Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 03-25-2006, 06:28 AM

Richbee

Two things - First, I assume you are ignorant of the concept of logical fallacies. I previously pointed out the fallacy of an argument from an "authority." To no one's surprise, you ignored this.

Second, the Greenleaf apologetic has been dismembered here many times. Please research this yourself.

For those unfamiliar, the Bible could not be admissible in court for three independent reasons. First, use of any Bible would not be admissible because it cannot be authenticated - i.e. the author of any particle book cannot be established. Second, any current Bible violates the "best evidence rule" which means that it is clearly a modification of some original writings, so corrupt copies cannot be used. Third, it contains multiple layers of hearsay - the authors who (allegedly) heard some unknown people recount stories wherein these unknown people (allegedly) heard Jesus or others make statements.

Doug Shaver · 03-25-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Why be concerned about fictional stories?

Who says Moby Dick is fictional? Have you read it? It is clearly an eyewitness account. That is, if you let the text speak for itself.

Chili · 03-25-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]The Unrivaled Resurrection

What do some of the world's greatest lawyers say about the event that changed history from BC to AD?

And he lists 28 prominent scholars in support.

The wrong here is that scholars do not know or they would not be scholars.

The very book that they study tells them often that we need eyes to read and a mind to know and therefore a scholar by the name of scholar admids that he does not know even before he begins to read. IOW they should stay home and shut up before they deceive common believers.

Chili · 03-25-2006, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Each gosel account, should be taken as an independent account, and yes, with the exception of Luke, taken as an eyewitness account.

Yes they are independent but they compliment each other from the inspired perspective and contradict each other from the human POV . . . or they would not be inspired.

Quote:

In the case of Peter, his words stand for themselves. Nearly 50% of all history is recorded by only one eyewitness.

His words testify.

Quote:

Now, there was some questions about who wrote the Gospel accounts?

Irenaeus, around 180 on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:

"Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast [John 13:25;21:20], himself produced his gospel, when he was living in Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4)

Matthew is the gateway to Rome and Mark is the substance of Peter that was preached by Paul. John was Joseph the 'enriched' tomb-hewer who once had discussion with Nicodemus and here now came for the body of Jesus. This makes the Gospel of John an autobiography that is for Catholics only.

I think it is philosophy (wisdom) that must put the pudding in the pie so we don't have a pie in the sky to defend.

CX · 03-25-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Would you like some Cheese to go with your whine?

You dissemble off topic and cannot or will not address the core issues here?

Why is that?

2 Peter 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [See: Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(emphasis mine)

I was an eye witness to the assassination of Kennedy and I am not lying when I tell you there WAS a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

MJ67 · 03-25-2006, 09:07 PM

Since you quote Irenaeus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Now, there was some questions about who wrote the Gospel accounts?

Irenaeus, around 180 on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:

"Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there...

Would you be so kind as to explain how it is that he who supports the authors of the gospels can also attest to Jesus living past the ripe old age of 50 given the teachings that Jesus was crucified at the age of 30?

Quote:

2:22:5- They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

Thank you.

Chili · 03-25-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ67

Since you quote IrenaeusWould you be so kind as to explain how it is that he who supports the authors of the gospels can also attest to Jesus living past the ripe old age of 50 given the teachings that Jesus was crucified at the age of 30?
Thank you.

I did that already but maybe you did not catch it. I actually never read Irenaeus but thanks for the passage.

I wrote:

Quote:

//
John was Joseph the 'enriched' tomb-hewer who once had discussion with Nicodemus and here now came for the body of Jesus. This makes the Gospel of John an autobiography that is for Catholics only.

John was the reborn Joseph after Jesus was crucified.

When Joseph 'got' reborn he was called Jesus and had two identities. One was human as Jesus-the-Jew and the other was Christ the-son-man (or son of God whichever you prefer). The point is that with two identities he was no longer Joseph and was called Jesus who was later crucified on his own cross, which was the burden he carried for the sins he committed as Joseph the Jew. It is for these sins that he would now be condemned an dit is on these sins that he was crucified; ie. the were his burden and therefore his cross.

So here then, only the sin nature of Joseph was crucified but not the son of man identity that Pilate was looking at . . . who therefore could find no fault with Jesus the son of man and released him under the name of Bar-abbas. So only the human Jewish identity was crucified and please note here that the Jews claimed to have their own laws by which he stood convicted to die.

Naturally, if only the ego died the man lives on. This man would be the same John who first wrote his own Gospel and later the Revelation.

This argument can be fleshed out but I hope you get the point.

Just see him as the worm that spun a cocoon from which he emerged as a butterfly with wings and died from old age somewhere in Rome, to be sure.

This would not be a literal interpretation but if Irenaeus thought so he must be right.

S.C.Carlson · 03-25-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ67

Since you quote Irenaeus Would you be so kind as to explain how it is that he who supports the authors of the gospels can also attest to Jesus living past the ripe old age of 50 given the teachings that Jesus was crucified at the age of 30?

According to John Chapman, "Papias on the Age of Our Lord," Journal of Theological Studies, old series, 9 (1907): 42-61, it was a blunder by Irenaeus who misunderstood Papias's term "perfect age" (cf. perfectae aetatis in Victorinus, De Fabrica Mundi 9) as nearing 50 instead of the mid-30s.

Stephen

Chili · 03-26-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

According to John Chapman, "Papias on the Age of Our Lord," Journal of Theological Studies, old series, 9 (1907): 42-61, it was a blunder by Irenaeus who misunderstood Papias's term "perfect age" (cf. perfectae aetatis in Victorinus, De Fabrica Mundi 9) as nearing 50 instead of the mid-30s.

Stephen

But theologian are supposed to solve problem areas and not sweep them under the rug as blunders.

Richbee · 03-26-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CX

I was an eye witness to the assassination of Kennedy and I am not lying when I tell you there WAS a second gunman on the grassy knoll.

John Kennedy is dead, and one, two or fourteen gumen doesn't really change the basic fact that JFK is DEAD!

Jesus is Risen!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2006, 06:28 AM	#141
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Richbee Two things - First, I assume you are ignorant of the concept of logical fallacies. I previously pointed out the fallacy of an argument from an "authority." To no one's surprise, you ignored this. Second, the Greenleaf apologetic has been dismembered here many times. Please research this yourself. For those unfamiliar, the Bible could not be admissible in court for three independent reasons. First, use of any Bible would not be admissible because it cannot be authenticated - i.e. the author of any particle book cannot be established. Second, any current Bible violates the "best evidence rule" which means that it is clearly a modification of some original writings, so corrupt copies cannot be used. Third, it contains multiple layers of hearsay - the authors who (allegedly) heard some unknown people recount stories wherein these unknown people (allegedly) heard Jesus or others make statements.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.