric commandment was pretty much refuted in the New Testament, I'm with you on the Church Council one. Unless everyone on those councils was receiving direct revelation from God--that is, unless there are a lot of uncanonized saints--humans did decide what goes in the Bible and what doesn't. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:14:54 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120554 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120554 Itzika Actually, macro-evolution, as you call it, has been observed in labs. And this is the third and final time I will ask you to take this to a new thread. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:19:59 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120571 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1120571 Phoenix The thing about all the niggly little rules is that people like our young friend *claim* to be reading the Bible literally, including piles of Old Testament injunctions, but in fact are picking and choosing. She says EVERYTHING in the Bible "belongs", so... ;-&gt; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:17:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121790 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121790 Horselover150 My clothing lables???? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:45:51 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121872 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121872 Horselover150 [quote=Itzika] Actually, the Bible demonstrates in about the first three chapters that God is not omniscient. [/quote] How do you arrive at that conclusion? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:46:25 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121873 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1121873 Itzika Check what happens immediately after Adam and Eve fall. God asks them what happened. He doesn't already know. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:31:00 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122063 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122063 Itzika Ah, yes. There is that. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:31:35 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122064 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122064 Itzika Here you go. Leviticus 19:19. It's even from the King James Bible. "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:33:21 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122067 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122067 Horselover150 But if you read more closely you will realize that it is a theoretical question. After Adam says that they covered themselves and when he doesn't tell the truth, God asks him why he lied. God knew what Adam had done, he just gave Adam a chance to tell the truth. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:29:57 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122772 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122772 Horselover150 You've lost me on this one. I understand the passage, I'm just not sure how it ties in. (o) Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:32:14 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122776 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122776 MalcolmCooms I actually (ugh) agree with you on this one. I hold to the position that given Thomistic principles it is logically impossible for God NOT to be omniscient. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:18:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122835 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122835 Itzika Then here's a question for you guys that's been bothering me for a while: Does God have free will? I can reconcile human free will with an omniscient God; but if you already know what you're going to do, no matter how many times you change your mind, how can you truly have free will? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:24:50 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122851 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122851 Itzika See below. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:25:32 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122853 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122853 Itzika @Horselover150: If everything belongs in the Bible, then the Old Testament laws are still in place. And the mixed fabric commandment, Kosher laws, circumcision, all of that--that's all still valid. Oh, and my New Testament class has brought up some very interesting points. Like how the KJV attributes Hebrews to Paul even though nowhere in the Greek does it say it was written by Paul. And how 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are almost definitely not written by Paul either (one of them references a book that was written several decades after Paul died). Actually, only four of the epistles were undisputedly written by Paul, though three others were almost certainly by him as well. And then there's the part where Acts tells about Paul being in a synagogue after he made a deal with the Jews not to try to convert them anymore, which was probably put there basically to explain persecution of Christians by Jews. There are also a lot of elaborations and purely made-up stories in the gospels--compare and contrast Jesus's supposed teachings on divorce for one. And according to you, all of that is the Word of God, written down and put in the Bible because God willed it. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:32:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122873 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122873 Horselover150 Yes, God has free will. I have puzzled over this one in the past and here is what I have come up with: God has a choice, he already knows what is going to happen, but it is still a choice. Argh, that is still confusing. So, we as humans have a choice, we can either obey God or obey, well, Satan and his temptations. God knows what we will choose even before we are born, but it is up to us to make that decision. We still have to make the decision, but God already knows what we're going to do. With God it is harder to explain. This is the best that I could come up with: confess there is an apparent paradox here. But removing God doesn't solve the problem. No choice we ever make is "free" in the absolute sense. Our past choices, and the universe itself, constrain us. So either free will is an illusion (which itself creates paradox) or else we need a more nuanced understanding of the concept. What this all means is that free will doesn't really tell us anything conclusive about either God's sovereignty or the material world. Like many other questions concerning our minds, this one cannot (yet at least) be answered conclusively. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:43:45 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122902 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122902 MalcolmCooms God's free will isn't our free will; it is not exactly the same or completely different but instead <em>analogous</em>. It's like our free will but perfected. God is perfectly free because he doesn't have the limitations of lack of knowledge or dissent between what he wants to do and what he actually does. Saying that he doesn't have free will because he knows exactly what he's going to do is like saying that we're more free because we know less. In Thomistic thought, God is outside of time. He doesn't know what he's "going" to do, it's all been done from his point of view. He made the choice to do it, and it was even more free than our choices are because he didn't have the conflicts of insufficient knowledge, dissent over what he wants to do and what he actually did do, and he wasn't coerced by any outside force. