Scribes Who Altered Scripture

[Rose]

This is a 10 part lecture given by Bart Ehrman on the origins of the New Testament.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9DFOo7DIVg&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalAycnTbwU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwuPJ6jzJH0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKid_mZYRzw&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdEwtFKxpUM&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7-iwnciWuo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5-agGLzfm8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6XIR-Q8iB4&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYQHxFy2VP8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNJvFnhutY&feature=related

[RC Christian]

This is a 10 part lecture given by Bart Ehrman on the origins of the New Testament.

[===========================================
EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR
REASON: Too many videos repeated in the thread makes it very slow to load, and there's no need to repeat them in a quote anyway.
===========================================]



I've seen this one before...he does a fairly exhaustive job on the subject.

Keep 'em coming Rose!

[debz]

I agree with most of what Bart E. says, but at the same time, don't believe he substantiates enough to disprove much of anything--particularly if this is his whole argument to discredit the Bible. His examples are all minute. Yes, surely some of this took place: changing meanings according to how the scribes 'thought' it should read (scriptures related to women in leadership/teaching/marriage are a good example). However, most of the examples he gives are inconsequential to the gospel of the Kingdom message (e.g. the woman caught in adultery was not in original manuscripts; the end of Mark was not in the earliest manuscripts; the example of Jesus healing the leper—one text says He 'had compassion,' another that He 'got angry' – compassion and anger can actually go hand in hand—don’t you get angry when you see an injustice? He can simultaneously be angry and compassionate—angry that the man is suffering this condition, and compassionate in that He wants to right that wrong. These are all examples of why we have to know Him by the Spirit of Truth—Who leads us into all Truth. The more we know Him, the more we know His heart and can discern the likeliness of whether a translation is true or false. The overall message of the Kingdom is still intact, and nothing Mr. Ehrman presents discredits that in any way.

Another example Mr. Ehrman gives is if you compare the gospels 'horizontally,' you will find discrepancies. That shouldn’t even be a surprise! Just take any event—a car accident, for example—and ask the witnesses of that accident what happened; they will each report it the way they saw it…the details may be reported differently, but the overall story is consistent with each witness. One witness may have focused in on a particular aspect, or things said, whereas another witness saw and remembered other events or sayings. Which is most important—the details, or the overall story? If each of the Gospels were exactly identical, then we would have cause to worry, because that is not consistent with human perception and behavior—that would point more toward a conspiracy or collusion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with most of what Bart E. says, but at the same time, don't believe he substantiates enough to disprove much of anything--particularly if this is his whole argument to discredit the Bible. His examples are all minute. Yes, surely some of this took place: changing meanings according to how the scribes 'thought' it should read (scriptures related to women in leadership/teaching/marriage are a good example). However, most of the examples he gives are inconsequential to the gospel of the Kingdom message (e.g. the woman caught in adultery was not in original manuscripts; the end of Mark was not in the earliest manuscripts; the example of Jesus healing the leper—one text says He 'had compassion,' another that He 'got angry' – compassion and anger can actually go hand in hand—don’t you get angry when you see an injustice? He can simultaneously be angry and compassionate—angry that the man is suffering this condition, and compassionate in that He wants to right that wrong. These are all examples of why we have to know Him by the Spirit of Truth—Who leads us into all Truth. The more we know Him, the more we know His heart and can discern the likeliness of whether a translation is true or false. The overall message of the Kingdom is still intact, and nothing Mr. Ehrman presents discredits that in any way.

Another example Mr. Ehrman gives is if you compare the gospels 'horizontally,' you will find discrepancies. That shouldn’t even be a surprise! Just take any event—a car accident, for example—and ask the witnesses of that accident what happened; they will each report it the way they saw it…the details may be reported differently, but the overall story is consistent with each witness. One witness may have focused in on a particular aspect, or things said, whereas another witness saw and remembered other events or sayings. Which is most important—the details, or the overall story? If each of the Gospels were exactly identical, then we would have cause to worry, because that is not consistent with human perception and behavior—that would point more toward a conspiracy or collusion.
Hey there Deb, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

You bring up some very good points, or so they seem at first. But if we look more closely I think those "minute examples" that you dismiss as "inconsequential" to the Gospel grow rather quickly into a very consequential magnitude. The most obvious example is the long ending of Mark. If the Gospel of Mark really was the first gospel written, and it didn't contain anything about the resurrection of Christ, then that might be considered somewhat "consequential," wouldn't you agree?

Another example of seemingly small and irrelevant differences of words is foundi in parallel records of sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. For example, in Matthew he says "Be ye perfect as my father is perfect" whereas in Luke he says Be ye merciful as my Father is merciful. So what did Jesus really say? It seems very unlikely that Jesus actually said both things at different times since the passages seem to be describing a single event. So it seems that we must conclude that we do not really know what Jesus actually said! We have been talking about this in the thread called What did Jesus really say? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1550-What-did-Jesus-really-say&highlight=jesus). I think you will like the opening post in that thread. It would be cool if you wanted to try to answer it. So far, no one has found a way to defend the concept that the Bible contains the actual words of Jesus. I am guessing you would agree that this is something more than "inconsequential" to the Gospel message?

As for the mutliple-witnesses-at-an-accident defense - the problem here is that some of the witnesses actually contradict each other and the four cannot be made to cohere no matter how much freedom of invention we invoke. For examle, just try to tell the story of the crucifixion week using every detail from all for Gospels and leaving nothing out. We discussed this in a thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurection-Challenge). Nobody has yet succeeded in satisfying the conditions of the challenge.

So as you can see, Bart brings up some serious issues. I'm pretty sure he didn't quit the faith because he didn't like it. It looks like he quit because the integrity of his mind and heart demanded it.

Great chatting!

Richard

[debz]

You bring up some very good points, or so they seem at first. But if we look more closely I think those "minute examples" that you dismiss as "inconsequential" to the Gospel grow rather quickly into a very consequential magnitude. The most obvious example is the long ending of Mark. If the Gospel of Mark really was the first gospel written, and it didn't contain anything about the resurrection of Christ, then that might be considered somewhat "consequential," wouldn't you agree?


If Mark was the only gospel covering the resurrection, then yes, I would agree. But Mark takes a unique view on Jesus (focusing predominantly on His miracles)--a different view than the other three--so the fact that the original doesn't cover the resurrection does not mean that the resurrection never happened! Three out of four other witnesses reported on it, and although it seems pretty obvious that the long ending of Mark was added later, and thus easily refuted, I personally believe God intentionally wanted just "3 of the 4" to report it that way--it leaves room for just that shred of doubt: "Well, if all four don't say the same thing, then maybe it can't be true..." It's that shred of doubt that either takes us completely away from seeking Him, or seeking that much harder to know the Truth.

I will check out the other threads you mentioned tomorrow...it's late...I'm tired *yawn*

[heb13-13]

Hey there Deb, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Another example of seemingly small and irrelevant differences of words is found in parallel records of sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. For example, in Matthew he says "Be ye perfect as my father is perfect" whereas in Luke he says Be ye merciful as my Father is merciful. So what did Jesus really say?

Yes, welcome Deb.

Hi Richard and All,

I have always thought that Jesus did and said much more than people actually wrote down.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

Jesus could very easily have said "be ye perfect" and "be ye merciful" in the same discourse. They do not conflict with one another at all. When we look at the preponderance of scriptures (the full counsel of God) we see that mercy and perfection go together quite well. What are the two greatest commandments? What perfectly fulfills the law?

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Gal 5:14

"But if ye bite and devour one another (not very merciful), take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Gal 5:15

I'm not trying to be difficult or stretch anything but to assume that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT to write down specifically every single word that Jesus spoke in His discourses is what I would call a "stretch". The burden of proof should be on Bart to prove that Jesus did not say "perfect" and "merciful" in the same discourse. Or is this you saying this and not Bart. Does not matter. Same thing applies.

When we look at mercy and perfection again, we see that the Pharisees were passing themselves off as perfect, yet they were not very merciful because, "they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Mat 23:4I don't see the conflict. I see more "expanded" meaning which gives me a much better understanding of what it means to be perfect. It actually ties things together for me. I think this is one reason the Holy Spirit used more than 1 man to pen the gospels. So that, like a prism, we "see" many colors (have fuller understanding).

I was a little surprised you saw a conflict.

The Father is both perfect and merciful and why do you think Jesus could not have said both?

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If Mark was the only gospel covering the resurrection, then yes, I would agree. But Mark takes a unique view on Jesus (focusing predominantly on His miracles)--a different view than the other three--so the fact that the original doesn't cover the resurrection does not mean that the resurrection never happened! Three out of four other witnesses reported on it, and although it seems pretty obvious that the long ending of Mark was added later, and thus easily refuted, I personally believe God intentionally wanted just "3 of the 4" to report it that way--it leaves room for just that shred of doubt: "Well, if all four don't say the same thing, then maybe it can't be true..." It's that shred of doubt that either takes us completely away from seeking Him, or seeking that much harder to know the Truth.

I will check out the other threads you mentioned tomorrow...it's late...I'm tired *yawn*
I think you may have missed the point. Are you familiar with the "Synoptic Problem?" The three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have many paralells that show they were copied from each other. It's a fascinating study. They often will have passages that are letter-for-letter identical, and then suddenly one or another will add or delete some words. Now do we really have "four witness" if three of those witnesses copied from each other?

My point was that if Mark is the first Gospel, and it lacked the long ending that told about the resurrection, and the other gospels copied from Mark, then where did the story come from? Who was the scribe who added it? And when? Now there may be a solution to this puzzle, that's fine. I present it only to show that the kinds of problems Bart brought up are anything but "inconsequential" to the faith as understood by many Christians. Serious Christians have lost more than sleep over these questions, some like Bart Erhman have lost their faith.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, welcome Deb.

Hi Richard and All,

I have always thought that Jesus did and said much more than people actually wrote down.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

Jesus could very easily have said "be ye perfect" and "be ye merciful" in the same discourse. They do not conflict with one another at all. When we look at the preponderance of scriptures (the full counsel of God) we see that mercy and perfection go together quite well. What are the two greatest commandments? What perfectly fulfills the law?

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Gal 5:14

"But if ye bite and devour one another (not very merciful), take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Gal 5:15

I'm not trying to be difficult or stretch anything but to assume that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT to write down specifically every single word that Jesus spoke in His discourses is what I would call a "stretch". The burden of proof should be on Bart to prove that Jesus did not say "perfect" and "merciful" in the same discourse. Or is this you saying this and not Bart. Does not matter. Same thing applies.

Good morning Rick! :tea:

Let's try to apply your solution to the case at hand. Here is what I wrote in the OP of the thread What did Jesus really say?. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1550-What-did-Jesus-really-say)


The Bible Wheel gives tremendous insight into the meaning and purpose of the differences between the Synoptic Gospels. There are profound correlations between the elements unique to each Gospel and the meaning of the corresponding Hebrew letter. For example, Matthew is marked by an strong emphasis on the idea of Righteousness defined by the Tzaddi KeyWord Tzedaqah and Luke is marked by a strong emphasis on the idea mercy defined by the Resh KeyWord Racham. These differences are particularly prominent when we compare parallel passages (see Luke: The Tender Mercies of the Great Physician (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Mercies.asp)):

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Matt_Luke_parallels.jpg

I have found many parallels like these that follow the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet with great clarity. It gives strong evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture. But this same evidence presents a huge challenge about how God intends for us to understand the Scripture that He inspired. We are now confronted with a question of primary significance:

What did Jesus really say?

