Freethought & Rationalism Archive

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

You aren't presenting what the NT says. You are putting your own, incorrect interpretation onto the text.

You have made the claim that in the Luke 24 passage Jesus must have instructed the disciples that they were no longer under the obligation of following Jewish customs.

The passage in Acts disproves your hypothesis. That is what the text says.

Your confusing of two different issues, regarding law keeping in the passage in Acts, has been addressed at least three times.

The issue of law keeping for the sake of expediency/social acceptance involved in the passage in Acts, has no bearing on the issue of law keeping for the sake of righteousness (salvation), where in Lk 24:44-48 Jesus explained to his apostles the meaning of all the OT Scriptures relating to him.

The reason I keep repeating it is because you are wrong.

Luke 24:44-48 could not have been Jesus talking about expediency/social acceptance, or there would not have been the fight between Paul and the church leaders of James, Peter, etc. That is the whole point of the Galatians references (post #94), the fact that Paul conceded to the church elders and did the temple ritual in Acts. You are claiming that Luke says something that is doesn't.

Reread what I said. You got it wrong.

Anybody ever tell you that you were high maintenance?

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

Then why does it keep coming up?

Because regardless of what you say you are doing, what you are implicitly doing is defending the truth/untruth of the bible by asserting that it is non-contradictory and no material inconsistencies exist. Otherwise, why bother?

You aren't writing, "the bible is true because...." but every argument you make about the non-contradictory nature of the verses, every verse you post stating the 'jesus said...." is implicit support of something...and that something sure appears to be "the bible is right/correct/true/worthy of belief/reliable".

If you are referring to my responses to contradictions, that would be because what Jesus says shows the texts, in their own terms, not to be contradictory

Quote:

Again I ask, to what purpose do you attempt to show the bible as consistent and non-contradictory? What does that show?

I tried to address that in post #500, above.

schriverja · 07-12-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

The reason I keep repeating it is because you are wrong.

Luke 24:44-48 could not have been Jesus talking about expediency/social acceptance, or there would not have been the fight between Paul and the church leaders of James, Peter, etc. That is the whole point of the Galatians references (post #94), the fact that Paul conceded to the church elders and did the temple ritual in Acts. You are claiming that Luke says something that is doesn't.

Reread what I said. You got it wrong.

Anybody ever tell you that you were high maintenance?

As I haven't been the only one to point it out in this thread, I wouldn't be so sure the problem is me. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman goes into the issue much deeper than I have when discussing the Ebionites, Marcionites and other groups in Lost Christianities, so it is hardly an original assessment on my part. It is a fact that early Christians agreed with my position*, and it is a fact that the passage in Acts supports it (as well as numerous passages in Matthew, Mark, etc).

Clearly you're never going to get it, so I'll quit :deadhorse:

*not all Christians mind you. As my position has been, there was, from the first days of Christianity, diverse, evolving views over important theological issues over the Jewish laws/customs, the divinity of Jesus, etc that all can be read in the Bible, so long as each author is taken within there original historical context and not smooshed together as though they are all saying the same thing within the framework of the same societal conditions. This was the primary success of canonization in the fourth century, to dilute enough of the competing views to bring a loose sense of unity within Christianity. But it doesn't mean the texts agree...

Perspicuo · 07-12-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

If you are referring to my responses to contradictions, that would be because what Jesus says shows the texts, in their own terms, not to be contradictory

Not in their own terms. Theologians justify contradictions between OT (e.g. "Eye for an eye") and Jesus (e.g. "Give the other cheek"). Left alone (i.e. Left on their "own terms") they contradict --theology's task is to justify no matter how many and how convoluted the verbal contortions require.

In other words: Cheating. And people know this. That is one of the reasons why Christianity is losing people (except in some countries where it's new, though mathematically, if it's never been there it has nothing to lose).

See:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7041036&page=1

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

http://www.christianpost.com/news/su...college-39433/

http://adage.com/article/news/church...keting/136541/

simon kole · 07-12-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

If you are referring to my responses to contradictions, that would be because what Jesus says shows the texts, in their own terms, not to be contradictory

Not in their own terms. Theologians justify contradictions between OT (e.g. "Eye for an eye") and Jesus (e.g. "Give the other cheek"). Left alone (i.e. Left on their "own terms") they contradict --theology's task is to justify no matter how many and how convoluted the verbal contortions require.