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:56:20 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122928 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122928 Phoenix Yup. You start discarding any part of it, and it's your word against God's. And don't even *think* to raise questions about the internal inconsistencies... Can we all say "Sic et non"? (It's interesting to note that the KJV translators didn't even use the oldest sources available *at that time* when compiling their version. And of course we have older ones now. And much better tech, to boot.) Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:20:02 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122990 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1122990 Itzika &gt; Saying that he doesn't have free will because he knows exactly what he's going to do is like saying that we're more free because we know less. Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. And you're not doing a great job of refuting it. I'm pretty good with the concepts you're throwing out--but actually, if God is outside time, then it hasn't all been done from his point of view. It's all been done, being done, and going to be done. He hasn't done it any more or less than he still has to do it. And he has to do it exactly the same every time, or it will cause a paradox--the omniscient God will do something that his omniscience did not predict, besides not being what he did before, so to speak. That doesn't sound like free will to me. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:52:01 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123272 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123272 MalcolmCooms It's MORE free than our will because with perfect knowledge he'll always make the perfect decision; that's like saying if you know who will win the Super Bowl and you know that you want to win money then if you bet all your money on the team who will win the Super Bowl you don't have free will. By your logic that's not free will since we know exactly what we want and we know exactly what will happen and have the ability to do it, so we do it. But we obviously have the free choice. Sure, it's a choice we'd make 100% of the time, but it's a choice, and thus its free will. So it is with God, analogously. God knows everything, but this just means he'll always make the decision that maximizes all goodness, not that he doesn't have free will. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:14:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123359 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123359 Horselover150 Have you read the first verse of all three of those books? They start like this: 1 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope..."; 2 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus..."; and Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness...." If those books weren't written by Paul, then why do they start with the writer saying "Paul, etc, etc."? As to a book being referenced that was written several decades after Paul died, that book could have been misdated. Can you please give me the verse reference where Paul is saying that he won't try to convert the Jews anymore? Can you also give me referneces for the "elaborations and purely made-up stories" in the gospels? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:33:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123404 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123404 MalcolmCooms Acts is actually extraordinarily historically accurate, or at least archaeological evidence has proved it so far. And look at the account of the Council of Jerusalem. Paul also has an account of it, and it meshes perfectly. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:47:26 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123451 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123451 MalcolmCooms BTW, there are no opposing teachings on divorce in the Gospels. One gospel has Jesus saying divorce is not allowed. Another has him saying divorce is not allowed except in cases of porneia (what that means in context is in dispute, of course). It's just an elaboration. Perhaps they were even different statements made by Jesus-one could have been a general comment about marriage and one could simply have been made when Jesus had more time to give a more detailed response, or just in a situation where he considered the more detailed response more prudent (perhaps just because of the environment he was teaching in). Or one of the Gospel writers could simply have realized that, depending on the order they were written in, the other Gospel writer forget to mention that detail about marriage or the other Gospel already had that covered and so they didn't consider it important to mention it. A contradiction is when it's impossible for two opposing situations to be reconciled, and I just don't see it. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:53:43 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123465 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123465 MalcolmCooms Oops, sorry Horselover, this wasn't meant as a response to your post. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:54:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123469 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123469 Itzika Too bad. I was banking on God not having free will to solve the problem of evil. Now you've set yourself a new problem to solve. Exactly how was my dad being born with bipolar disorder and my inheriting major depression a decision that maximizes all goodness? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:55:04 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123470 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123470 Itzika It's called pseudonymity. Look it up. It was very popular way back when to take someone else's name to make your writing seem more legitimate. People did it to Shakespeare, too. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:56:51 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123473 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123473 Horselover150 Exactly, and per response to your other post(it's ok, I understand that it wasn't in response to my post :)), some of the gospels are more detailed about certain things. They are all correct and accurate, they just focus on different things. They all give us a different eye-witness account of the same things, and they all mesh perfectly. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:58:17 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123477 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123477 MalcolmCooms Well, Luke is certainly not an eyewitness, since he says so himself. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:02:40 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123487 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123487 MalcolmCooms I've answered this question before, and as you know it all hinges on a Thomistic understanding of the universe. You have my answer. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:04:21 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123492 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123492 Itzika Your answer doesn't make sense to me. Evil is not a lesser order of good or an absence of good. The absence of good is indifference. The presence of evil requires there to be an initiative in the opposite direction. We are not "less good" than God--we are capable of evil. How could an omnibenevolent God create such beings and such a world? (I would advise starting a new thread for the answer. This one's getting a little cramped.) Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:09:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123511 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123511 Horselover150 You are right, Luke wasn't an eye-witness, he was just a very close associate of Paul. His gospel was directed towards the Greeks as an example of Jesus perfect humanity. Jesus Christ perfect humanity, mind you, not Paul's. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:12:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123517 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123517 Itzika So what were Jesus's last words? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:13:30 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123522 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123522 MalcolmCooms Last answer, then: I'm not making these arguments on the Internet. This is not the place for such complex discussions. All I will do is refer you to Dr. Edward Feser's books <em>The Last Superstition</em> and <em>Aquinas</em>. Of the two I recommend <em>Aquinas</em> because it is more scholarly. My answer to the problem of evil presupposes Thomistic principles. I don't think online forums are the place to argue them, especially since I'm not a trained philosopher, debater, or even technically a trained writer. If you want to continue discussing these issues (and if it turns truly nasty, I will bow out), then by all means start a new thread and I'll be happy to continue the discussion. But Thomistic philosophy will not be something I'm making an argument for here. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:15:43 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123526 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123526 Horselover150 Good grief! Those books were written at A.D. 64, A.D 67, and A.D. 65. They were written in Paul's lifetime, they contain details about Paul's life that no one else would have been likely to know. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are trying to pass it off as a pseudonymity. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:16:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123529 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123529 MalcolmCooms They were probably all said at different times while Jesus was dying. Perhaps people farther away from the cross thought that different words were his last words and the people closer to the cross heard the words that were actually the final words that he said. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:20:50 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123538 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123538 MalcolmCooms I disagree; a few of those books were probably pseudonymous, but certainly not all of them. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:21:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123540 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123540 Horselover150 I know where you are going to go with this, you're going to say that it proves what you said, but it doesn't. It depends on which gospel you read and if you read closely or not. Because they are all written by different people, they end at different points. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:21:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123541 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123541 Horselover150 Umm, well, I actually wouldn't classify Jesus words on the cross as his last words. For one, his disciples talked with him once he was risen from the dead, and two, because there were almost 500 witnesses that saw Jesus alive and talking after his resurrection. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:31 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123547 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123547 Phoenix Yup. It was a pretty routine thing, attributing stuff to well-known figures to add weight to the work. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:25:43 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123550 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123550 MalcolmCooms Come on, Itzika and I are both Christians and believe in the resurrection (although "over 500 witnesses" is something I'll at least have to look into...). We were obviously referring to Jesus' last words <em>before he died</em>, and you know that. This adds nothing to the discussion. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:26:01 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123552 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123552 Itzika I only named a few as pseudonymous. I said the rest were debated. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:26:15 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123554 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123554 Itzika According to Mark, he let out a yell at the moment of his death, right? That's impressive, really, considering crucifixion kills by slow suffocation. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:27:29 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123557 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123557 Horselover150 I'm sorry, I honestly didn't realize that we were talking about Jesus last words before he died. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:28:00 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123558 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123558 Itzika I want you to take a good look at that second-to-last clause and then tell me again that every word of the Bible is true and correct. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:28:24 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123560 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123560 MalcolmCooms A) Yeah, God tends to do pretty amazing things. B) Let's say that this final cry had nothing to do with his godhood (a reasonable assumption given the circumstances). He was stabbed by a Roman centurion. We're looking for CONTRADICTIONS, here. Not improbabilities. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:33:48 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123572 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123572 Phoenix There's no consensus that those epistles were written by Paul, or even in the first century; there's no clear evidence that they're anything but pseudepigraphcal works of later Church fathers. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:41:40 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123587 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123587 MalcolmCooms In fact, let's look at the four quotes: 1) Matthew says that Jesus cried out and "gave up his spirit". He never says he died of suffocation, leaving open the possibility of death by stabbing (remember, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were certainly not present at the crucifixion, and John only was if the Gospel writer and apostle are the same person). 2) Mark says that Jesus cried out and then breathed his last. He doesn't say he wasn't stabbed in between, leaving that possibility open since he wasn't actually present at the crucifixion. 