I can not think of any good solution. It seems very unlikely that Jesus actually said both things at different times since the passages seem to be describing a single event. But what other choice is there? How does God intend for us to understand these differences?

It's almost as if the Bible is a divine historical novel - it is mixed with lots of real history, but the detailed synoptic narratives of what Christ actually did and said can not be made to fit any literal historical sequence.

One possibility is that the words of Christ had a kind of "divine fullness" that was captured in part by each of the different Gospel writers. But still, we don't know what He actually said - only what it meant to those who heard him.

Questions like this have vexed believers since the beginning because they felt that they had "nothing" if not a literal historical record of Christ in the Gospels. The revelation of the Bible Wheel helps free us from this limitation. We know that the Bible is of God, so now we can receive it as such and admit that the pieces do need to fit into human categories like "literal historical narrative" in order to be true and inspired by God.

Richard
Can you please write up composite of the two accounts in Matthew 5:44-48 and Luke 6:35-36 so that we can know exactly what you think Jesus really said?

Now I don't want to discourage you, because I really would like to see your solution to the above parallel passages, but I should let you know that your solution (if you find one) won't solve the general problem because many of the parallel passages do not allow for such "creative" solutions. For example, in John's record Jesus used the phrase "Verily, verily I say unto you" twenty times. He never once records that Jesus said "Verily I say unto you" using only one "verily" (amen in the Greek). Meanwhile, the synoptic Gospels report that Jesus said "Verily I say unto you" with only one verily forty-one times, and never once report that he used the phrase "verily, verily I say unto you." Here's a table that shows the pattern:



Synoptic Gospels

John's Gospel



Verily, Verily

0

20



Verily

41

0



Which did Jesus really say?

I really apprciate your desire to work on this with me. It was something that was in the back of my mind the whole time I was a Chrstian and I never could find a satisfactory solution.

Richard

[RC Christian]

Below is a link that discusses some of the differences between The Gospel of St. John the Divine and the 3 Synoptic Gospels. Granted, there are various differences between each of the Synoptic Gospels, and like Richard commented, the most significant difference, to me, is the lack of the resurrection story and subsequent appearance of the resurrected Jesus to his followers, especially if this is the 'original' written Gospel Story.

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm

On the same note, and again, to me, a couple of the most significant differences between The Gospel of St. John the Divine and the 3 Synoptic Gospels would be: 1) The Last Supper Meal...there are 2 completely different accounts as to when this meal took place. 2) In The Gospel of St. John the Divine, Jesus is condemned to death at noon on the Day of Preparation before the Passover and the crucifixion and death occur quickly; while in the 3 Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is crucified at 9:00 a.m. on the Day of Passover itself,and dies by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon.

What I've always wondered is why The Gospel of Mark and The Gospel of St. John the Divine (and Paul, for that matter) never mention the 'virgin birth', which of course opens up a whole other can of worms with the lineage issue..."the seed of David".

Thanks for the interesting subject matter to discuss.


Facing the East,
Frater Rosae Crucis

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Below is a link that discusses some of the differences between The Gospel of St. John the Divine and the 3 Synoptic Gospels. Granted, there are various differences between each of the Synoptic Gospels, and like Richard commented, the most significant difference, to me, is the lack of the resurrection story and subsequent appearance of the resurrected Jesus to his followers, especially if this is the 'original' written Gospel Story.

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Synoptic-Differences.htm

On the same note, and again, to me, a couple of the most significant differences between The Gospel of St. John the Divine and the 3 Synoptic Gospels would be: 1) The Last Supper Meal...there are 2 completely different accounts as to when this meal took place. 2) In The Gospel of St. John the Divine, Jesus is condemned to death at noon on the Day of Preparation before the Passover and the crucifixion and death occur quickly; while in the 3 Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is crucified at 9:00 a.m. on the Day of Passover itself,and dies by 3:00 p.m. that afternoon.

What I've always wondered is why The Gospel of Mark and The Gospel of St. John the Divine (and Paul, for that matter) never mention the 'virgin birth', which of course opens up a whole other can of worms with the lineage issue..."the seed of David".

Thanks for the interesting subject matter to discuss.


Facing the East,
Frater Rosae Crucis
That's an excellent resource that you linked. It is from a believer's perspective and it deals honestly with the differences. :thumb:

[heb13-13]

I think you may have missed the point. Are you familiar with the "Synoptic Problem?" The three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have many paralells that show they were copied from each other. It's a fascinating study. They often will have passages that are letter-for-letter identical, and then suddenly one or another will add or delete some words. Now do we really have "four witness" if three of those witnesses copied from each other?

My point was that if Mark is the first Gospel, and it lacked the long ending that told about the resurrection, and the other gospels copied from Mark, then where did the story come from? Who was the scribe who added it? And when? Now there may be a solution to this puzzle, that's fine. I present it only to show that the kinds of problems Bart brought up are anything but "inconsequential" to the faith as understood by many Christians. Serious Christians have lost more than sleep over these questions, some like Bart Erhman have lost their faith.

Hi Richard,

I'm sorry Bart lost his faith over the Synoptic Problem. I do see how the problem arises out of the text and there does not seem to be a "correct" answer. But, I don't see it as a matter of faith one way or the other. I have never thought that I needed to have all the answers to my logical questions before I received the Bible as inspired Scripture, God's word. To begin in the spirit and then lose my faith over "scholarship" questions would be a colossal tragedy and irony.

About two weeks after I was born-again, a person that I really looked up to (idolized) came and spent an hour with me and tried to talk me out of my faith. I was only 21 and he was 28 and I was a new born babe in Christ. He had been to college and was quite educated. He asked me many questions which I could not answer and brought things up about the Bible and God that I had no knowledge to refute. I guess you could say, he was attempting to make me look foolish and demonstrate to me that I was making a big mistake. Although I never felt foolish, at some point in the conversation after he had presented many things to me, I spoke. My answer was, "Steve, I don't know the answers to many things that you are asking and don't have the knowledge to refute the other things you are saying about the Bible and God, but one thing I know is that I am different inside. Something wonderful has happened and I am not the same perso and can never go back." With that, Steve left and never again tried to dissuade me.

Much later, I realized what made the difference for me that day. Obviously, it was not scholarship but rather the Reality of Christ.

The issue for me has never been about firstly, believing or not believing the Bible; rather it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand that which I believe. Instead of my understanding looking for a reason to have faith, my faith seeks understanding about what I believe but may no yet understand.

I think there are many strategies employed by our adversary to cause one to lose faith and he uses "scholarship", deftly. The Enemy is as scholarly as they come, a million times smarter than any man who dares to go toe to toe with him.

All the best,
Rick

[heb13-13]

Good morning Rick! :tea:

Let's try to apply your solution to the case at hand. Here is what I wrote in the OP of the thread What did Jesus really say?. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1550-What-did-Jesus-really-say)


Can you please write up composite of the two accounts in Matthew 5:44-48 and Luke 6:35-36 so that we can know exactly what you think Jesus really said?

Now I don't want to discourage you, because I really would like to see your solution to the above parallel passages, but I should let you know that your solution (if you find one) won't solve the general problem because many of the parallel passages do not allow for such "creative" solutions. For example, in John's record Jesus used the phrase "Verily, verily I say unto you" twenty times. He never once records that Jesus said "Verily I say unto you" using only one "verily" (amen in the Greek). Meanwhile, the synoptic Gospels report that Jesus said "Verily I say unto you" with only one verily forty-one times, and never once report that he used the phrase "verily, verily I say unto you." Here's a table that shows the pattern:



Synoptic Gospels

John's Gospel



Verily, Verily

0

20



Verily

41

0









Which did Jesus really say?

I really apprciate your desire to work on this with me. It was something that was in the back of my mind the whole time I was a Chrstian and I never could find a satisfactory solution.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the opportunity. Maybe this is where we need to back up to.


I can not think of any good solution. It seems very unlikely that Jesus actually said both things at different times since the passages seem to be describing a single event. But what other choice is there? How does God intend for us to understand these differences?

Why would they have to be one event? I have spoken to many people in one day about the Lord and I may say much of the same thing to separate people while substituting some things that I said previously. We know Jesus was out and about all day speaking to throngs of people. I am quite sure that He gave this message many times. Any why not? Repetition is a great educator and Jesus employed that concept. In fact, God employs it throughout the Bible. We give the same message many times with slight alterations, so why couldn't He?

Which did He say? He said both.

Do all these people stumbling over this actually believe that Jesus only spoke about something once? He was an intinerant preacher, outside with people all the time and He reinforced His message by repeating it. This is normal if you want to get your message out.

I don't know if you can accept this, but it does happen all the time.

Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I'm sorry Bart lost his faith over the Synoptic Problem. I do see how the problem arises out of the text and there does not seem to be a "correct" answer. But, I don't see it as a matter of faith one way or the other. I have never thought that I needed to have all the answers to my logical questions before I received the Bible as inspired Scripture, God's word. To begin in the spirit and then lose my faith over "scholarship" questions would be a colossal tragedy and irony.

About two weeks after I was born-again, a person that I really looked up to (idolized) came and spent an hour with me and tried to talk me out of my faith. I was only 21 and he was 28 and I was a new born babe in Christ. He had been to college and was quite educated. He asked me many questions which I could not answer and brought things up about the Bible and God that I had no knowledge to refute. I guess you could say, he was attempting to make me look foolish and demonstrate to me that I was making a big mistake. Although I never felt foolish, at some point in the conversation after he had presented many things to me, I spoke. My answer was, "Steve, I don't know the answers to many things that you are asking and don't have the knowledge to refute the other things you are saying about the Bible and God, but one thing I know is that I am different inside. Something wonderful has happened and I am not the same perso and can never go back." With that, Steve left and never again tried to dissuade me.

Much later, I realized what made the difference for me that day. Obviously, it was not scholarship but rather the Reality of Christ.

The issue for me has never been about firstly, believing or not believing the Bible; rather it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand that which I believe. Instead of my understanding looking for a reason to have faith, my faith seeks understanding about what I believe but may no yet understand.

I think there are many strategies employed by our adversary to cause one to lose faith and he uses "scholarship", deftly. The Enemy is as scholarly as they come, a million times smarter than any man who dares to go toe to toe with him.

All the best,
Rick
Hey there my friend, :yo:

That was a very well-written and meaningful post. You communicate very well. But I don't think that Bart lost his faith over the synoptic problem per se, but rather over the entirety of Christian claims concerning the Bible that he became convinced were not true. The Reality of Christ is not the issue. The issue is the nature of the Bible. The Reality of Christ does not tell us that the Catholic Bible is the Word of God does it? Does the Reality of Christ give Mormon's justification for their claims concerning the Book of Mormon? I trust you see my point. The Reality of Christ does not justify anyone's claims concerning the nature of the Bible.

And you will note, I hope, that I have not been challenging the "Reality of Christ." That's not what we are talking about in this thread. There's no way for anyone to know anything about the "Reality of Christ" in an objectively verifiable fashion. The "Reality of Christ" is a subjective perception that a person may or may not have. It's not something we can use to resolve issues about the Bible.

