Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2013, 13:38   #21
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
So what about the Gospels that men tossed out?
They were "tossed" by early christians for a variety of reasons: late dating, contradictory to eyewitness accounts, etc. In the case of the Gospel of Judas, the earliest example dates to well after a century of when Judas died, not the case of the much earlier eyewitness gospels. Irenaeus spoke of the Gospel of Judas in his Refutation of All Heresies (chapter XXXI, about 180AD).

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 13:39   #22
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
Did you even read my post?
Do you need a third grader to explain it to you?

The Bible was written by over 30 different authors in a 1500 year time span. There are going to be different viewpoints and interpretations.

The real "truth" in the Bible is found at a higher level than squabbling over the so called contradictions and picking apart individual concepts and verses.

Do your comments promote peace or strife? Something to consider.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 13:44   #23
poikilotrm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
The Bible was written by over 30 different authors in a 1500 year time span. There are going to be different viewpoints and interpretations.
Earth's gravity has an average acceleration of 981cm/s/s. 30 different rational researchers spread out over 1500 years would all come to the same conclusion, regardless of viewpoint.
poikilotrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 14:12   #24
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
They were "tossed" by early christians for a variety of reasons: late dating, contradictory to eyewitness accounts, etc. In the case of the Gospel of Judas, the earliest example dates to well after a century of when Judas died, not the case of the much earlier eyewitness gospels. Irenaeus spoke of the Gospel of Judas in his Refutation of All Heresies (chapter XXXI, about 180AD).

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Which gospels are dated to the day of Christ's death? Or at least the year? They were all written afterward so I don't see what the dating of the "earliest" copy has to do with anything. This also doesn't mean it was the first copy either.

When did God charge Irenaeus of choosing what is heresy and what is not? Or perhaps a better question is by what authority does Irenaeus become the arbiter of what is heresy and what is not?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 14:58   #25
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Which gospels are dated to the day of Christ's death? Or at least the year? They were all written afterward so I don't see what the dating of the "earliest" copy has to do with anything. This also doesn't mean it was the first copy either.

When did God charge Irenaeus of choosing what is heresy and what is not? Or perhaps a better question is by what authority does Irenaeus become the arbiter of what is heresy and what is not?
The earlier the copy is to the event tends to authenticate its reliability. The number of copies do the same. That's a simplistic explanation I admit, but I'm typing this on my phone during a break. I'd recommend doing some research on the subject of ancient documents and the criteria scholars use to determine how reliable and authentic a particular ancient document is prior to rejecting the dating of the gospels. You may be surprised at what you find by following the evidence where it leads without presupposition.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 15:23   #26
JBnTX
God Bless Texas
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between The Red And Rio Grande
Posts: 15,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by poikilotrm View Post

Earth's gravity has an average acceleration of 981cm/s/s. 30 different rational researchers spread out over 1500 years would all come to the same conclusion, regardless of viewpoint.

And so did the writers of the Bible.
They just took different paths getting there.
JBnTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 15:27   #27
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
And so did the writers of the Bible.
They just took different paths getting there.
How can they arrive at the same conclusions when they contradict one another?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 20:29   #28
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
This is what aggravates me about theists. They claim there are no contradictions in the bible with such confidence and surety. They tell you you just don't understand it or youre misrepresenting it. Yet when blatant errors are pointed out... Crickets. Which would be ok if the very next week they didn't claim there are not contradictions or errors in the bible. But they will.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 21:14   #29
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Sorry but thats not true according to God. ALL scripture is inspired or God breathed.

Are you saying God would let His inspired Word to be written down wrong?
How long did this divine protection endure? Does it also prevent the mistranslation of scripture?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 23:59   #30
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCoulter View Post
Well John 17 clearly shows how the God Family is one. One in thought and action, the 1st commandment does NOT say only one God in personage.

Next please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
The Jews disagree and yet they are still waiting for the Messiah to appear that was promised to appear in the temple destroyed in 60 A D. Maybe they missed something?

Why must God appear as we expect Him rather than as He chooses?

