Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dockeen · 07-11-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Basically, what he is saying, I *think*, obscured at times behind the "purview" terms and "taking the text on it's own terms", and "your argument is with jesus, not me" phrases is this:

Here is what I believe the text says, based on my understanding and beliefs. I
can not prove to you that this is the correct interpretation, as it is based, as I
said, on my beliefs and understanding.

In their own terms, demonstrate my error regarding the texts.

Your reply has nothing to do with the statement that it replied to.

In my statement, I alleged no "error".

Perhaps you replied to the wrong post?

Note the quote I was replying to.

Frank · 07-11-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

simply examine the texts for contradictions among them in their own terms.
The only facts that can be established factually are what the texts actually report.
Their truth or untruth cannot be inescapably conclusively disproven, or proven, so both are a matter of belief.

According to this ridiculous standard of proof, we'd have to believe every myth in history. Can you prove Muhammad didn't receive a visit by an angel of god (who divined him the last prophet), or Zeus didn't really impregnate Alexander the Great's mother during a dream?

There's millions of people today (many of them educated westerners) who believe their favorite guru can levitate, fly around, and perform all sorts of other magic tricks. On what grounds can you reject these claims?

steamer · 07-11-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Let god be a liar and every man be true.

Zenaphobe · 07-11-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamer

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Let god be a liar and every man be true.

Sometimes men are liars, and sometimes they are not, but when it comes to religion, they are usually more concerned with being right than they are in finding truth.

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

simply examine the texts for contradictions among them in their own terms.
The only facts that can be established factually are what the texts actually report.
Their truth or untruth cannot be inescapably conclusively disproven, or proven, so both are a matter of belief.

According to this ridiculous standard of proof, we'd have to believe every myth in history.

It's not a standard of proof, because neither the truth nor the untruth of the Bible can be inescapably conclusively proven.
Both are a matter of belief.

I simply examine the texts in their own terms for contradictions among them.
It's not to prove the texts are true, it's to show whether there are actual contradictions among them, or not.

The truth or untruth of the Bible is outside my purview.

Quote:

The Can you prove Muhammad didn't receive a visit by an angel of god (who divined him the last prophet), or Zeus didn't really impregnate Alexander the Great's mother during a dream?

There's millions of people today (many of them educated westerners) who believe their favorite guru can levitate, fly around, and perform all sorts of other magic tricks. On what grounds can you reject these claims?

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

If you mean post #425, that wasn't even yours, and it reiterates the issue I take with your interpretation.

Read it again, it is addressed there.

Quote:

If you mean post #430, you admit that Jesus must not have taught in the Luke 24 passage that the Jewish customs were obsoleted through his death, because the church was acting as though they were still in effect. As you yourself say in post #430, the eventual jettisoning of the Jewish traditions was a decision made by church leaders, decades after the death of Jesus. The church leaders apparently caved to political pressure to make early Christianity more palatable to the ever-increasing percentage of Gentile followers.

Which is essentially the whole point I was making all along, that the theology and doctrines throughout the Bible show evolution of thought, not progressive revelation...

You say tomato, I say tomahto. . .

Your understanding of this is too one-dimensional.

The issue is law keeping for righteousness' sake.

The NT abolishes law keeping for the sake of righteousness (salvation).

Acts 21 is not about law keeping for righteousness' sake, it's about law keeping for the sake of expediency
in Jews and Gentles getting along together in the local churches.
<snipped>

Acts 21 shows that Jesus must not have taught the obsolescence of the Jewish customs, otherwise the Jewish-Christians like James and the others wouldn't have required Paul to do anything. They would have backed him up. Since they didn't, Jesus must not have taught what is taught in Romans.

You'll notice that the Jewish understanding of James and the others dovetails much more cleanly with the plethora of statements made by Jesus to keep the commandments. It lines up much more cleanly to the teaching of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) that the Jewish Law/customs were a permanent arrangement. It dovetails nicely that Jesus himself followed the Jewish customs. Paul is the odd-man out regarding his understanding.

Over time, as the momentum of early Christianity shifted away from the Jewish understanding (as I have stated before, I think the Ebionites probably were more consistent with Jesus and his 12 disciples than what became Orthodox), Paul's influence gained more sway.

I simply present, in its own terms, what the NT says on the matter. That I have done.

Overcoming your objections is not my purview.

Davka · 07-11-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

My personal beliefs are irrelevant to examination of the texts in their own terms.

Utter stinking steaming horseshit.

Your own personal beliefs are the only thing that drives you to continue to insist absurd nonsense like the following:

Quote:

And my innumerable claims about the veracity of the Bible have been:
its truth neither can be inescapably conclusively proven, nor disproven.
Both are a matter of faith.

Yes, the claims can be disproved. There was never a worldwide flood - the geological evidence disproves it. There was never an Exodus of millions of people in the Sinai - the archaeological evidence disproves it. The sun did not stop in the sky, nor did the Earth stop rotating - the total lack of outside observation disproves it. And on and on and on.

The fairy-tales in the Bible are very easy to disprove. It is irrelevant whether or not the stories can be twisted and tortured into some semblance of internal consistency, because they are clearly fiction. The Nile did not turn to blood. Moses's staff did not turn into a snake. The Sea of Reeds was not magically parted for the Hebrews to walk across on dry land. None of those stories are real, and many of them can be easily shown to be false.

You are incapable of examining the texts on their own terms, because you cannot read the texts. And even if you could, your faith would blind you to the truth.

Perspicuo · 07-11-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

I simply present, in its own terms, what the NT says on the matter. That I have done.

Overcoming your objections is not my purview.

You have debated on this thread before, at what point did you decide to limit your participation and attribute it to a "purview"?

Both of us know your are not limited. You present what the NT says applying it to argue against the claim that the Bible is logically inconsistent. You are debating. Your "Overcoming your objections is not my purview" is not believable, because we can see what you do page after page of the thread.

Davka · 07-11-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

ראית איש חכם בעיניו תקוה לכסיל ממנו׃
There are men who can read this, even as they read it 2500 years ago.
My words are incisive and decisive, and are going to by far outlast simon's faulty arguments.

Hey Shesh - where is that quote from? I don't recognize it. Is it rabbinic?

Saramago · 07-11-2011, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

ראית איש חכם בעיניו תקוה לכסיל ממנו׃
There are men who can read this, even as they read it 2500 years ago.
My words are incisive and decisive, and are going to by far outlast simon's faulty arguments.

Hey Shesh - where is that quote from? I don't recognize it. Is it rabbinic?

It's quite fitting.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.