All the best,

Richard

[RC Christian]

Hi Richard,

I'm sorry Bart lost his faith over the Synoptic Problem. I do see how the problem arises out of the text and there does not seem to be a "correct" answer. But, I don't see it as a matter of faith one way or the other. I have never thought that I needed to have all the answers to my logical questions before I received the Bible as inspired Scripture, God's word. To begin in the spirit and then lose my faith over "scholarship" questions would be a colossal tragedy and irony.

About two weeks after I was born-again, a person that I really looked up to (idolized) came and spent an hour with me and tried to talk me out of my faith. I was only 21 and he was 28 and I was a new born babe in Christ. He had been to college and was quite educated. He asked me many questions which I could not answer and brought things up about the Bible and God that I had no knowledge to refute. I guess you could say, he was attempting to make me look foolish and demonstrate to me that I was making a big mistake. Although I never felt foolish, at some point in the conversation after he had presented many things to me, I spoke. My answer was, "Steve, I don't know the answers to many things that you are asking and don't have the knowledge to refute the other things you are saying about the Bible and God, but one thing I know is that I am different inside. Something wonderful has happened and I am not the same perso and can never go back." With that, Steve left and never again tried to dissuade me.

Much later, I realized what made the difference for me that day. Obviously, it was not scholarship but rather the Reality of Christ.

The issue for me has never been about firstly, believing or not believing the Bible; rather it is a matter of believing, and then seeking to understand that which I believe. Instead of my understanding looking for a reason to have faith, my faith seeks understanding about what I believe but may no yet understand.

I think there are many strategies employed by our adversary to cause one to lose faith and he uses "scholarship", deftly. The Enemy is as scholarly as they come, a million times smarter than any man who dares to go toe to toe with him.

All the best,
Rick


Hello Heb13-13!

Good chatting with you yesterday. But, again, I think the point here, 'in the Skeptics' Zone', is not necessarily about personal convictions of faith, although, that point is one of the points addressing Bart Ehrman's video. I think your follow up post was more addressable by others, since it doesn't involve personal convictions or personal beliefs. And I agree with you, that one witness could record certain things said, and another witness record other things said...although, based on time frames about the writing of the Gospels, none of the writers were most likely 'witnesses' to anything that may have been said. Worse yet, even if they were present, how do we know they are telling the truth?

Honestly, when we trying to discuss the Bible with anyone outside of a group of similar denominational/belief system brethren, and telling them that you believe it's God's inspired Word (and I'm being extreme with this, but not trying to be funny), would be like me saying that God gave me a revelation, or my doctrine or understanding of the Scriptures is that Jesus never really existed and Buddha was the path to follow. That point on my part would hold no relevancy on the base subject matter of contradictory statements in the Bible, if one of those 'non-believers' was educated enough to know the problems Ehrman is discussing. What I've come to learn is that most atheist (and I'm not an atheist) know the Bible far better than the average, born-again Christian does. Now, that's a shame. :winking0071: I'll put 10 random professed atheist against 10 random born-again evangelical Christians any day, and bet my money on the Biblical knowledge of the atheist any day. And if I'm right, that would somewhat imply that those who know the Bible the best don't believe it...and those who know the Bible the least...do believe it.

Even if there were no contradictory statements whatsoever, that still wouldn't prove anything, in regards to God, Christianity, or Divine inspiration. It would just prove that we have an ancient book that tends to agree with itself on all parts...but makes a lot of spectacular and incredible claims, that for the most part, those claims do not pan out with other historical records or archaeological findings. And, unfortunately, it looks real similar to other astrotheological myths and religions.

It would be nice to sort out the various contradictions, mathematical errors (intentional or not), and questionable moral character of a lot of the 'commands', especially.

With all that being said: I believe in God...I am a deist. I love the Bible. It is my favorite book in the entire world :yo:. I think the KJV is one of, if not the, finest literary works ever written, with or without the interpolations and occasional mistranslations. I just view the Bible differently than you and most people do. Hope I didn't offend you with any of this...but this is the 'Skeptics' Zone', so I guess it needed to be addressed...

Facing the East,
Frater Rosae Crucis

[Rose]

Hi Richard,

I'm sorry Bart lost his faith over the Synoptic Problem. I do see how the problem arises out of the text and there does not seem to be a "correct" answer. But, I don't see it as a matter of faith one way or the other. I have never thought that I needed to have all the answers to my logical questions before I received the Bible as inspired Scripture, God's word. To begin in the spirit and then lose my faith over "scholarship" questions would be a colossal tragedy and irony.

Hi Rick,

Your statement above which I highlighted in red brings many questions to my mind. For starters, why would you think it not important to have your logical questions answered before you believed the Bible to be inspired from God? And on what premise did you build your belief that the god Yahweh presented in the Bible is the true creator god?

All the Best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the opportunity. Maybe this is where we need to back up to.


I can not think of any good solution. It seems very unlikely that Jesus actually said both things at different times since the passages seem to be describing a single event. But what other choice is there? How does God intend for us to understand these differences?

Why would they have to be one event? I have spoken to many people in one day about the Lord and I may say much of the same thing to separate people while substituting some things that I said previously. We know Jesus was out and about all day speaking to throngs of people. I am quite sure that He gave this message many times. Any why not? Repetition is a great educator and Jesus employed that concept. In fact, God employs it throughout the Bible. We give the same message many times with slight alterations, so why couldn't He?

Which did He say? He said both.

Do all these people stumbling over this actually believe that Jesus only spoke about something once? He was an intinerant preacher, outside with people all the time and He reinforced His message by repeating it. This is normal if you want to get your message out.

I don't know if you can accept this, but it does happen all the time.

Rick
Hey there Rick,

I have no problem at all with the idea that Jesus said similar things at different times. I've seen plenty of preachers repeat essentially the same sermon many times with variations designed to fit the different audiences. So that is not a problem at all. But neither do I believe it is it a general solution to the problem we are discussing. If textual variations imply separate events, then must we not conclude that Jesus was crucified four times?

Richard

[RC Christian]

If textual variations imply separate events, then must we not conclude that Jesus was crucified four times? [SIZE=2][SIZE=2]



Crucified 4 times?!?!?!? Did you see the "The Passion of the Christ"? Well, apparently not! Can you imagine if they had filmed that crucifixion scene 4 different times? No one could have survived that 4 times and came back to life! :no: ...but it would have probably sold more tickets...sad, but true.

Facing the East,
Frater Rosae Crucis

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Crucified 4 times?!?!?!? Did you see the "The Passion of the Christ"? Well, apparently not! Can you imagine if they had filmed that crucifixion scene 4 different times? No one could have survived that 4 times and came back to life! :no: ...but it would have probably sold more tickets...sad, but true.

Facing the East,
Frater Rosae Crucis
After watching Gibson's Passion of the Christ, I'm pretty sure he wished he could have done the whole thing four times over! That guy is really into blood and guts.

[heb13-13]

Hey there Rick,

I have no problem at all with the idea that Jesus said similar things at different times. I've seen plenty of preachers repeat essentially the same sermon many times with variations designed to fit the different audiences. So that is not a problem at all. But neither do I believe it is it a general solution to the problem we are discussing. If textual variations imply separate events, then must we not conclude that Jesus was crucified four times?

Richard

No, I don't think so. I agree the talking/preaching part is easy and yes, many preachers and we ourselves will repeat a story many times to different people not always the same exact way. Seldom does someone preach one great message and if you got you got it and if you didn't, too bad, it's never going to be said again. Of course, today it may be that way because you can always get the CD or DVD of the message. :pop2:

But we did not have those things in Jesus' day. Talking and writing were the mode of communication.

Regarding the crucifixion it's not hard to believe that there was a whole lot of activity going on during His arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion. Passions and emotions were high, people were screaming blasphemer, blasphemer, disciples were talking amongst themselves and worried about their own skin, Roman soldiers were talking and mocking, etc, etc. Get the picture?

Can you cite something specific that makes you think there would have to be more than one crucifixion? I would like to take a look at it.

God bless you all,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, I don't think so. I agree the talking/preaching part is easy and yes, many preachers and we ourselves will repeat a story many times to different people not always the same exact way. Seldom does someone preach one great message and if you got you got it and if you didn't, too bad, it's never going to be said again. Of course, today it may be that way because you can always get the CD or DVD of the message. :pop2:

But we did not have those things in Jesus' day. Talking and writing were the mode of communication.

Regarding the crucifixion it's not hard to believe that there was a whole lot of activity going on during His arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion. Passions and emotions were high, people were screaming blasphemer, blasphemer, disciples were talking amongst themselves and worried about their own skin, Roman soldiers were talking and mocking, etc, etc. Get the picture?

Can you cite something specific that makes you think there would have to be more than one crucifixion? I would like to take a look at it.

God bless you all,
Rick
I don't believe there were more than one crucifixions. My point was that the solution you suggest for the contradictions in the parallel accounts causes a problem. You suggested that the different accounts of what Jesus said could be resolved by assuming that the parallel passages, which appear to be speaking of the same event, were really speaking of two different events. If that's the case, then the differences in the four accounts of the crucifixion would be "resolved" the same way, namely, by asserting that there were four different crucifixions.

It would be interesting if you tried to answer Dan Baker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurection-Challenge). It's a thread where we talked about his contention that it is impossible to give a coherent account of the death and resurrection of Christ using all the details from all four Gospels (leaving nothing out). I think he is correct. I've never seen a solution yet.

[heb13-13]

I don't believe there were more than one crucifixions. My point was that the solution you suggest for the contradictions in the parallel accounts causes a problem. You suggested that the different accounts of what Jesus said could be resolved by assuming that the parallel passages, which appear to be speaking of the same event, were really speaking of two different events. If that's the case, then the differences in the four accounts of the crucifixion would be "resolved" the same way, namely, by asserting that there were four different crucifixions.

It would be interesting if you tried to answer Dan Baker's Resurrection Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1852-Dan-Barker-s-Resurection-Challenge). It's a thread where we talked about his contention that it is impossible to give a coherent account of the death and resurrection of Christ using all the details from all four Gospels (leaving nothing out). I think he is correct. I've never seen a solution yet.

Hi Richard,

I probably was not clear. I know that you believe there was only one crucifixion, but do you see anything in the 4 accounts that would cause someone to think there was more than one? Well, maybe I should take a look at Dan Baker's Challenge. I remember seeing that on your site somewhere over a year ago and I briefly perused it. I will take a more in depth look. You do realize that at this point in time, anything I would say about Dan's challenge would be subjective and conjecture on my part, right? I'll have another look, it sounds more interesting, this year. :D

All the best to you, my friend,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I probably was not clear. I know that you believe there was only one crucifixion, but do you see anything in the 4 accounts that would cause someone to think there was more than one? Well, maybe I should take a look at Dan Baker's Challenge. I remember seeing that on your site somewhere over a year ago and I briefly perused it. I will take a more in depth look. You do realize that at this point in time, anything I would say about Dan's challenge would be subjective and conjecture on my part, right? I'll have another look, it sounds more interesting, this year. :D

All the best to you, my friend,
Rick

No, there is nothing in the parallel accounts of the crucifixion that would make me think they were speaking of more than one event.

And neither is there anything in the parallel accounts in Matt 5:44-48 and Luke 6:35-36 that would make me think they were speaking of more than one event.