"In their own terms" includes in light of all Scripture. The NT reports that Jesus said he possessed all authority in heaven and earth (Mt 28:18; Jn 13:3). "All" would include the authority to legislate. His legislation is the new law of the new order of the new covenant reported in the NT.

Quote:

In other words: Cheating. And people know this. That is one of the reasons why Christianity is losing people (except in some countries where it's new, though mathematically, if it's never been there it has nothing to lose).

The NT reports that Jesus said his church would be here until the end of time (Mt 16:18).

Quote:

See:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7041036&page=1

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

http://www.christianpost.com/news/su...college-39433/

http://adage.com/article/news/church...keting/136541/

Deus Ex · 07-12-2011, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

The NT reports that Jesus said his church would be here until the end of time (Mt 16:18).

That is a false prophecy. I know for a fact that his church in east Galilee was torn down and a shopping mall was erected.

Perspicuo · 07-12-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

If you are referring to my responses to contradictions, that would be because what Jesus says shows the texts, in their own terms, not to be contradictory

Not in their own terms. Theologians justify contradictions between OT (e.g. "Eye for an eye") and Jesus (e.g. "Give the other cheek"). Left alone (i.e. Left on their "own terms") they contradict --theology's task is to justify no matter how many and how convoluted the verbal contortions require.

"In their own terms" includes in light of all Scripture. The NT reports that Jesus said he possessed all authority in heaven and earth (Mt 28:18; Jn 13:3). "All" would include the authority to legislate. His legislation is the new law of the new order of the new covenant reported in the NT.

Premises (1st set):
a) He has the authority to change his mind;
b) He said he wouldn't change his mind;
c) He changed his mind;
Therefore:
d) b & c are a contradiction.

Premises (2nd set):
d) b & c are a contradiction (as reached above);
e) He is omniscient;
f) Therefore He knew he would contradict himself
Conclusion:
g) He lied
[ h) ... even if he had the authority to lie, still he lied. ]

Premise (3nd set):
i) God by definition cannot lie;
Conclusion:
j) The Bible is false.

(I guess my logical procedure is not orthodox, maybe our friends from the philosophy sub-forum could correct the structure to set it to standard of well formed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

In other words: Cheating. And people know this. That is one of the reasons why Christianity is losing people (except in some countries where it's new, though mathematically, if it's never been there it has nothing to lose).

The NT reports that Jesus said his church would be here until the end of time (Mt 16:18).

So now we're preaching. I thought you said that was out of your "purview". But we both knew it wasn't all along, right?

Perspicuo · 07-12-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

The NT reports that Jesus said his church would be here until the end of time (Mt 16:18).

That is a false prophecy. I know for a fact that his church in east Galilee was torn down and a shopping mall was erected.

By "church" he means ekklesía (congregation). Although etymologically kyriakón dôma ("house of the lord") is from where "church"/"kirk" comes from, "church" is used to translate ekklesía.

The prophecy cannot be shown true or false until the church disappears or later, if it doesn't disappear until humanity ends.

Anyway, if the church ends, when it does, it won't matter anymore. Nobody will give a care.

dockeen · 07-12-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

That is a false prophecy. I know for a fact that his church in east Galilee was torn down and a shopping mall was erected.

By "church" he means ekklesía (congregation). Although etymologically kyriakón dôma ("house of the lord") is from where "church"/"kirk" comes from, "church" is used to translate ekklesía.

The prophecy cannot be shown true or false until the church disappears or later, if it doesn't disappear until humanity ends.

Anyway, if the church ends, when it does, it won't matter anymore. Nobody will give a care.

Y'all have no doubt heard the old joke about the last two people on Earth
meeting, and on discovering that they are both southern baptists, they
agree to have 3 in sunday school the next week.

Frank · 07-12-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Credibility is not my purview.

My belief is not based in scholarship, argument, apologetcs, laboratory proof, etc. And it likewise will not be unseated by them.

These comments live up to all my stereotypes perfectly :rolling:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.