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
As I suspected. You know better than the Jews do. And not to let me down you both reference the NT as proof that the they had their own religion all wrong.
juggy4711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:49   #31
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
As I suspected. You know better than the Jews do. And not to let me down you both reference the NT as proof that the they had their own religion all wrong.
It may be helpful to consider the context of when the NT occured. Palestine/Israel/Jerusalem were occupied by the Romans. The Jews were in a sort of power with the governing Romans, but like any other occupied people, they wanted the occupier out.
They had prophecy of a coming messiah that would save them, etc. So along comes Jesus preaching peace, obeying the gov't, paying taxes. He came in quietly at the beginning of his ministry, he was not wealthy, no crown. He picked the dregs of society to be his diciples. His message challenged the power of the religious leaders.
He was not what the Jews were expecting. Much like us, it seems that they got out of the scripture what they wanted to get, not what it says. So he was rejected by the leaders, and followers did what followers do; believe what they say without investigating.
I'm not smarter than the Jews, I've got the benefit of hindsight, and I've done my own investigating.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 07:48   #32
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Luke starts with Jesus and goes up.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat"

Luke 3 starts at Abraham and goes down to Jesus (skipping a bunch here) ->
".. and Eli'ud begat Ele-a'zar; and Ele-a'zar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Both have Joseph right above Jesus in the genealogy. What's the justification for saying that one is Mary's genealogy and the other is Joseph's?
We all have multlple lines of geneology. In that vernacular it can be accurately said that through my mothers line, I'm the son of Lester, a Cherokee from North Carolina. He's my maternal grandfather. Through my father, I'm the son of Arthur (my paternal grandfather), who was born in Germany. Its not a contradiction if you use a common sense interpretation and look at the context. Also, Matthew was writing to the Jews, and his geneology was likely intended to establish Jesus' credibility to that audience. Luke was writing to the Gentiles, and is considered a better historian, so it makes sense that the geneology he wrote is more detailed than the one found in Matthew. This is just conjecture on my part, but Luke was written at a later date as Matthew, so perhaps he felt that he needed to add information that Matthew didn't include, that information being the maternal geneology.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 08:32   #33
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
Its not a contradiction if you use a common sense interpretation and look at the context.
Are you alleging that a "common sense" interpretation, in our culture, is that if you list your father and then his father, and so on, you are listing your mother's genealogy?

When I read a genealogy that says 'this is this guy's father, this is his father', etc, I see no reason to treat it as a matter of "common sense" that it's the mother's genealogy. It reads how it reads on the face of it, and they *both* read as though they are talking about Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

It may be the case that in the culture that wrote it, merely mentioning the mother and the father means that it is somehow the mother's genealogy. Or perhaps the original text was mistranslated. If one of those is true, or if it is some other possibility, it is not a matter of "common sense", it is a matter of establishing whether or not one of those possibilities is actually true, because on a plain reading they *both* go through Joseph, and it is not universally true that merely mentioning a mother means that it is the mother's genealogy.

This is why I asked what the justification is. Getting back "it's common sense" is somewhat disappointing.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 08:39..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 10:11   #34
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Are you alleging that a "common sense" interpretation, in our culture, is that if you list your father and then his father, and so on, you are listing your mother's genealogy?

When I read a genealogy that says 'this is this guy's father, this is his father', etc, I see no reason to treat it as a matter of "common sense" that it's the mother's genealogy. It reads how it reads on the face of it, and they *both* read as though they are talking about Jesus' lineage through Joseph.

It may be the case that in the culture that wrote it, merely mentioning the mother and the father means that it is somehow the mother's genealogy. Or perhaps the original text was mistranslated. If one of those is true, or if it is some other possibility, it is not a matter of "common sense", it is a matter of establishing whether or not one of those possibilities is actually true, because on a plain reading they *both* go through Joseph, and it is not universally true that merely mentioning a mother means that it is the mother's genealogy.