That is why your solution does not work for me. I get the impression you have never really wrestled with the synoptic problem and related issues. The answer you give is the kind of answer a believer would naturally give, but it simply doesn't work. If we double or triple or quadruple every event that has contradictory parallel passages, we must conclude there were for Christs who lived four similar, but distinct, lives.

All the very best,

Richard

[debz]

Hey there my friend, :yo:

That was a very well-written and meaningful post. You communicate very well. But I don't think that Bart lost his faith over the synoptic problem per se, but rather over the entirety of Christian claims concerning the Bible that he became convinced were not true. The Reality of Christ is not the issue. The issue is the nature of the Bible. The Reality of Christ does not tell us that the Catholic Bible is the Word of God does it? Does the Reality of Christ give Mormon's justification for their claims concerning the Book of Mormon? I trust you see my point. The Reality of Christ does not justify anyone's claims concerning the nature of the Bible.

And you will note, I hope, that I have not been challenging the "Reality of Christ." That's not what we are talking about in this thread. There's no way for anyone to know anything about the "Reality of Christ" in an objectively verifiable fashion. The "Reality of Christ" is a subjective perception that a person may or may not have. It's not something we can use to resolve issues about the Bible.

All the best,

Richard

This entire thread is fascinating...and Richard, I am not ignoring your original prompt for me to look at those other threads (e.g. "What Did Jesus Really Say?"--I read through parts of it, and see some things, particularly that Kathryn was on to something...hoping I can check it out more later...). However, wanted to jump in here and say that I agree with Rick on "the reality of Christ" -- I do believe that the "reality of Christ" can be known more than just subjectively--and through the Word, because He IS the Word--it all reveals Him, when seen with eyes of revelation and not JUST our intellect. I know Him far more than just with a "blind belief" -- more than just "because the Bible says so" -- I know Him because He has revealed Himself to me in so many different and personal ways. But it wasn't always that way...I once just had a "blind faith"...it wasn't until I took His Word seriously and sought Him with ALL my heart, as He says is the way to really find Him in the first place! ("You will seek me and you will find me when you search for me with ALL your HEART"). For those who have taken Him up on this challenge, we have discovered He can be known way more than just subjectively -- I think that's what Rick is saying here.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This entire thread is fascinating...and Richard, I am not ignoring your original prompt for me to look at those other threads (e.g. "What Did Jesus Really Say?"--I read through parts of it, and see some things, particularly that Kathryn was on to something...hoping I can check it out more later...). However, wanted to jump in here and say that I agree with Rick on "the reality of Christ" -- I do believe that the "reality of Christ" can be known more than just subjectively--and through the Word, because He IS the Word--it all reveals Him, when seen with eyes of revelation and not JUST our intellect. I know Him far more than just with a "blind belief" -- more than just "because the Bible says so" -- I know Him because He has revealed Himself to me in so many different and personal ways. But it wasn't always that way...I once just had a "blind faith"...it wasn't until I took His Word seriously and sought Him with ALL my heart, as He says is the way to really find Him in the first place! ("You will seek me and you will find me when you search for me with ALL your HEART"). For those who have taken Him up on this challenge, we have discovered He can be known way more than just subjectively -- I think that's what Rick is saying here.
Hey Deb,

I'm glad you jumped in. That's what I love about these open conversations. Anyone can join in and offer their insights.

I think I understand where you are coming from except for your use of the word phrase "more than just subjectively" which I highlighted. What do you think that means? When I talk about "subjective" vs. "objective" I am talking about things that can be "publically demonstrated and verified" as opposed to things that very well may be true, but cannot be demonstrated or verified to anyone who asks. For example, it is a fact that I love my wife, but I can't prove that in the same way that I can prove that gravity accelerates objects at 32ft/s2.

So I think it would help if you could give me an example of what "more than just subjective" really means.

Great chatting!

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey Deb,

I'm glad you jumped in. That's what I love about these open conversations. Anyone can join in and offer their insights.

I think I understand where you are coming from except for your use of the word phrase "more than just subjectively" which I highlighted. What do you think that means? When I talk about "subjective" vs. "objective" I am talking about things that can be "publically demonstrated and verified" as opposed to things that very well may be true, but cannot be demonstrated or verified to anyone who asks. For example, it is a fact that I love my wife, but I can't prove that in the same way that I can prove that gravity accelerates objects at 32ft/s2.

So I think it would help if you could give me an example of what "more than just subjective" really means.

Great chatting!

Richard

Hi Deb,

Glad you jumped in, too.

Hey Richard,

As soon as I read your post, a thought, then a scripture to complete the thought popped into my mind.


"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord." John 21:7

Do you think this was subjective or objective or both? Subjective on John's part, yet the love that Jesus showed John was demonstrably objective so all the disciples knew who John was talking about.

Love with no action is what? Just words?

Good night for now. Will read in the morning.

You've got a great forum because you and Rose are wonderful moderators and I love all the great conversations.

Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Deb,

Glad you jumped in, too.

Hey Richard,

As soon as I read your post, a thought, then a scripture to complete the thought popped into my mind.


"Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord." John 21:7

Do you think this was subjective or objective or both? Subjective on John's part, yet the love that Jesus showed John was demonstrably objective so all the disciples knew who John was talking about.

Love with no action is what? Just words?

Good night for now. Will read in the morning.

You've got a great forum because you and Rose are wonderful moderators and I love all the great conversations.

Rick
Hey Rick,

The descriptive term "whom Jesus loved" would be obvious to everyone around. I don't think it answers the question I was asking. If I were a disciple hanging out with Jesus and the disciple who had been the special object of his affection, I would have objectively verifiable evidence to support my claim of public knowledge. But I don't have that kind of evidence supporting someone's claim that they "know" the book of Mormon is from God because the got a "burning in the bosom."

Surely you understand my point, right? I mean, I can't just go around believing every religious claim made by every Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, and every variety of Christian, right?

Have a good sleep my friend. We'll continue this in the morning!

Richard

PS: Thanks for the great words about the forum. They are very encouraging.

[heb13-13]

Hey Rick,

The descriptive term "whom Jesus loved" would be obvious to everyone around. I don't think it answers the question I was asking. If I were a disciple hanging out with Jesus and the disciple who had been the special object of his affection, I would have objectively verifiable evidence to support my claim of public knowledge. But I don't have that kind of evidence supporting someone's claim that they "know" the book of Mormon is from God because the got a "burning in the bosom."

Surely you understand my point, right? I mean, I can't just go around believing every religious claim made by every Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, and every variety of Christian, right?

Have a good sleep my friend. We'll continue this in the morning!

Richard

PS: Thanks for the great words about the forum. They are very encouraging.

Yep, I'm still up. Researching some math curriculums for my boys. My wife likes chalkdust.com, so I am looking at it. I need a pre-algebra and algebra II course. They are expensive but the testimonies seem great. They have some examples online and I will go through them tomorrow. You like math, what do you think?

Anyway, yes, I understand what you are talking about.

See you in the morning,
Rick

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I'm 'jumping in' too, here.


For example, it is a fact that I love my wife, but I can't prove that in the same way that I can prove that gravity accelerates objects at 32ft/s2.Let me analyse this for you. Thanks. :)

So, what you seem to be saying is several things. You know that you love your wife and that's all the matters to you (and her). You couldn't care less if people think you're crazy for loving Rose, or, crazy for not being able to prove to anyone else a) that you love her, and b) how much you love her. You love her. End of story. It's not intellectual, it's irrational... not that you have lost your reason, because this is the same situation faced by everyone who's in love and who has gone so far in that love that they have committed themselves to the other - the one they love. In this, you feel completely normal. Every man with a wife he adores is in the same boat. And they all say similar things - 'my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world', 'there's no-one else for me', (and so on).

Now, for some reason I find impossible to understand, you seem to think that God loving you, and you loving God, is different. It has to be treated like a scientific equation which can be demonstrated outside yourself, to the world. The thing is, it can be. Just as no-one seeing you and Rose together would think you ddn't know each other, people who receive God's love, and love Him in return, are totally discernable to the world. Even more transparent than you seem to appreciate. (I'll give you an example. I once ran out of petrol and had to knock on a nearby house to use their telephone, and the man told me later that he 'knew' 'immediately' that I was a believer. That might have something to do with his being a white witch, but just as possibly not. Similar things have happened to me in other circumstances when the focus has not been anything to do with God - for example, buying fish and chips!)

Thus, I have no idea what it is about your knowing God which you feel should be public, apart from that of an observer's point of view. You seem to be wedded to the idea that it's not rational enough to believe in God if you cannot also prove it objectively, not realising that whether you believe or not is objectively verified by everyone you know. All you need to worry about - and all that God is interested in - is whether you have engaged with Him subjectively. Everything else which you (Richard) have questions about, is taken care of within that tie. He Himself is engaged both subjectively and objectively with His children, just as any parent.

But for the one who 'knows God', it's the love relationship which is paramount. Indeed, the Christian is urged to take an objective view of what that love relationship looks like, by looking to Christ, and through ingesting the word of God, thus to move him or herself more and more off self and onto God, to be in an attitude of continously reducing the disparity between the two views. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap at times - 1 John 1:7 - and to highlight the gap at other times - 1 John 1:8 - so that the Christian will focus more closely on adjusting his or her relationship with Christ towards the normal - 1 John 1:9 + 10; 1 John 2:1 - 6.

To take the analogy of a loving relationship from a different angle, when you and Rose married, she may have taken your name, or not, but there was an expectation that you would live in the same house, sleep in the same bed, eat at the same table, share the same budget and be seen out and and about together. You wouldn't expect anyone to think you and she were man and wife, if she lived with a different man and you lived with a different woman - so that's another objective verification for you, that others can see you and Rose are in an exclusive relationship. You don't have to explain it to them. That's just they way that kind of relationship works.

If you comb scripture for these kinds of similarity between the relationship into which God invites us through Christ, it should be inevitable that you find many - and, like Rahab's observation to the spies in Jericho - that what their God was like had become an open secret - you may be able to see that it's not your place to provide the objective public proof in any other way than my demonstrating your relationship to God by the way you live. In Jericho, what God was like had been obejctively verified to them by God, in His parting the Red Sea. By these measures, and your experience of love, your reasons for rejecting Him seem flimsy to me, although it may be that you don't really understand the gospel - although I'm sure you think that you do.

[heb13-13]

Hi Richard,

I'm 'jumping in' too, here.

Let me analyse this for you. Thanks. :)

If you comb scripture for these kinds of similarity between the relationship into which God invites us through Christ, it should be inevitable that you find many - and, like Rahab's observation to the spies in Jericho - that what their God was like had become an open secret - you may be able to see that it's not your place to provide the objective public proof in any other way than my demonstrating your relationship to God by the way you live. In Jericho, what God was like had been obejctively verified to them by God, in His parting the Red Sea. By these measures, and your experience of love, your reasons for rejecting Him seem flimsy to me, although it may be that you don't really understand the gospel - although I'm sure you think that you do.



"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place."For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.And who is sufficient for these things?"(2Co 2: 14-16)

Who is sufficient for these things? Man cannot create the "Reality of Christ", the savour of Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yep, I'm still up. Researching some math curriculums for my boys. My wife likes chalkdust.com, so I am looking at it. I need a pre-algebra and algebra II course. They are expensive but the testimonies seem great. They have some examples online and I will go through them tomorrow. You like math, what do you think?

