andrewcriddle

Herodias married Antipas while her first husband was still alive. antiquities 18 Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

What's worse, these pick-and-choose types have no concrete "doctrine" to defend. They just ad-hoc choose which parts are "right" and which parts are "obvious fantasy" based on the needs of the current thread of debate. This way the can have their cake (faith) and eat it too ("reason").

At least the fundamentalists are being as consistent as they can.

kcdad

YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST! I knew it. Isaiah 7 is about the invasion of Judah by the Assyrians. it has nothing to do with Jesus... it is about IMMANUEL. That is the name to be given to the child. Instead, the son is named Ichabod or something... the names are important in this story.
The author of Matthew obviously read Isaiah in Greek... where Almah (young woman) is translated as Parthenos (virgin). Looking to match Octavian's claims to divinity and the "special birth" stories of other great Kings, Matthew adopted Isaiah 7 as a prophesy referring to Jesus... tough for Matthew... he should have read Isaiah in Hebrew.
The Septuagint...in Greek... duh.

Holy Ghost? Then why does God send an angel? There is no Holy Ghost. There is a Spirit... not a ghost... not a specter or ethereal being... Spirit... like the spirit of truth or love...


Which is why Paul talks about it so much in his letters.... That is Mark and John are preoccupied with it. Peter,, apparently can't get it off his mind... he writes about it incessantly.
Oh no, I guess they don't.

Ha ha. Since God is spirit, that is ridiculous. Do you know how babies are made?

kcdad

Sorry you don't get it.

Rather than just typing your responses, perhaps you should read what you are responding to first... this is not even close to what I wrote. First you:
"My point is that you use your so called GOD given ability to reason to figure out stuff other people denounce using their own GOD given ability to reason.To which I responded:
I can not help or explain why anyone wold denounce anyone's wisdom... unless they lack it themselves."

YOU are the one denouncing others, not Muslims, not Aztecs... I have no issue with either Aztecs or Muslims. I have issues with closed minded fundamentalists that have reached conclusions long before they investigate anything.


Because the human brain has changed so drastically in 10,000 years?

EVERYONE is irrelevant!

EVERYONE!

I don't expect you to stop and think about any of this... buh bye!

Do you have trouble getting the sand out of ears if and when you pull your head out?

kcdad

Actually... I do add lots to the scriptures whether they be Babylonian, Hebrew, Roman or Greek... I take into consideration the culture they were written in... I take into consideration the original language they might have been written in, I take into consideration the history of the period, the climate, the technology...
Of course, that isn't eisegesis, and you should know that. It is critical thinking... or maybe you wouldn't know it.

I find the kindergarten criticism of 3,000 year old documents on a literal level to be boring ... like arguing the existence of Santa Claus or Democracy.

kcdad

Interesting... a doctrine to defend... nope. You are right. I have no doctrine to defend with the use of old written documents.

What doctrine are you trying to defend?

show_no_mercy

So are you a Christian or not?

Kasper

Me too. could you elaborate?

I do read what you write, but most of what you write is irrelevant :huh:
I simply just wondered why you think your GOD given ability to reason has led you to conclude that some parts of the Bible are true. Since you are a Christian, I assume that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This is part of the Bible. You have used your GOD given ability to reason to conclude this is true, right?
But... Muslims use their GOD given ability to conclude that Jesus was just a simple human and a prophet, and that God is too great to have children.
Both of you claim to use your GOD given ability to reason to understand what's being said in your holy books. But your claims contradict each other.
And then you tell me that Muslims either lack wisdom or have denounced it. They would say the same about any Christian.

But Muslims and Aztecs are still wrong about their religion, and you are right, right? Because you use your GOD given ability to reason to conclude this.

Sorry, but your style reminds me more and more of fundamentalist YEC's. Why don't you just stop humiliating yourself and admit that the people you mentioned have no relevance what so ever to a discussion whether human brains have developed significantly during the past 10.000 years? These guys studied psychology within living people and cognitive development from childhood to adulthood, not stone age brains vs modern brains.

Why do you start to try to insult me, when it is perfectly clear that you made a mistake in mentioning all these people?

By the way, I am still waiting for an example of a passage from the Bible which is important to Christianity that you do believe, and how you have investigated it.
I am also waiting for you to give me an example of:
"There are a lot of guys who think that maybe we are different today than we were 10,000 years ago. "

Equinox

First of all, I'd like to welcome kcdad, as I'm sure others have before.

Next, we'd probably have a more productive conversation if people on both sides of a disagreement avoided personal attacks. They don't help anything and reflect poorly on whatever worldview one holds.

Next, and most importantly, may I suggest that we acknowledge and build on common ground, while politely discussing disagreements based on evidence? What I'm referring to is the large amount of common ground we share with kcdad, such as the realization that the Bible is a human, error-prone work, that Is 7:14 (correctly translated) doesn't say virgin (the almah discussion), and many more. Hostility with someone who has as much in common with us as kcdad has really doesn't help anyone but the fundies.

kcdad is clearly a moderate Christian (yes, some do still exist dispite their worldwide decline) - and as such shares a lot with us. For instance, Obama was first president in history to favorably acknowledge non-beleif in his inaugural address, and there's no way he could have been elected without millions of moderate Christians.

It's sad to see people I largely agree with violently (mostly) agreeing with each other. For instance - look at the mt/virgin debate. Both sides agree that Ish is mistranslated, and that the virgin birth was made up. That's a huge point. The disagreement is over how important the VB is to Christianity. Maybe some friendly agreement on the first point would make discussion of the second easier. (As far as that goes, my view is that Mt's insistance on the VB makes it clear that the early Christians saw it as important - and the statistical fact that most Christians today are fundies shows that Christians today see it as important).

I think that working to make kcdad out as a false Christian is pointless and counterproductive. Let him call himself what he wants, and leave it up to him to decide what self-label is dishonest.

Have a good day everyone-

Equinox

show_no_mercy

All the rest of what you said I agree with. However, we're trying to have a discussion with kcdad about issues relating to biblical criticism yet all he does is respond with what basically amounts to "well I don't believe THAT". It would be nice if he could actually discuss what he believes concretely and defend it instead of asserting one belief and then recanting it in his next post.