This is why I asked what the justification is. Getting back "it's common sense" is somewhat disappointing.
To elaborate, there's no record in the NT of Mary having a brother, only a sister. If that is the case, then Marys husband would be the "son" of her father as inheritance at the time flowed through the male heirs. I know you dislike using the NT as a source, but its the only info available in this matter. Also, Joseph isn't identified as Jesus' biological father, so he would probably be considered his adopted son. Therefore, it would make sense that geneology would be traced through Joseph's line through adoption as well as Mary's through biology.
Sorry my common sense comment rubbed you the wrong way. I was attempting to illustrate that when reading scripture, its necessary to consider context (in this case, cultural norms) to expand knowledge of why things are phrased in certain ways.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is the final answer or absolute truth, only that when viewed in that context, it makes sense of what appears to be a contradiction. There is always the possibility that I'm wrong, but when considering cultural norms, my interpretation (one shared with parts of the evangelical community) is an interpretation that addresses the contradiction and fits in the puzzle in a way that would make sense to a reader at the time, but not necessarily in our time.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 10:13   #35
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
So he was rejected by the leaders, and followers did what followers do; believe what they say without investigating.
You're just proving Juggy's statement here. "They didn't know no better, but we do now." I would submit that the Ancient Israelites understood the OT better than modern religious folk and I'll give a few reasons why.

1. They were reading scriptures in a format that were far closer to the original and in some cases were the same as the original scripture. They weren't trying to find the meaning in translations of translations where words are changed and meanings or intents lost and twisted.

2. They weren't Jews through the focus of Christianity. There was no Christianity, this was simply the religion of the Israelites. Then it gets twisted with the addition of new characters and a dogma that was pretty alien to the OT. Not only that but scriptures like John reach back and change the original meanings of these people's religion. It's kinda like that episode of Family Guy where Brian writes a thoughtful and touching script for TV about a young single father trying to finish higher education while still being there for his new child, then the TV execs get ahold of it and turn it into a sit-com with a 50 year old guy going back to college with a monkey for a roommate.

3. Modern Christians do not take their religion as seriously as the Ancient Israelites. Today for many it's kinda like a social club. They come to church to see the Jones family, everyone parades their kids around in their Sunday best. They lean on the parts of the bible they like and sort of discard the rest. They love to talk about how homosexuality is a sin but no one really worries that much about wearing garments made of more than one material or eating shellfish. They love talking about God's forgiveness, grace, and love... But they don't like to talk too much about how God allowed Job to be tortured to see what would happen (which flies in the face of God being all knowing since the Devil was right in that case), or how Lot is treated as a righteous figure for tossing his little girls to an angry mob to be raped to death. See these ancient people took it all hook line and sinker. And they'd be willing allow their kids to die to honor the name of God. They'd be willing to kill and die themselves in the name of their God. Not so much with your average luke warm Christian of today. It was a matter of life and death to them to understand scripture. Not just an enriching way to pass the time.

Quote:
I'm not smarter than the Jews, I've got the benefit of hindsight, and I've done my own investigating.
But do you understand it as well as the people that were living it? You're still implying that because of the benefit of hindsight you somehow understand these things better.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-05-2013 at 10:14..
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 10:58   #36
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,723
God wrote very little Himself. I suppose that was so there would be no question. Even this has been distorted by man.

It is not the letter that is inspired, it is the true meaning. The wicked do not understand because they are fighting the Spirit of God.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 11:18   #37
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
God wrote very little Himself. I suppose that was so there would be no question. Even this has been distorted by man.

It is not the letter that is inspired, it is the true meaning. The wicked do not understand because they are fighting the Spirit of God.

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
So you at least agree that the parts of the bible written by men are flawed?
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:03   #38
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
So you at least agree that the parts of the bible written by men are flawed?
Parts of the Bible are misunderstood. There have been additions and editing that have occurred. This just proves that men are flawed. The basic messages and teachings of the Bible are intact.