Anyway, yes, I understand what you are talking about.

See you in the morning,
Rick
I think you should check out www.k12.com (http://www.k12.com). We are homeschooling our youngest (he's 15 now) and we are using their curriculum. It is provided free to homeshoolers in Washington state. It is a full curiculum, they send you three big boxes of books and have online material too. Check it out, it might be free in your state too.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I'm 'jumping in' too, here.

That's great Charisma! Your comments and insights are always welcome. I've very glad that you are taking the time and effort to work with us on these questions.


Let me analyse this for you. Thanks. :)

So, what you seem to be saying is several things. You know that you love your wife and that's all the matters to you (and her). You couldn't care less if people think you're crazy for loving Rose, or, crazy for not being able to prove to anyone else a) that you love her, and b) how much you love her. You love her. End of story. It's not intellectual, it's irrational... not that you have lost your reason, because this is the same situation faced by everyone who's in love and who has gone so far in that love that they have committed themselves to the other - the one they love. In this, you feel completely normal. Every man with a wife he adores is in the same boat. And they all say similar things - 'my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world', 'there's no-one else for me', (and so on).

I would say it is non-rational rather than irrational since the latter has connotations of being contrary to reason and so false.

Of course, there can be times when love is quite irrational, but that wasn't my point.

And now I wish I hadn't used that example, because it is apparently distracting you from my point which was to illustrate the difference between obejctive and subjevtive knoweldge.



Now, for some reason I find impossible to understand, you seem to think that God loving you, and you loving God, is different. It has to be treated like a scientific equation which can be demonstrated outside yourself, to the world. The thing is, it can be. Just as no-one seeing you and Rose together would think you ddn't know each other, people who receive God's love, and love Him in return, are totally discernable to the world. Even more transparent than you seem to appreciate. (I'll give you an example. I once ran out of petrol and had to knock on a nearby house to use their telephone, and the man told me later that he 'knew' 'immediately' that I was a believer. That might have something to do with his being a white witch, but just as possibly not. Similar things have happened to me in other circumstances when the focus has not been anything to do with God - for example, buying fish and chips!)

I have never said any such thing. I have never said that the reciprocal love between Muslims and Allah or between Hindus and Brahman or between Christians and Jesus should be "treated like a scientific equation." You completely missed my point.

Here's the point - your claims about your religion are subjective. They sound just like the claims of people who believe in different religions. So how is an objecive observer supposed to tell which are true and which are false? It's great that you have the feeling that you know and love God. There's no problem with that until you claim that other religoins are false. As soon as you do that, you are making objective claims based on subjetive evidence. That's a an error. Here's a good example. Have you every read "Autobiography of a Yogi?" It was written by a charismatic Hindu who believed God the Father (as he called God) was doing miracles all the time. His book reads kust like any Chirstian devotional story about how the great love between God and his people (Hindus) was manifest in miracles and healings and visions all day every day for his whole life. His testimony is indistinguishable from that of the most devout Christian. So should I believe him or not? If not, why not?



Thus, I have no idea what it is about your knowing God which you feel should be public, apart from that of an observer's point of view. You seem to be wedded to the idea that it's not rational enough to believe in God if you cannot also prove it objectively, not realising that whether you believe or not is objectively verified by everyone you know. All you need to worry about - and all that God is interested in - is whether you have engaged with Him subjectively. Everything else which you (Richard) have questions about, is taken care of within that tie. He Himself is engaged both subjectively and objectively with His children, just as any parent.

Engaged with which God? Allah? Brahman? Jesus of Trinitarian Christianity? Jesus of Oneness Pentecostalism? The Catholic version of God? Mormon God?

Here's the fundaemntal disconnect. You don't seem to be aware that all your comments are based on the assumption that your version of Christinaity is the one true religion. That's why none of my comments make sense to you. I hvae been asking you why you or anyone should believe that your version of Christianity is correct.

And it's not wise to bring up the idea of God as parent since that immediately invokes the image of a negligent parent. Just look at history. You calim that there is objective evidence that God has been interacting with humanity in the capacity of a loving parent? That directly contradicts everything we know about history. A loving Father with a bottle of penecillin would not sit for two thouand years at the bedside of his dying children, listening to them beg for mercy and healing, and let them die miserable deaths. But that is what God has been doing since the beginning. He was perfectly happy to let millions of his own people die miserable deaths from easily preventable diseases. This went on until we discovered antibiotics and learned to heal ourselves without begging a merciless God for anything. So why have wicked humans saved millions of people that the good God was happy to let die? There simply is no objective evidence whatsoever that God acts as a loving parent. If such a relationship exists, it is entirely subjective.



But for the one who 'knows God', it's the love relationship which is paramount. Indeed, the Christian is urged to take an objective view of what that love relationship looks like, by looking to Christ, and through ingesting the word of God, thus to move him or herself more and more off self and onto God, to be in an attitude of continously reducing the disparity between the two views. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap at times - 1 John 1:7 - and to highlight the gap at other times - 1 John 1:8 - so that the Christian will focus more closely on adjusting his or her relationship with Christ towards the normal - 1 John 1:9 + 10; 1 John 2:1 - 6.

Yes, of course. That is the universal teachings of all mystical religions.



If you comb scripture for these kinds of similarity between the relationship into which God invites us through Christ, it should be inevitable that you find many - and, like Rahab's observation to the spies in Jericho - that what their God was like had become an open secret - you may be able to see that it's not your place to provide the objective public proof in any other way than my demonstrating your relationship to God by the way you live. In Jericho, what God was like had been obejctively verified to them by God, in His parting the Red Sea. By these measures, and your experience of love, your reasons for rejecting Him seem flimsy to me, although it may be that you don't really understand the gospel - although I'm sure you think that you do.
Flimsy? I have asked questions that require an answer in order to believe in Christianity. No one has come close to answering them. If my reasons appear flimsy to you I think it's probably because you have not really understood them yet. But I'm very glad you are trying. It takes a lot of work to get past all our false presupposistions so that we can actually see eye-to-eye and really make progress on these questions.

All the very best,

Richard

[heb13-13]

I think you should check out www.k12.com (http://www.k12.com). We are homeschooling our youngest (he's 15 now) and we are using their curriculum. It is provided free to homeshoolers in Washington state. It is a full curiculum, they send you three big boxes of books and have online material too. Check it out, it might be free in your state too.

Am looking at it now, Richard.
Thank you,
Rick

[heb13-13]

What I've come to learn is that most atheist (and I'm not an atheist) know the Bible far better than the average, born-again Christian does. Now, that's a shame. :winking0071: I'll put 10 random professed atheist against 10 random born-again evangelical Christians any day, and bet my money on the Biblical knowledge of the atheist any day. And if I'm right, that would somewhat imply that those who know the Bible the best don't believe it...and those who know the Bible the least...do believe it.


Hi RC,

There are different motivations for reading the Bible. Some read for "knowledge" and some read in order to disprove the existence of God. Others read it to know the Lord.

God's estimation of knowledge apart from the knowledge of Him is encouraging to non-intellectuals.

Jeremiah 9:23-24
23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

Indeed, the Bible is always, in many places, elevating "knowing Him" versus knowing "knowledge".

Peace and grace to you,
Rick

[RC Christian]

Hi RC,

There are different motivations for reading the Bible. Some read for "knowledge" and some read in order to disprove the existence of God. Others read it to know the Lord.

God's estimation of knowledge apart from the knowledge of Him is encouraging to non-intellectuals.

I don't think anyone will ever disprove the existence of God. They may arrive at conclusions that lead them to question if all, part, or any of the Bible was directly "given" by God, but this still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Once, I had a friend who was not a Christian, ask me about several passages in the OT...the murdering of children, etc. I was somewhat of a fundamentalist then, and my best answer to him was, "God's ways are higher than ours. There's lots of things we don't understand. God had a reason for condoning such behavior." He also, ask me about stuff like cutting off women's hands if they touched a man's genitals during a struggle between the 'bad guy' and her husband. He ask me about stoning a girl to death if she couldn't have presented her "tokens of virginity" on her wedding night, etc. I just offered up the canned answers that most do...needless to say, he left that conversation with the same questions he came into it with.

To imply that one shouldn't try to reason through knowledge of the Scriptures, I think, would go against Paul's method of arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, day and night, in the synagogues, by stating all the OT passages that he believed proved it...brought knowledge of it. The same would apply to questioning the murders, etc. in the Scripture. If they're there, they're there for a reason. We should try to understand it...be able to explain it to someone asking about it...and not just brush over it in conversation.

Knowledge is a good thing. You shouldn't slight it like that.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RC,

There are different motivations for reading the Bible. Some read for "knowledge" and some read in order to disprove the existence of God. Others read it to know the Lord.

God's estimation of knowledge apart from the knowledge of Him is encouraging to non-intellectuals.

Jeremiah 9:23-24
23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

Indeed, the Bible is always, in many places, elevating "knowing Him" versus knowing "knowledge".

Peace and grace to you,
Rick
It was pretty exciting when I discovered the Spoke 2 KeyLink between Jeremiah and 1 Corinthians based on those verses.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
And it was even more exciting when I noticed that this Spoke 2 KeyLink was based on the fundamental meaning of the second letter Bet as the sign of the preposition "in" - here is how it is used in the actual text of Jeremiah:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Bet_Jer923.gif

I wrote about this in my article Spoke 2 > Glory IN the Lord! (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/bet_glory.asp)

This is an appropriate thread to be discussing this link, since we began by investigating how the "scribes" altered Scripture and the context of 1 Corinthians 2 talks about the foolishness of the scribes. This is the mystery of the Bible Wheel. How did it come to be given the natural history of the Bible? When I was a Christian, I said it was evidence of how the "hidden hand" of God guided the development of the Bible without anyone having any idea of what he was doing. Now I'm just mystified. I'm guessing that there probably are spiritual agents (like angels) who can influence things. And this then opens up the question about corrupt spiritual beings that the Bible calls "demons." What a complex machine we devise when we think to philosophize!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't think anyone will ever disprove the existence of God. They may arrive at conclusions that lead them to question if all, part, or any of the Bible was directly "given" by God, but this still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Once, I had a friend who was not a Christian, ask me about several passages in the OT...the murdering of children, etc. I was somewhat of a fundamentalist then, and my best answer to him was, "God's ways are higher than ours. There's lots of things we don't understand. God had a reason for condoning such behavior." He also, ask me about stuff like cutting off women's hands if they touched a man's genitals during a struggle between the 'bad guy' and her husband. He ask me about stoning a girl to death if she couldn't have presented her "tokens of virginity" on her wedding night, etc. I just offered up the canned answers that most do...needless to say, he left that conversation with the same questions he came into it with.

To imply that one shouldn't try to reason through knowledge of the Scriptures, I think, would go against Paul's method of arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, day and night, in the synagogues, by stating all the OT passages that he believed proved it...brought knowledge of it. The same would apply to questioning the murders, etc. in the Scripture. If they're there, they're there for a reason. We should try to understand it...be able to explain it to someone asking about it...and not just brush over it in conversation.

Knowledge is a good thing. You shouldn't slight it like that.

