Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 05-01-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What you say may be true, but I don't think the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury could agree, at least publicly. The NT seems to mean what it says, that supernatural places and events are real, including resurrection.

Adding a philosophical interpretation is fun but doesn't really reflect the thinking of the church fathers does it? All those religious wars in Europe weren't fought because of philosophy, they were about supernatural issues like sacraments and sainthood and such :huh:

They were fought over political power and money... like ALL wars are. Those who control societal information can redefine the goals any way they want... when the laity know nothing of the scriptures, doctrines or creeds other than what they are told... they do what they are told.

Yes of course wars are about resources, but the official rationale was about supernatural elements in the NT (similarly the Crusaders clothed their motives in sacral terms)

Information is power, no doubt. But that's been true of every society hasn't it? And don't some people want to be told what to do?

show_no_mercy · 05-01-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I don't know why I bother to read the gibberish you write.

Neither do I know why you bother to read... at all. All you are looking for is what already agrees with is already in your head... so why bother?

lol

You come here and assert a whole bunch of "philosophy", refuse to defend any sort of position, insult people wantonly, completely gloss over the questions I asked you on the previous page... yet you say that I'm the one who only wants to hear what I already know?

Thanks for the insults anyway, I'll let you go on and bask in your self-proclaimed awesomeness.

kcdad · 05-01-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

...
People still go to church for the FELLOWSHIP. Their neighbors and friends gather once a week to visit... THAT is the purpose of the Assembly. To share in their lives... not to listen to some $25 mail in preacher license tell them how to think and believe.

This is the point that atheists usually make when True Christians talk about how America is a religious or a Christian nation. I'm not sure how it helps your argument here.

Atheists? You mean anyone who is not a TRUE Christian, don't you?
You do realize there is a difference.

Toto · 05-01-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is the point that atheists usually make when True Christians talk about how America is a religious or a Christian nation. I'm not sure how it helps your argument here.

Atheists? You mean anyone who is not a TRUE Christian, don't you?
You do realize there is a difference.

No - I mean real atheists who do not believe in any god or gods or higher power or supernatural purpose to the Universe.

rhutchin · 05-01-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Here's what Luke says:

Luke 2:39 (King James Version)

Quote:

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)

Quote:

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

You can read both gospels to check that the quotes are not taken out of context.

Look at the quote from Luke. Some Christians have defended it with something like: "Luke just didn't mention that they went to Egypt, so it is not a contradiction."

But that's not really true, is it? It clearly says: "returned into Galilee". Which part of "return into" opens up the possibility that they could have gone somewhere else?

The key to this verse is the phrase, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,..." What does that mean? In the Biblical context it refers to the OT laws but it would also refer to anything else that God instructed a person to do. As Joseph was instructed by God to do certain things, those things would be included in the laws that Joseph was to obey. Luke does not want, or need, to repeat the events that Matthew has written of so he refers to them in the phrase he used.

Matthew records, "...being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:" This agrees with Luke and the story continues from that point.

bacht · 05-01-2009, 01:37 PM

And after the ascension:

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

Act 1.12-14

Kasper · 05-01-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The key to this verse is the phrase, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,..." What does that mean? In the Biblical context it refers to the OT laws but it would also refer to anything else that God instructed a person to do.

Why do you conclude things that are not mentioned anywhere in Luke? Luke talks about cleansing rituals, sacrifices etc. When all this is done, "when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord", they return to Galilee.

Quote:

As Joseph was instructed by God to do certain things, those things would be included in the laws that Joseph was to obey.

According to Luke, Joseph was instructed to do the stuff I already mentioned. Nothing more is described in this gospel.

Quote:

Luke does not want, or need, to repeat the events that Matthew has written of so he refers to them in the phrase he used.

Okay...??

Quote:

Matthew records, "...being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:" This agrees with Luke and the story continues from that point.

This does not agree with Luke at all. The verse you mentioned is about them going to Galilee after they have been to Egypt. Luke tells us they went to Galilee after they had done the cleansing and sacrifice.

delusional · 05-01-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hefdaddy42

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you may still think that all the plausible stuff are inerrant or likely to be true.

Even if you think Jesus was not born of a virgin without sexual union you may believe the parts that are most mis-leading, that is, the plausible parts.

So, when it is claimed Jesus went to Nazareth from Egypt some may think it was true, or likely, but that could not be when his very conception or existence was impossible or certainly unlikely.

I don't think we can know, or claim to know, with any certainty any details from Jesus's childhood or adolescence. But to claim that his existance is impossible seems rash, and unlikely doesn't seem much more reasonable.

Like any good fundamentalist, aa5874 has made up his mind what he wants to believe, so please don't confuse him.

rhutchin · 05-01-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew records, "...being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:" This agrees with Luke and the story continues from that point.

This does not agree with Luke at all. The verse you mentioned is about them going to Galilee after they have been to Egypt. Luke tells us they went to Galilee after they had done the cleansing and sacrifice.

No, Luke says, "...when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee,..." We know that the "Law of the Lord" refers to those commands given to Moses by God. The issue is whether Luke intended to include those additional commands given to Joseph by God and if he did, did he need to repeat everything that Matthew had written. Can the phrase, "...all things..." incorporate Matthew's account?

I see no reason for Luke to be ignorant of that which Matthew had written but not want to repeat those events in his account because of the labor intensive nature of writing and copying and then for Luke to use a short phrase that encompassed all that Matthew had written.

striderlives · 05-01-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

striderlives;
Yeah, those are Hebrew laws - reiterated by the Hebrew named Jesus - who is also God. Jesus says over and over that what God requires is to follow the Hebrew law. It's only others like Paul and John that repudiate what Jesus said.

These two sum up the entire point of the Law...Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself... The LAW was made for man not man for the Law.

Quote:

So....you reject what the Savior says in favor of some later writer with far less authority, and you call this critical thinking??

To which "what the Savior says" do you refer?

I'm referring to the Savior saying that you must be baptised and give away all your possessions to be saved in Mark and Luke.

Have you given away all your possessions?? Do you follow the commands of your savior - or do you reject them in favor of an easier road offered by a lesser authority?

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

05-01-2009, 01:37 PM	#96
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	And after the ascension: "Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away; and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." Act 1.12-14

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.