Diogenes the Cynic

I love that Gif, Jobar. :thumbs:

Sheshbazzar

Oh Wonderful! "Ha'Olam just exists!" Well halleluiah! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

llamaluvr

Given your argument for rejecting premise 2, doesn't that mean that we can't add much of any weight to premise 3? If we can't know what was an original error and what wasn't, then we can't know whether or not the original text was errorless, and, therefore, we can't use the current condition of the text to suppose either way whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired.

Divine inspiration, or lack thereof, simply isn't testable. So, it is a matter of faith either way.

This is one of the more minor reasons we Christians believe in a body and a soul. My reasons for accepting divine inspiration aren't really rooted in anything physical, and your reasons for rejecting it aren't likely to be, either, because there simply isn't much evidence to say either way.

(In other words, I don't know what the heck I'm quoting, but here's something I recently thought of that related somewhat to both).

In John 6:44-45, Jesus says,
This phrase maps out a course of salvation that we can translate into predicate logic:

Ax( Person(x) & Teaches(Father, x) & LearnsFrom(x, Father) iff ( DrawsTo(Father, x, Jesus) iff WillRaise(Jesus, x)))

Key:
A: universal operator (for all), since the real one isn't in ASCII.
E: existential operator (there exists), since the real one also isn't in ASCII.
Person(x): x is a human being.
Teaches(x, y): x teaches y.
LearnsFrom(x, y): x learns from y.
DrawsTo(x, y, z): x draws y to z.
WillRaise(x, y): x will raise y up on the last day.
x iff y: if and only if, naturally :-).

Literally, this will read:

For all x, x is a person and the Father teaches x, and, if and only if x learns from the father, if and only if the Father draws x to Jesus, Jesus will raise x.

The two points, as related to your comments are:

1) The Bible contends that God is teaching everybody, so, according to it, everybody is being reached out to. For most everybody reading this, the guaranteed minimum of that reaching out would probably be the acquisition of a Bible.

2) Supposing that the only teaching a person has received is through the Bible, then they should be able to listen and learn to an adequate extent, and then becoming a Christian will be a forgone conclusion. I would contend that "listening and learning" includes, at least in part, coming to logically consistent conclusions regarding the text.

For instance, consider myself reading a calculus textbook. If I read it, but come to the conclusion that I should take the derivative when I really should integrate, and I should integrate when I really should take the derivative, I have come to a logically inconsistent conclusion in respect to what the text said. Surely, the book explained it correctly, it is just that, even though I read it, I did not learn the material.

Now, I could have read the book, and not mixed up what I mixed up above, and still not have gotten some parts right in my mind, and I would still perform adequately on a future test of the material. However, if I actually mix up derivatives and integrals, my understanding of the text is not adequate. I have not learned, and I will not experience the transformation for being a calculus novice to being a calculus whiz.

Likewise, even if he is mixed up on some minor points, someone who has not understood the fundamental points will not transform from a non-Christian to a Christian. It doesn't matter if you're a scholar or some other really smart person- you can really know the text and still miss the point. I guess we could call that the difference between learning about the text and learning from the text?

------

Oh, and I'll take that beach in Nebraska, as long as the sand is 99% pure. Sure, I sure the waterfront isn't that spectacular, but, dang, that's some fine sand (I suppose now is the time to mention my dream of covering my apartment floor in stand and requiring all my guests to walk around barefoot?). :-P

BSM

Hmmm...well I still have connections in that state and I think I can get you one hell of deal on some primo property. Perhaps a nice little cabin on the Elkhorn or Platte river?

I hope you don't mind cattle and corn...LOTS of corn.

As for the rest, well if you make it to Heaven and discover that I am wrong, please put in a good word for me. I'm going to need all the help I can get...



Regards,

~BSM

llamaluvr

WAIT....


....people live there???

:-P

Anyway, I hear the trip after death is pretty bumpy, so, in case I forget, send me an email and I'll check my inbox when I get there. ;-).

Fortuna

:huh:

No, not at all ! You seem to forget why I arranged it the way I did.
#3 is the default position, and is a prerequisite of both of the other cases(#1 and #2). In any case , "This book was written by human beings, recording myths, legends, stories and history of his time and locale" is applicable.

The added hypothesis is that it is some how inspired, plus #2 also adds the copyist factor. #3 is required in every case.

To evalute that statement, we would have to know what is meant by "errorless" ? For example, was Shakespeare's "Midsummer night's Dream" "errorless" ?

We can easily suppose #3, whether the text was "errorless" or not. I could re-word that as, proposition #3 does not stand nor fall on the degree of "errorless".