Great comments RC! :yo:

The idea of "proving God exists" means nothing until we define "God." I personally think of God as something like the "Cosmic Mind" or "Ground of Being." I do not believe in a "personal God" in the sense of an "agent" who goes about doing things since it seems to me that agency is a property of finite beings.

Concerning knowledge: I don't see how we could avoid trying "to reason through knowledge of the Scriptures." The same Scripture that says "God is love" and "love does no harm to a neighbor" also says "slay both man and women, child and suckling." To merely assert that such moral abominations are "there for a reason" is no answer at all.

Before I comment more, it would help if I knew what you believe about the Bible. Why do you look to it for spiritual insight? Do you think it is the "Word of God" (whatever that might mean)?

[Charisma]

Hi Richard, :)

Thanks for your reply.


I would say it is non-rational rather than irrational since the latter has connotations of being contrary to reason and so false. Okay ... 'non-rational'. My point though, is that you, the lover, cannot be objective and subjective simultaneously. This is where the science which you seek falls apart. You want to be objective the whole time. And yet, when you discovered some new number connection, your joy is subjective to you, but no doubt Rose could see it objectively. This is all that God, the Father of Jesus Christ requires. From your reading of scripture you will know that He offers abundant objectivity to the on-looker, but the objective evidence of His existence - His presence - is offered to the ones who pray in the ways that engage Him, because His answers are their objective 'signs' of the relationship. Their symptoms (what you would call the subjective part of the dynamic of their relationship with Him) are their delight when they perceive His answers, whether it be for today's bread, or, for some other intervention by Him in the life of another which they have requested. My general point is that the objective evidence of a relationship with God is not hidden from the observer of that relationship.

I realise you think that's what you had, but then you ask:

questions that require an answer in order to believe in Christianity.This indicates an over-emphasis on the doctrinal differences which have arisen through the centuries, rather than a focus where the emphasis should be - on Christ Himself.


I have never said any such thing. I have never said that the reciprocal love between Muslims and Allah or between Hindus and Brahman or between Christians and Jesus should be "treated like a scientific equation." You completely missed my point.Okay. Skip 'scientific equation'. My point is that the relationship a Christian has with Christ is on a completely different footing from any other religion, because Christ is alive. I am not asking you to believe in what other people tell you about what they believe, but to believe what God declares is necessary for our salvation from sin.

Remember what Paul says about sacrificing to idols - that they drink a cup of devils? Well, whether that's a Hindu god, or Allah (who has no son - not the God of the Bible), or any other spirit, these are not the God of living water, the God of the one true Light, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Rock of our salvation.


It's great that you have the feeling that you know and love God. There's no problem with that until you claim that other religoins are false.There are many objective signs of the Christian life. You know them. That's why you have so many complaints about Christians. James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world. Does your current situation mean that you couldn't produce the evidence which others by would objectively assess you to be a Christian, when you 'thought' you were a Christian?


As soon as you do that, you are making objective claims based on subjetive evidence.No, I'm not making any objective claims (about Christianity) whatever - except over what I find in those who claim to be in Christ. By THEIR fruit YE shall KNOW them. That's the objective evidence.

I don't think you've ever really compared Christianity with the other religions you've investigated, using the criteria in scripture by which the testimony of knowing Christ can be judged. You may think you have, but you haven't really drilled down to the nitty gritty of spiritual effects of repentance toward God.


You don't seem to be aware that all your comments are based on the assumption that your version of Christinaity is the one true religion.And you don't seem to be aware that your reasons for giving up on God are not going to satisfy His criteria when the chips are down.


It takes a lot of work to get past all our false presupposistions so that we can actually see eye-to-eye and really make progress on these questions. The only presuppositions I have about you, are that you are like the rest of us. We all have to get beyond our initial idea of what it is to have a relationship with God, just like your children had to grow into a much better understanding of the world than they had when they were babies. A very great number of Christians don't even learn to walk in the Spirit. They have a few bumps and when it dawns on them that the deal is, now they have to get up and go on without as much help as before, they reckon it's not worth the effort, and they turn away from God, even though He is willing them to get over themselves and shed more of what hinders them, in His direction.

[RC Christian]

Great comments RC! :yo:


Concerning knowledge: I don't see how we could avoid trying "to reason through knowledge of the Scriptures." The same Scripture that says "God is love" and "love does no harm to a neighbor" also says "slay both man and women, child and suckling." To merely assert that such moral abominations are "there for a reason" is no answer at all.

Maybe I should have prefaced that with "If one believes...claims...states...that the Bible is "the Word of God", then they should search for the answer (read, "seek knowledge"...since that's what the post was about). I was presenting a rational, logical point that seems to get brushed over by Christianity...especially by the ministers of the "faith". Sorry if that was too ambiguous.


Before I comment more, it would help if I knew what you believe about the Bible. Why do you look to it for spiritual insight? Do you think it is the "Word of God" (whatever that might mean)?

Based on my answer, this answer may not be quite as relevant, but...I view the Bible as a set of allegories and wisdom teachings, created by the hands of men. Wisdom based on "their" perspective...not God's, although, I can't explain all the amazing mathematical features of it, any better than you can. Can one get spiritual insight from the Bible? Sure they can. Can one get references and justifications for violence and 'evil'...sure they can. I don't read the Bible as literal and I don't search it for spiritual understanding...not within the stories as if they actually ever happened.

[RC Christian]

Great comments RC! :yo:



Before I comment more, it would help if I knew what you believe about the Bible. Why do you look to it for spiritual insight? Do you think it is the "Word of God" (whatever that might mean)?

Hey Richard,

Why don't you create a poll, with several choices as to where people can vote on their view of the Bible? The Word of God... Inerrant, infallible Word of God...Men's collected Wisdom Teachings...a Cryptic, Kabbalistic Text...just a collection of books...etc

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

Why don't you create a poll, with several choices as to where people can vote on their view of the Bible? The Word of God... Inerrant, infallible Word of God...Men's collected Wisdom Teachings...a Cryptic, Kabbalistic Text...just a collection of books...etc
Great idea! Here it is: What is the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2628-Poll-What-is-the-Bible)

[RC Christian]

Great idea! Here it is: What is the Bible? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2628-Poll-What-is-the-Bible)

Thanks! :thumb:

[heb13-13]

I don't think anyone will ever disprove the existence of God. They may arrive at conclusions that lead them to question if all, part, or any of the Bible was directly "given" by God, but this still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God. Once, I had a friend who was not a Christian, ask me about several passages in the OT...the murdering of children, etc. I was somewhat of a fundamentalist then, and my best answer to him was, "God's ways are higher than ours. There's lots of things we don't understand. God had a reason for condoning such behavior." He also, ask me about stuff like cutting off women's hands if they touched a man's genitals during a struggle between the 'bad guy' and her husband. He ask me about stoning a girl to death if she couldn't have presented her "tokens of virginity" on her wedding night, etc. I just offered up the canned answers that most do...needless to say, he left that conversation with the same questions he came into it with.

To imply that one shouldn't try to reason through knowledge of the Scriptures, I think, would go against Paul's method of arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, day and night, in the synagogues, by stating all the OT passages that he believed proved it...brought knowledge of it. The same would apply to questioning the murders, etc. in the Scripture. If they're there, they're there for a reason. We should try to understand it...be able to explain it to someone asking about it...and not just brush over it in conversation.

Knowledge is a good thing. You shouldn't slight it like that.

Oh, I'm not slighting knowledge, just highlighting what the most valuable knowledge is.

Do you have any ideas why neither Jesus nor the Apostles corrected the difficult to understand things in the OT? Why do you think the were silent on the "atrocities" in the OT?

Any theories?

Rick

[debz]

Am looking at it now, Richard.
Thank you,
Rick

I don't know if either of you have heard of this, but it is a great math resource, for all levels, and free:

www.khanacademy.org (http://www.khanacademy.org)

[heb13-13]

I don't know if either of you have heard of this, but it is a great math resource, for all levels, and free:

www.khanacademy.org (http://www.khanacademy.org)

Thank you, Deb.

I will check it out.

[RC Christian]

Oh, I'm not slighting knowledge, just highlighting what the most valuable knowledge is.

Do you have any ideas why neither Jesus nor the Apostles corrected the difficult to understand things in the OT? Why do you think the were silent on the "atrocities" in the OT?

Any theories?

Rick

In my opinion...the writer's of the Gospels had no answers for them either, so chose to not address them in their writings. Remember, I believe the stories and characters are part of allegorical teachings, not history.

[Rose]

Oh, I'm not slighting knowledge, just highlighting what the most valuable knowledge is.

Do you have any ideas why neither Jesus nor the Apostles corrected the difficult to understand things in the OT? Why do you think the were silent on the "atrocities" in the OT?

Any theories?

Rick

Hi Rick

Good question :thumb:

Since the only words we know that Jesus said are the ones recorded by others in the Gospels it's hard to say if he addressed the atrocities of the Old Testament or not. It is odd when one thinks about it that of all the words Jesus must have said in his 3 years of teaching we only have a handful of them recorded in the Gospels, and given his pacifistic nature none of those words address the brutality of Yahweh. If I compare the the number of posts that Richard has written on just this Forum alone (over 8500) in the last 4 years it seems that Jesus should have had many more teachings about every detail of the Old Testament...:confused: I think this is a mystery that will never be solved...

Rose

[Charisma]

Hello everyone,

I'm not planning to get deep into this discussion, but I'd like to toss in a couple of cents.


My view on the 'atrocities' in the Bible, is that no-one who complains about them takes time to acknowledge the reasons for them on God's terms. And, there is no point in complaining about things God has done in the past, before Christ was revealed to the world, when there was no Holy Spirit available to change men's hearts.

Neither, it seems, does anyone pause to think how great the suffering may have been before the Flood, when the wickedness was so great that God was grieved with Himself for having made man at all. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

For instance, have any of you considered the possibility that the damage done to the gene pool descending from Adam, was so random and awful, that it was the kindness of God to deselect any future development, apart from those who would be descended from Noah and his three sons and their wives? I realise this may seem like speculation, but I don't think that what goes on today - bad as it is - can be quite as bad as things were before God decided to end their wickedness.

And now, aren't we grateful that total combustion of a human is fairly rare? God is saving His final assessment of our lives, until it is too late for us to change anything. I, personally, believe God could not be any more righteous in keeping His word not to send another flood, and, in keeping a way open to Him for all men of all time since.

The idea that God loved every minute of the destruction He caused, (also) shows a great, great, great lack of understanding of His hatred of sin.


To RC, Hi :)


Remember, I believe the stories and characters are part of allegorical teachings, not history.Have you ever discussed this with people who can trace their genealogy back to Abraham? What if you're descended from Abraham yourself? You don't exist? ;) Right!

[RC Christian]

To RC, Hi :)

Have you ever discussed this with people who can trace their genealogy back to Abraham?

I have not, and wouldn't take such a claim seriously, since there is no evidence that Abraham ever existed, and some fairly good evidence that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. did not exist. Here's a link of reference on some of the reasons many historians and archaeologists have come to this conclusion:

http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id17.html

And, on the same website, the link below discusses the "atrocities" issue that you reference in your comments, also:

http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html


What if you're descended from Abraham yourself? You don't exist? ;) Right!