What God wrote with His own finger is intact.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-05-2013 at 12:04..
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:03   #39
scottz0369
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tomah, WI
Posts: 165
G36S,
In response by the number,
1) Partially true. The majority of the OT was written in Hebrew, so there wasn't a need for translations. They were copied by scribes, but the process of copying was detailed and controlled. Letters, syllables, etc were counted in copies, and if there was a discrepancy, they were noted, or the entire copy was thrown out. For a far better explanation than I can give, see http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old-testament-has-been-faithfully-transmitted/

2) I can't make sense of this paragraph, especially the first two sentances. I've also never watched Family Guy, so I'm ignorant of the reference. If you're making the point that the original message was corrupted, I would disagree.

3) I agree with the first four sentences to a degree. However, you've made a blanket statement that can't possibly account for the motivations of everyone that attends church. You mention how we (since I'm apparently included in that statement) focus solely on homosexuality, while ignoring other sins. That's simply not true. The NT contains only periphrial references to homosexuality, and in the context of other sins - they're all treated with equal weight. This seems to be a hot topic for you. At the church I attend, we talk about sin in all forms, and homosexuality, if it is brought up, is in the context of other sins. It seems like you're cherry-picking scriptures much in the same way you appear to detest Christians for doing. Sounds hypocritical to me.
You're incorrect regarding Job. In a nutshell, Satan said that the only reason Job was faithful was because he was blessed materially (money, property, a family, etc), and without those material blessings, he would curse God. He questioned God, he agonized over his situation, but did not curse him. Brother, I question God but still have faith, and I'm not alone in that.

I never said I understand things better than others, only in hindsight, the picture is clearer. You don't have to look far for examples of what was considered correct in the past to be incorrect in any area of human's quest for knowledge.

To be clear, I'm no smarter than the next guy. I read and research available information and make decisions based on my imperfect knowledge and understanding, just like everyone else. I would encourage you not to believe me, and research it for yourself -- follow the evidence where it leads. It's certainly possible that you'll reach a different conclusion. If you've done the work without presupposition, I'm OK with you having a different conclusion -- it's yours to have.

As an aside, I spent many years as a non-believer for many of the reasons illustrated in the graphic. Personally, I cherry-picked the most outrageous statements in the Bible, and only read critics of the Bible to verify and cement my position. Only when I decided to read the Bible as well scholars friendly to the scripture for myself did the overarching message become clear to me. That lead to investigating apologetics, historcal context, and archeology which led me to the conclusion over several years that the Bible is accurate as stated. I would encourage you to do the same. Are there things in the Bible that don't make sense or are offensive to our current culture? Of course. Are there things in the Bible I wish weren't there? Yep. I don't claim to understand everything in the Bible -- this debate has been going on for at least two centuries, and isn't likely to be settled here on GT in 2013.
scottz0369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 12:46   #40
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by scottz0369 View Post
G36S,As an aside, I spent many years as a non-believer for many of the reasons illustrated in the graphic. Personally, I cherry-picked the most outrageous statements in the Bible, and only read critics of the Bible to verify and cement my position. Only when I decided to read the Bible as well scholars friendly to the scripture for myself did the overarching message become clear to me.
I went the exact opposite direction. I was actually a believer for all of my childhood and the majority of my adult life. I only read material that confirmed a biblical worldview and reinforced the idea that the bible was inerrant. Yet, I had never fully investigated it on my own.

When I went back to school to complete my undergraduate degree, I choose to attend a christian university. In addition to my business classes (all of which incorporated a christian worldview) there were several pure theology courses. Most important among these were old and new testament survery where we actually read the bible cover to cover looking for common themes woven throughout.

From a literary analysis point of view, the classes were fascinating. From the point of view of my own personal spirituality, they were quite troubling. I had always assumed that when I got around to it that I would find the important answers in the bible that I had been looking for, but I had now read it in its entirety and the answers were not forth coming.

Not only did I not find answers, I was struck dumb by the numerous contradictions, the childish behavior of the characters (sometimes even of god himself) and rather simplistic (i.e. naive) view of the world. I could no longer accept it as the one undeniable and infallible truth that I had always assumed it would prove to be.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 891
270 Members
621 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31