3) Luke says "when he had said this he breathed his last. This actually fits quite well. Jesus cried out, meaning people behind probably heard him, hence Mark and Matthew's accounts. Luke's account of the last words were not shouted, and he could have said them and then been stabbed. Luke never says he wasn't. 4) John says that Jesus said "It is finished" and then dies. He also says later that a Roman centurion stabbed him. So he could have said that, been stabbed, and died. So, theoretical sequence of events: Jesus cries out (Matthew and Mark). Then he says, quietly, "Into your hands I commend my spirit, and dies immediately after. John says that he said "It is finished", bowed his head, and gave up his spirit, never saying those were actually his last words, only that he died after saying them, leaving time for the centurion to stab Jesus. And in all of these scenarios the centurion does not necessarily have to have stabbed Jesus because he doesn't shout his last words. Still, it is conceivably possible that the centurion stabbed him. This is not a contradiction. That's what we're looking for. It's an improbability. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:43:28 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123591 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123591 MalcolmCooms In fact, Jesus didn't even necessarily die of crucifixion. He could have died from a combination of loss of blood and fluid, traumatic shock from his injuries, and cardiogenic shock. Then he could have been stabbed after dying anyway. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:48:47 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123597 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123597 Phoenix We have no copies dating to that time. Any or all of the epistles could have been written decades later and attributed as the author chose. A later author certainly would have had the same details of Paul's life that you have--probably more, in fact. Spend a little time with Gibbon; as I recall, he does a fairly good job of pointing out many of the machinations of the early Church. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:50:12 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123600 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123600 Phoenix [quote=Horselover150] They all give us a different eye-witness account ... [/quote] Oh, really? A friend of mine just sent me this link, which seems to sum up a lot of the problems with gospel authorship. http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:00:47 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123621 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123621 Horselover150 Yes, every word of the Bible IS true and correct. Just because you have four different books that end at different times in Jesus lifetime, doesn't mean that the Bible is incorrect. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:46:34 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123672 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123672 Horselover150 Do you even realize that you took that from an atheist page? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:49:39 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123677 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123677 Phoenix So? Who's more likely to be taking a good, critical look at the subject? Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:02:06 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123763 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123763 Phoenix In fairness, though, one should mention the possibility that he didn't die at all--a possibility that was raised immediately afterward, in large part because his rapid and atypical death seemed suspect at the time. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:05:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123765 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123765 Horselover150 Or, who is more likely to skew the facts? Come on, I think that we al know how this works. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:04:53 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123777 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123777 Horselover150 Sorry, *all. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:05:10 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123778 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123778 Horselover150 What do you mean, he didn't die? The whole point of Jesus coming and being born of a virign was that he would die on the cross and rise on the third day, thereby defeating death and Satan. If Jesus didn't die then Jesus coming would be useless. Jesus died that we might live, he died so that we could live in Heaven with him. By saying that Jesus didn't die and that he just "fainted" means that you don't really believe that Jesus is Lord. You, sir, are taking away the deity of Christ by saying that he didn't die and therefore didn't rise again on the third day which means that you are calling Jesus a liar because he said that he would die and rise again on the third day! Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:10:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123781 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123781 Phoenix Yes, we do. You want so desperately to believe that you'll buy any half-baked, ill-informed excuse for an argument. And you'll try to tell us that no one who believes anything different than you can be trusted because, forsooth, they "twist" things. You can't actually answer any substantive criticism, and you overlook decades and centuries-worth of both science and religious studies in favor of the very narrow interpretations of a poorly-regarded minority of Christian scholars. That, as far as I can tell, is how it works. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:18:22 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123856 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123856 Phoenix Well, a) I'm not male, thank you, and b) no, I don't think Jesus is god, and c) I think the question of whether he actually foretold his resurrection is debatable. Also the entire "born of a virgin" shtick, which is pretty shaky. And I didn't say anything about fainting, did I? Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:23:36 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123860 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123860 Phoenix To which I might add: We know perfectly well that the early Church was not above flat-out forgery, so it's certainly no stretch to believe that they were a little loose in their attribution--and modification--of documents they found useful. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:32:08 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123864 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123864 Horselover150 a)yes, that was an assumption that I made, apparently I am wrong. I am sorry that I was wrong about that. b) Whoa, back up a bit. I thought that you were Christian. If you are Christian then you believe that Jesus is God. Correct me if I am wrong about whether you are Christian or not. c) Here is one instance: Matthew 16:21-28 21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. About being born of a virgin. How is it shaky? Mary was a virgin in every sense of the word. The Holy Spirit came unto her and, for lack of a better expression, made her pregnant. The fainting. Many people have tried to say that Jesus merely fainted on the cross and then the cold of the tomb restored him to consciousness. I merely assumed that you might be referring to this idea of him not really dying. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:01:04 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123878 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123878 Horselover150 Excuse me, but what about your half-baked ideas? And they do twist things! I am "over-looking centuries-worth of both science and religious studies in favor of" what? More than a millennia-old book that God said was His Word? A book that is almost 2,000 years old that has managed to survive wars and attacks of all kinds? Studies of people that are called narrow-minded because they are speaking the truth and no one likes to hear the truth? 2 Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts," "Scientists" and so called "religious leaders" scoff at the truths that are so simply stated in the Bible. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:09:13 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123882 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123882 MalcolmCooms I would like to point out that people who have come to the conclusion that the documents in question are true are, of course, probably Christian. I think it's unfair to discount Christian analysis completely. I also don't think there's such a thing as unbiased opinion. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:05:58 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123986 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123986 MalcolmCooms Tell you what, I decline playing the "this is a contradiction" game. There will never be a consensus on it between us since we've all done research here and come to our own conclusions (and my conclusions and Horselover's are, I might add, not exactly the same either). I've seen whole websites dedicatedto pointing out contradictions and just as many websites disagreeing with the claimed contradictions. By now it should be known where I stand on the matter. I officially bow out of the thread. I would like to stress that I am not bowing out because I thought the discussion became unpleasant or out of any frustration or anger at any of the participants. I just think the topic has been exhausted. Best wishes to all involved. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:09:18 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123990 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1123990 Itzika I'm about two more comments away from asking a mod to lock the thread, so I don't blame you. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:19:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124001 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124001 Phoenix a) Not sure why it matters. b) I have said repeatedly that I am not a Christian. c) I suspect the whole resurrection prediction was tagged on after the fact, much as the Mother Shipton prophecies. The translation that made Mary a "virgin" is disputed. I don't have any particular theory as to how or why the death on the cross might have been faked; I've read several theories. It's the uncharacteristic behavior that raises red flags--that, and the rumors early on that he survived (and, in one version, dies at Masada). Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:08:11 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124645 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124645 Phoenix I don't discount Christian analysis completely; I don't discount it simply for being Christian at all, though I remain aware of possible bias. Christian Biblical archaeologists have done a great deal of very good scholarly work, and hats off to them. What I have a problem with are the literalists who are simply collecting orts and scraps from the tables of scholars in hopes of shoring up theories that they've decided to cling to without examination and in the face of strong evidence that throws them into question. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:16:37 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124667 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124667 Phoenix Fair enough. There's nothing especially new--or very interesting--here. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:18:45 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124672 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124672 Horselover150 Ok, about the born of a virgin aspect. I will try to explain this to the fullest extent of my knowledge. Joseph was Jesus' step-father. In Joseph's lineage, there is a man that was cursed by God(his name was Jeconiah) and God said that Jeconiah would never have an heir to the throne. Jesus was the ultimate "heir to the throne" and therefore he couldn't have been related to Jeconiah. With this knowledge in mind, Jesus could not have been conceived with Joseph because then Jeconiah would have been connected to Jesus by blood. It says specifically in the Bible that Joseph did not know Mary until after HER first-born sone was born. Joseph was completely shocked when it was known that Mary was pregnant. He knew that he hadn't gotter her pregnant, and she told him that the Holy Spirit had done it. he still didn't believe her until God came to him in a dream in the form of the angel Gabriel and told him not to fear, that he should take Mary as his wife, and that she was carrying God's son, Jesus. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. He was a man because he was born of a human, Mary, but he was also God because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:13:26 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124816 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124816 Phoenix Christian doctrine, dreamed up after the fact to explain away the "virgin" mistranslation/misunderstanding. (And you might look at http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah) I'm reminded of the elaborate--and fairly ridiculous--edifice of Freudian theory about human sexual development: the man tied himself in a knot inventing reasons to explain why women were reporting being sexually molested by their fathers because he just *knew* that they couldn't possibly be telling the truth... Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:51:47 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124898 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=1#forum_thread_comment_1124898 Phoenix (Which is not to say that there isn't anything interesting about the early development of Christianity, especially in light of the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi materials; the picture of those early years that's now emerging might be worth a look for most Christians and/or historians of the period.) Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:55:55 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124910 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124910 Horselover150 I rest my case. I have thoroughly stated my opinion and I have firmly held my position. I still believe that i am correct and you are wrong. I have heard all of your arguments before and why they are wrong. You have been brainwashed into believing these things, and I don't blame you for being brainwashed, it is easy to do. May God bless and keep you, and may you come to see the truth in the last judgement. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:07:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124944 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1124944 Phoenix ROTFLMAO! Best laugh I've had all week--thanks! Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:45:05 -0700 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1125675 http://www.nanowrimo.org/en/forums/off-topic/threads/48602?page=2#forum_thread_comment_1125675