:dizzy:........:sCo_hmmthink:.......then this would all be just a dream...cool...I knew it!!!! :rofl:

[Charisma]

Hi RC,


Here's a link of reference on some of the reasons many historians and archaeologists have come to this conclusion:So, you expect me to believe that the people digging around literature and the decaying landscape have a more 'living' proof of the non-existence of people, from whom there are people alive today who can trace their genealogy?

What?


:talk005: ............. Time to wake up from your dream!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RC,

So, you expect me to believe that the people digging around literature and the decaying landscape have a more 'living' proof of the non-existence of people, from whom there are people alive today who can trace their genealogy?

What?


:talk005: ............. Time to wake up from your dream!
Great! Let's go with that!

Romulus and Remus were definitely historical figures because that's the myth that the Romans believed about their origin!

I won't waste everyone's time by listing out all the "foundation myths" of every culture that Christians would reject out of hand as obviously false and mythological.

So Charisma, why the double standard? Why do you accept the Jewish foundation myth of Abraham, for which there is no direct historical evidence of any kind, and reject all others?

And how do the Jews "trace their genealogy" without any documents?

[RC Christian]

Great! Let's go with that!

Romulus and Remus were definitely historical figures because that's the myth that the Romans believed about their origin!

I won't waste everyone's time by listing out all the "foundation myths" of every culture that Christians would reject out of hand as obviously false and mythological.

So Charisma, why the double standard? Why do you accept the Jewish foundation myth of Abraham, for which there is no direct historical evidence of any kind, and reject all others?

And how do the Jews "trace their genealogy" without any documents?


:confused2: ... I was wondering the same thing...

Once again, the old adage is proven true...great minds think a like! :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh, I'm not slighting knowledge, just highlighting what the most valuable knowledge is.

Do you have any ideas why neither Jesus nor the Apostles corrected the difficult to understand things in the OT? Why do you think the were silent on the "atrocities" in the OT?

Any theories?

Rick
Good morning Rick, :tea:

I find it fascinating that no one in the NT raised a finger to point out the moral and intellecutal problems with the OT. I find this very telling because within a hundred years Marcion rose up and got a large following by rejecting the OT entirely for those very reasons! And why the difference? The answer seems plain. The writers of the NT were all Jews (except perhaps Luke) and so they were brainwashed from youth into unquestioning belief about the OT. They were no more allowed to question the goodness of the God in the OT than any Christian is today. They were silent about the atrocities because they could not see them, having been blinded by indoctrination from youth. Marcion, on the other hand, was an unindoctrinated Gentile and when he looked at the OT Scriptures with open eyes and saw what was actually written, he was horrified like any sane and good person.

I think that is a very reasonable explanation that fits well with out understanding of the dynamics of belief in religious cults. People indoctrinated in the religion simply cannot see what is so plain and obvious to any outsider.

Great chatting!

Richard

[RC Christian]

Hi RC,

What?


:talk005: ............. Time to wake up from your dream!


...but it was just getting good! Can I at least become lucid in it ...and try to have some fun? :lol:

Party-pooper!!!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:confused2: ... I was wondering the same thing...

Once again, the old adage is proven true...great minds think a like! :thumb:
Funny, I thought it proved an old adage too, though not quite so flattering .... "Even a broken clock is right twice a day!"

Maybe you're AM and I'm PM.

:hysterical:

[RC Christian]

Funny, I thought it proved an old adage too, though not quite so flattering .... "Even a broken clock is right twice a day!"

Maybe you're AM and I'm PM.

:hysterical:

That would explain why you finally got one right! :lmbo:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello everyone,

I'm not planning to get deep into this discussion, but I'd like to toss in a couple of cents.


My view on the 'atrocities' in the Bible, is that no-one who complains about them takes time to acknowledge the reasons for them on God's terms. And, there is no point in complaining about things God has done in the past, before Christ was revealed to the world, when there was no Holy Spirit available to change men's hearts.

Neither, it seems, does anyone pause to think how great the suffering may have been before the Flood, when the wickedness was so great that God was grieved with Himself for having made man at all. Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Good morning Charisma, :tea:

I find it fascinating that you bolded, colored, and underlined the word "grieved." It appears you are not familiar with the fundamental Christian Doctrine of Impassibility which states that God is utterly unchanging and so cannot suffer any emotional pain or discomfort. Here is an article that discusses this doctrine, called God Without Mood Swings: Recovering the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm) from www.spurgeon.org (http://www.spurgeon.org):


Perhaps the most difficult biblical dilemma for those of us who affirm the
classic view of an utterly sovereign and immutable God is the problem of how to
make sense of the various divine affections spoken of in Scripture. If God is
eternally unchanging—if His will and His mind are as fixed and constant as His
character—how could He ever experience the rising and falling passions we
associate with love, joy, exasperation, or anger?

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible—not
subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the
words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or
passions, immutable" (2.1).

God without passions? Can such a view be reconciled with
the biblical data? Consider Genesis 5:6-7: "God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (emphasis added). In fact,
Scripture frequently ascribes changing emotions to God. At various times He is
said to be grieved (Psalm 78:40), angry (Deuteronomy 1:37), pleased (1 Kings
3:10), joyful (Zephaniah 3:17), and moved by pity (Judges 2:18).

Classic theism treats such biblical statements as anthropopathisms—figurative expressions ascribing human
passions to God. They are the emotional equivalent of those familiar physical
metaphors known as anthropomorphisms—in which hands (Exodus 15:17), feet
(1 Kings 5:3), eyes (2 Chronicles 16:9), or other human body parts are ascribed
to God.
Now there is no need to get into a debate about this doctrine since it is something that Christians cannot agree upon amongst themselves. Indeed, look at what this article (http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/cangodsuffer.html) states:
Perhaps no traditional Christian doctrine has taken a greater bashing from modern theologians than the assertion that God is "impassible" by nature--that is, that he cannot experience suffering.

This is the problem with "modern" Christianity. Most Christians are completely ignorant of their own history and what was believed by the people that founded their religion. This happened in stages. About fifteen hundred years of Church history between the first century and the reformation is just chopped off and rejected as "Roman Catholic" by many Protestants, and most modern Protestants/Evangelicals reject most of their doctrinal history which was founded by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) who both denied that anyone had could make a "free will choice" to believe! So what religion are you following? Where did you get your doctrines? If they come only from the "Bible" why are they so different than the doctrines other Christians have believed for the last 2000 years?

Christianity did not just drop from the sky fully formed. There were councils after councils throughout the centuries when Christans would meet to try to hammer out their differences. And those meetings were vehement! They would argue if Christ were God or a created being. And at that time, about half or more "Christians" believed the latter. But what could they do? The doctrines had not been established yet.

Modern Christians often forget they have inherited the conclusions of 2000 years of Biblical philosophical debates. Evangelical Christianity does not just "come from the Bble." It comes from 2000 years of debate about what the Bible really means received unconsciously and interpreted to fit with the "feelings" that are interpretated as "confirmation by the Holy Spirit."



For instance, have any of you considered the possibility that the damage done to the gene pool descending from Adam, was so random and awful, that it was the kindness of God to deselect any future development, apart from those who would be descended from Noah and his three sons and their wives? I realise this may seem like speculation, but I don't think that what goes on today - bad as it is - can be quite as bad as things were before God decided to end their wickedness.

Yes, it is groundless speculation. The Bible says nothing of DNA or the gene pool. We can thank modern skeptical science for those discoveries.

And even if there were damage to the gene pool, God could simply have miraculously fixed it without killing everyone so your explanation doesn't explain anything. I find it very strange that folks who constantly talk about God being all powerful forget so quickly that he chose to kill everyone when he didn't need to. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that God is all powerful and does only what he wants to do. Why did he want to kill everyone? And why does God seem to love violence so much? He marched the Israelites through Canaan like a kid with toy soldiers. He could have driven out the inhabitants himself. Why did he want to brutalize his people by turning them into merciless baby killers? Have you ever taken a moment to imagine what it would be like to be an Israeli solder? You are commanded to kill every man, woman, and child. You go forth, find a tent, rip it open with your sword. You see a beautiful and tender sixteen year old mother with one child at the breast and a toddler beside her playing with her doll. You lift your sword. The woman begs for mercy but you have no mercy - you are obeying your god. You slice her toddler in half, splattering her face with blood and entrails of her own child. She cries out, falls at your feet, begging and pleading for mercy but you have no mercy other than to slaughter her and her infant in a single blow. Then you go to the next tent, and the next, and the next ... And along the way you collect all the sexy virgins - 32,000 of them - to be distributed amongst the soldiers when they are done murdering everyone else (Numbers 31).

You call this a holy book?

All the best,

Richard

[heb13-13]

Good morning Rick, :tea:

I find it fascinating that no one in the NT raised a finger to point out the moral and intellecutal problems with the OT. I find this very telling because within a hundred years Marcion rose up and got a large following by rejecting the OT entirely for those very reasons! And why the difference? The answer seems plain. The writers of the NT were all Jews (except perhaps Luke) and so they were brainwashed from youth into unquestioning belief about the OT. They were no more allowed to question the goodness of the God in the OT than any Christian is today. They were silent about the atrocities because they could not see them, having been blinded by indoctrination from youth. Marcion, on the other hand, was an unindoctrinated Gentile and when he looked at the OT Scriptures with open eyes and saw what was actually written, he was horrified like any sane and good person.

I think that is a very reasonable explanation that fits well with out understanding of the dynamics of belief in religious cults. People indoctrinated in the religion simply cannot see what is so plain and obvious to any outsider.

Great chatting!

Richard

Good morning to you Richard,

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. This year, I was good about only having one helping of the main course, but I really blew it on all the dessert. :lol: And to top it all off, I could not help but have pumpkin pie with my coffee this morning, mmmm good. It was good to get together with family and friends again and we will see many of them again at Christmas. It's always fun to see how much all the kids have grown.

Thanks for offering up your theory. Yes, Luke was not a Jew but wrote some portions of the New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and wrote nothing. He did however direct and command John to write.

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

And He was widely quoted in the Gospels so you would also have to conclude that Jesus was brainwashed by His upbringing, too. I think you as much said that in some previous post somewhere (Maybe Hitler vs Yahweh) where you said that He was superstitious (regarding Satan, miracles and hell). You cannot just stop at "superstitious" and would have to conclude that Jesus must have been deluded also, because He said, "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Luke 10:18

You would have to also conclude that all the writers of the NT that admit to witnessing miracles, such as healings, driving out demons, healing the sick, referring to Satan, etc, etc, must also have been deluded.

Regarding Jesus seeing Satan falling from heaven (as lightning) I hope you can agree with me that "lightning" is descriptive in this text of "how he fell" from heaven and not that Jesus saw lightning (itself) fall from heaven.

You may think this but I don't know for sure so have to ask. Do you now think Jesus and the Apostles were mythical figures?

And for both you and RC, do you guys think that Josephus was a fictional person, too?

Do you also believe that the early church "fathers" who were "leaders" in the early church (although their writings were not included in the NT) were fictional (mythical) figures. Men such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna?

I am getting the impression that just like the G.A. Henty books (which are a very good), you and RC (and Rose, too) view the Bible as Historical fiction. Am I far off?

Always great to converse with you,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning to you Richard,

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. This year, I was good about only having one helping of the main course, but I really blew it on all the dessert. :lol: And to top it all off, I could not help but have pumpkin pie with my coffee this morning, mmmm good. It was good to get together with family and friends again and we will see many of them again at Christmas. It's always fun to see how much all the kids have grown.

