Steven Carr

MEATCROCK
'But so what? First, so what if it's not the Apostle John but "elder John?"He was still a disciple, still saw Jesus, and probably wrote the Gospel of John. '

CARR
Does Metacrock believe he is allowed to claim whatever he wants out of thin air, and put it forward as facts?

Where is the slightest bit of evidence for this? Where does Papias say the 'elder John' was a disciple, saw Jesus?

Does Metacrock realise why his reputation is so low on this board, when he pulls stunts like this?

Metacrock

Meta:That's not really true, I don't think. I think they liked you fine. I think they were all sorry to see you go. Some of them are bit, shall we say, stuck on their views, but I don't think it was personal at all.


[/b]


Meta: I appreciate that, I still like you too. I feel responsible, because wasn't I the one who introduced you to Tillich? But when you parade your anger toward them you also parade it toward me. The people we are talking about do not define Christianity. They have no more right to control who belong it than you or I. But I do belong to it, and when you put it down you put me down.




Meta: Panentheist is a Christian! That was Paul Tillich's term (He may not have invented it but if not I'm not awre of anyone else doing so). There is no practicing community of panentheism apart form the chruch. I'm a Panentheist becasue I'm a Christian. Panentheism does not mean rejecting Christ or the need for redeeption, the atonement or any other baisc staple of Orthodoxy.





Meta: My targetr audience is everyone on the net. I don't use the that sort of termenology when I post to non acadmeic types (or at least I try not to, I'm so hoplelessy academic I probably can't help it). I don't see who you mean by "he" if you mean Tillich, so what if most predestrians haven't heard of him? Is truth a popularity contest? How can you strive for intellectual understanding so fervently as to reject your faith because it doesn't stack up to the scholarship, and then pitch out intellectual thought because it's not popular enough. That's the mark of real anti-intellectualism and the lack of intellectual integrity. Who side are you on? Well when push come to shove apparenlty not even your own!


Meta:I must have missed something, my buddy?




Meta: O come off it! Your NOT talking to Billie Craig here! We both know those are not the issues invovled in the Nicene creed. The issues involved have to be the right or ability of the community to define its beliefs.

(1) I do defend historical evidence for Res, not as aboslute proof, but good probablity.

(2) Jesus was God is a theological issue, it is not a question of fact because it can't be settaled by fact (which you know of course) and it's not improtant that it be a matter of fact.

(3) The Gosples are extremely reliable for what they calim to be Since they make no explicit calims (excpet Luke) we have to take their implicit calims, which simply are that they reflect the commuity experience. there is no reason to judge them as unauthoritative in those terms.




Meta:Those are two different issues. Beliving that its true, and that's it's a proposition of fact are not the same thing. Proposition of fact is something that can be demonstrated objetively to the extent that no one can assail it. That air bags are set to deploy at too fast a rate for children is a poropsition of fact. it can be detemrined with such mathematical precision that no can deney it. But that the creeds are valid defitions of the christian faith or that Jesus is the son of God are not matters of fact precisley because they are matters of faith!



I would have thought that someone with your sense of acuity, ready to take all the trophies and so forth, would understand that the Biblical scholarship can't gain any traction without having the theological stuff in place. Why do you think I call it "Have theology, will argue?"You have to understand what questions you are asking and they are the questions to ask, and you can't do that without having the theology in place to begin with.


Meta:O that's just BS! That's what you want to believe. Put up a thread, that's too much for this thread.

come back to my boards and say that! ahahahaha, I dare you!!! aahahahaahah!!!!



Of course my use of Q, Thomas and Corinthians could all be challenged. Thatss only one argument and one which I think can be defended--THomas and the Corinthian folk in 1-4 more so than Q which I do have some reservations on.

Then again I may start with gospel problems, textual problems with ECW's, problems with reconstructing the HJ or any number of other arguments. You really want to go there?

Vinnie [/QUOTE]



Meta:Vin, did you learn enough form arguing agisnt atheists to see that anyone can spout this stuff all day long. Anyone can get a volume of Jesus Seminar publications and, thinking he understands that Christianity means fundamentalism, disprove Christianity all day long, never ralizing that he's quoting active believing Christians to do it!

I made that same mistake when I was an atheist, only then it was Burnett Hillman STreeter.

But the point is, none of that stiuff has any meaning until you situate it in a theological context; of the questions they are asking and what they really mean for faith. You can't understand that without the theological stuff in place first.

but you seem to have fallen into the trap, trap through socialization, of thinking that the only context for such questions is the Montgumary and Carig end of things!

Metacrock

Meta: First, Yes I am allowed to claim whatever I want and no one can stop me! there are no board rules against caliming what I want.



Secondly, that's not just something I made up to fustigate you. It's what I've clalimed for years now, it's on my webstie. Check out my page on Gospel of John (Bible button>four Gospels>John).

In fact in summer of 2001 I had a big long argument with Still about it.

Three, I didn't put it foward as fact! O brother, what a lame ass argument that is! You guys (especially Vinnie--but that's ok because he really does know a lot about this stuff) spout your own little theories and speculations all the time and pass them off as gospel! that one guy has his own site he calims to be a more important scholar than anyone at a university, all because they reject him becasue he doesnt have training or credentials! and then you come down on my case for stating my own theory.


I didn't pass it as a fact. i said it was my view, and it is! I'm entitaled to my own views.

that is the kind of bold faced hypocracy that ruined your rep on CARM!


Where is the slightest bit of evidence for this? Where does Papias say the 'elder John' was a disciple, saw Jesus?



Meta: Well, read the page I mentioned, Herr Doktor!


Does Metacrock realise why his reputation is so low on this board, when he pulls stunts like this?



Meta: actually I dont' think it is. It's low with certain people most of whom I respet about as much I respect Bush!

But a lot of people at the Sec Web like me, even some who wont admit it on the boards. AT one point I made friends with several of the big wigs whrun the thing ( not the prince himself of course, not Carrier--but some of the lesser underlings).