That's good to hear Rick. I let myself go a bit on the main course. Rose's turkey is the best. She injects the bird with lotsa butter! Yummm ..

And pumpkin pie has always been a fave of mine - with whipped cream on top, of course.



You would have to also conclude that all the writers of the NT that admit to witnessing miracles, such as healings, driving out demons, healing the sick, referring to Satan, etc, etc, must also have been deluded.

Did I say "deluded?" I don't think that's the word I would choose. Sure, some of them might have been deluded, but in general they were pretty normal healthy people adhering to the beliefs of the time in which they were born. Is there any evidence that they had any knowledge not available to people living back then?



Regarding Jesus seeing Satan falling from heaven (as lightning) I hope you can agree with me that "lightning" is descriptive in this text of "how he fell" from heaven and not that Jesus saw lightning (itself) fall from heaven.

Are you saying that "heaven" is a physical place from which you could see a non-physical spirit being "fall" like literal lightning? I can't answer your question - it's loaded with too many questionable presuppositions.



You may think this but I don't know for sure so have to ask. Do you now think Jesus and the Apostles were mythical figures?

I know that a lot of myths were made up about those literary figures. Whether there is or is not a literal historical person corresponding to each literary figure I know not, and I don't even know how I could establish such a fact. Folks have been disputing it for many centuries and have not come to a firm conclusion.



And for both you and RC, do you guys think that Josephus was a fictional person, too?

Nice move. But the historicity of Josephus is of an entirely different character than that of Jesus and the apostles. Josephus wrote many volumes of history. There still exists a Roman bust that is supposed to be of him. Jesus wrote nothing so we have to rely on what others wrote about him. But people who write stories about their heroes tend to embellish things just a bit, if you know what I mean. :winking0071:

Therefore, people are rightly skeptical when folks start making claims about their hero being born of a virgin, walking on water, and ascending to heaven. Do you think I should accept such stories "on faith?"



Do you also believe that the early church "fathers" who were "leaders" in the early church (although their writings were not included in the NT) were fictional (mythical) figures. Men such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna?

No. Like Josephus, most of them are set much more firmly in accepted history. But when I read what Clement of Rome believed, I see an ignorant and gullible first century man:

There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers.

Consider now the problem this poses. Here we see a man explaining the central doctrine of the Christian religion - the resurrection - in terms of a false myth about the phoenix! They both sound like myths, and we know one of them is myth, so why should we believe the other is not? And where was the Holy Spirit in all this? Tertullian said that Clement was consecrated by Peter himself. Why does God allow such errors to be mixed in with the truth?



I am getting the impression that just like the G.A. Henty books (which are a very good), you and RC (and Rose, too) view the Bible as Historical fiction. Am I far off?

Always great to converse with you,
Rick

Yes, that's an excellent description. The Bible is set in a historical context and it gets a fair amount of the history right. But the dialogs and miracles and all that? It looks like a lot of fiction to me. Some of it might be true, but much of it cannot be true if for no reason but that it contradicts itself in places.

And yes, it's is great to converse with you, as always,

Richard

[heb13-13]

That's good to hear Rick. I let myself go a bit on the main course. Rose's turkey is the best. She injects the bird with lotsa butter! Yummm ..

And pumpkin pie has always been a fave of mine - with whipped cream on top, of course.


Did I say "deluded?" I don't think that's the word I would choose. Sure, some of them might have been deluded, but in general they were pretty normal healthy people adhering to the beliefs of the time in which they were born. Is there any evidence that they had any knowledge not available to people living back then?


Are you saying that "heaven" is a physical place from which you could see a non-physical spirit being "fall" like literal lightning? I can't answer your question - it's loaded with too many questionable presuppositions.


I know that a lot of myths were made up about those literary figures. Whether there is or is not a literal historical person corresponding to each literary figure I know not, and I don't even know how I could establish such a fact. Folks have been disputing it for many centuries and have not come to a firm conclusion.


Nice move. But the historicity of Josephus is of an entirely different character than that of Jesus and the apostles. Josephus wrote many volumes of history. There still exists a Roman bust that is supposed to be of him. Jesus wrote nothing so we have to rely on what others wrote about him. But people who write stories about their heroes tend to embellish things just a bit, if you know what I mean. :winking0071:

Therefore, people are rightly skeptical when folks start making claims about their hero being born of a virgin, walking on water, and ascending to heaven. Do you think I should accept such stories "on faith?"


No. Like Josephus, most of them are set much more firmly in accepted history. But when I read what Clement of Rome believed, I see an ignorant and gullible first century man:

There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers.

Consider now the problem this poses. Here we see a man explaining the central doctrine of the Christian religion - the resurrection - in terms of a false myth about the phoenix! They both sound like myths, and we know one of them is myth, so why should we believe the other is not? And where was the Holy Spirit in all this? Tertullian said that Clement was consecrated by Peter himself. Why does God allow such errors to be mixed in with the truth?


Yes, that's an excellent description. The Bible is set in a historical context and it gets a fair amount of the history right. But the dialogs and miracles and all that? It looks like a lot of fiction to me. Some of it might be true, but much of it cannot be true if for no reason but that it contradicts itself in places.

And yes, it's is great to converse with you, as always,

Richard


Hi Richard,

Does anyone really know if Clement was speaking in figurative or literal language?

In this verse, the Hebrew and Greek name are both given to name "the angel of the bottomless pit."
"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon" Rev 9:11

Isn't is plausible that Greek mythology came from true stories of old?

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Does anyone really know if Clement was speaking in figurative or literal language?

In this verse, the Hebrew and Greek name are both given to name "the angel of the bottomless pit."
"And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon" Rev 9:11

Isn't is plausible that Greek mythology came from true stories of old?

All the best,
Rick


If Clement's story was figurative, then why not take the whole story of Christ as figurative?

But you suggestion doesn't work. The story is obviously meant to be taken literally. He named the places, the city, the priests. He says this event happens "in the sight of all men." There is not a hint of allegory in the story:


Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

And as for the "plausibility" of the Greek myths arising from "true stories" - what "true story" do you think underlies the phoenix?

[Tikvah]

I'm not here to argue but to point out historical facts, that are well known now. The Scribes from Yeshua's time, purposely hid His identity in The Torah and in the Prophet's writings, because they felt that our Messiah "usurped" their positions. You see, if you read in the Mishnah, there are certain things that the Pharisee/Saducee's belive that they have complete authority over, including Elohim's final Word!

Now, if Yeshua is the Word made flesh, and He is, and the Word is Torah, then how can the Torah be done away with? Any of it? Our Heavenly Father's Word is perfect. Thus Yeshua is perfect, and He can not, could not and will not go agains ANY of our Heavenly Father's Word. So.... then... question? How can any of our Heavenly Father's commanded Feasts, and the Shabbat be "done away with"? Yeshua kept them, the talmidim [disciples] kept them. Yeshua Himself said "not one jot or tittle" would be done awaya with. How then have we replaced our Heavenly Fathers commanded feasts, not Jewish feasts, with the pagan traditions of Christmas and Easter? Only one tribe in Israel was Jewish, and that's Yahudah [Judah]. Who then are the other 10 tribes, they are not Jews. These are the ones that have been disbursed amoung the nations because of their prostitution against our Heavenly Father's Word.

Yeshua said, if you love me, you will follow in my footsteps. Did He celebrate pagan holidays, NO! Absolutely NOT! And He does not, and will not compromise. Our Elohim is a consuming fire, and He is jealous for His Bride. I can tell you right now that His Bride IS and always has been, Israel. Israel consists of 12 tribes. There is not going to be any "gentile" gate in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Just some things to think about and look into. Time is short. And Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yeshua came to gather His lost sheep, not the other nations. There are those of the "other nations" that can be grafted in if they will keep all of His Mitzvot [commandments] and follow His Torah [Torah=Word=Yeshua].

NONE of the commandments have been done away with. How can one say they keep the commandments and only keep "some" of them...

Shalom for now
Tivkah

[Timmy]

...[Since] Yeshua is the Word made flesh, and He is, and the Word is Torah, then how can the Torah be done away with? Any of it? Our Heavenly Father's Word is perfect. Thus Yeshua is perfect, and He can not, could not and will not go against ANY of our Heavenly Father's Word. So.... then... question? How can any of our Heavenly Father's commanded Feasts, and the Shabbat be "done away with"? Yeshua kept them, the talmidim [disciples] kept them. Yeshua Himself said "not one jot or tittle" would be done away with. How then have we replaced our Heavenly Fathers commanded feasts, not Jewish feasts, with the pagan traditions of Christmas and Easter? Only one tribe in Israel was Jewish, and that's Yahudah [Judah]. Who then are the other 10 tribes, they are not Jews. These are the ones that have been disbursed amoung the nations because of their prostitution against our Heavenly Father's Word.

Yeshua said, if you love me, you will follow in my footsteps. Did He celebrate pagan holidays, NO! Absolutely NOT! And He does not, and will not compromise. Our Elohim is a consuming fire, and He is jealous for His Bride. I can tell you right now that His Bride IS and always has been, Israel. Israel consists of 12 tribes. There is not going to be any "gentile" gate in the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Just some things to think about and look into. Time is short. And Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yeshua came to gather His lost sheep, not the other nations. There are those of the "other nations" that can be grafted in if they will keep all of His Mitzvot [commandments] and follow His Torah [Torah=Word=Yeshua].

NONE of the commandments have been done away with. How can one say they keep the commandments and only keep "some" of them...

Shalom for now
Tivkah


(Yeshua Ha'Maschiach says:)
Jn. 14.15 'If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. 21 The one who has My commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father. I also will love him and will reveal Myself to him. 23 ...If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 The one who doesn’t love Me will not keep My words. The word that you hear is not Mine but is from the Father who sent Me.

Mt 5.17 'Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not one yud or kotz shall pass from the law until all things are accomplished.
19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



(Yeshua Ha'Melchi Olam Talmidim say:)

Jas. 2.10...whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of breaking it all.


Rom. 7.11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 12 So then, the law is HOLY, and the commandment is HOLY and JUST and GOOD.

Following after the HOLY:
I Peter 1.13 Therefore, with your minds ready for action, be serious and set your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires of your former ignorance. 15 But as the One who called you is HOLY, you also are to be HOLY in all your conduct; for it is written, BE HOLY BECAUSE I AM HOLY.

Heb. 12.9 Furthermore, we had natural fathers discipline us, and we respected them. Shouldn’t we submit even more to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time based on what seemed good to them, but He does it for our benefit, so that we can share His holiness. 11 No discipline seems enjoyable at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it yields the fruit of peace and righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore strengthen your tired hands and weakened knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated but healed instead. 14 Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness — without it no one will see the Lord. 17 And if you address as Father the One who judges impartially based on each one’s work, you are to conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your temporary residence.


("... the law is HOLY, and the commandment/mitzvot is HOLY and JUST and GOOD.")
What is unJUST:
I Jn. 5.17 All unRIGHTEOUSness is sin...




Concerning GOOD:
Jas. 4.17 It is sin for the person who knows to do what is GOOD, but does not do it.

I Jn. 3.4 Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.

Rom. 8.6 For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.



Shabbat Shalom,

Timmy