:banghead:

First, it is not a matter of faith that we have a text "written by human beings, recording myths, legends, stories and history of his time and locale". We have it before us, no faith is required, it is real and concrete. We can touch it, see it read it.

Secondly, you must be wrong. Apparently there is, or must have been at some time a way to discern "divine inspiration". The Early Roman Christian church made some decisions about it back in the 4th century. Martin Luther must have suspected something based on some methodology for rejecting the Roman/Greek Christian Apochrypha.

So, there does exist a small subset of ancient literature for which is claimed this property of "divine Inspiration". Surely, you would not say that Hesiod's "Work and Days" or the "Illiad" is inspired.

Yet, for both of those works (and many others), proposition #3 is always true.

Do you see from your own analogy why the argument fails ? Having a body only is the default position. It takes no faith to believe you have a body. You've got one, it's empirically knowable and proveable in the physical world.
The only part that requires faith is the soul part. The logic is simple, we have 2 propositions ;

A) I have a body.
B) I have a body and a soul.

Proposition "A" is true, and not by faith. It is independently true, regardless of the truth of "B". Proposition "A" is wholly contained in B. "B" is the option that requires an extra assumption. Proof or disproof, faith or lack of it in "B" has nothing to do with "A".




In conclusion, the fact that we have ancient and recent books "written by human beings, recording myths, legends, stories and history of his time and locale" is not a proposition requiring faith. Either we have such books or we dont. (and we do)

Further, I cannot fully accept that "Divine inspiration, or lack thereof, simply isn't testable" . Someone at some point in history made that call with a subset of the Jewish and Christian texts, and surely they did so on more than just faith. Or did they ?

In hte case of our propositions above, It is certainly not a matter of faith either way. It is only a matter of faith to make the claim of divine inspiration, and no faith is required to accept proposition #3.

Ach ! :banghead:

johntheapostate

We have been through this in another thread, so I am a little surprised that you are making the claim that the Bible clearly states that god is reaching out to everyone.

It would be better said "I believe that the Bible says that god is teaching everybody but it is not a textual certainty"

The posts I used in our earlier discussion should prove sufficient to illustrate the point again.

Many Christians insist that everyone can freely choose salvation by accepting Christ. I am going to show that this is not necessarily true according to some interpretations of scripture.

John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will. and even that is a weak argument considering that Jesus insisted that everyone the Father would give him would come to him and would not be lost.
John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"



These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rest on the good pleasure of gods will.


You use as your proof text the verse found in John recording what the author believed where the words of Jesus

John 6:45 " It is written in the Prophets They will all be taught by God"

What the Prophet actually said is this.

Isaiah 54:13 "All your sons will be taught by the Lord"

If one is to take this verse in context the chapter deals with god promising the Jews a safe and secure future ( which still has not happened ) and just perhaps he was being a little less than literal. Consider the verses preceding verse 13.

Isaiah 54:11-12 " O afflicted city, lashed with storms and not comforted, I will build you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with sapphires. I will build your battlements of rubies, your gates of sparkling jewels, and all your walls of precious stones."

I also find it interesting that god takes ownership of the actions of Israels enemies in this chapter, which indicates to me that those enemies were operating under less than perfect free will.

Isaiah 54:15-16 " If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing. Whoever attacks you will surrender to you. See it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc"

llamaluvr

I don't understand how these verses are contributing to your argument. EVERY human has wrath to start, and those that are saved "lose" it. There's still a choice of "wrath" or "no wrath".

Check my predicate calculus. It says explicitly that "They all will be taught by God". The choice is in the "listening and learning" part, not the "God drawing folks to Jesus" part, because God does that for everybody who listens and learns.

Actually, my predicate calculus statement isn't entirely correct. It should be:

Ax( Person(x) & Teaches(Father, x) & LearnsFrom(x, Father) iff ( DrawsTo(Father, x, Jesus) iff WillRaise(Jesus, x)) & WillRaise(Jesus, x))

which simplifies to:

Ax( Person(x) & Teaches(Father, x) & LearnsFrom(x, Father) iff ( DrawsTo(Father, x, Jesus) & WillRaise(Jesus, x)))

Put some boolean values in and see if it adds up.

Here Jesus is adding another part to my statement. We can rewrite it as such:

Ax( Person(x) & Teaches(Father, x) & GivesSelfTo(God, x) iff (LearnsFrom(x, Father) iff ( DrawsTo(Father, x, Jesus) & WillRaise(Jesus, x))))

"For all x, x is a person & x is taught by the Father, and if and only if x gives self to God, then if and only if x learns from the Father, then the Father draws x to Jesus and Jesus will raise x on the last day."

OR

Ax( Person(x) & Teaches(Father, x) & GivesSelfTo(God, x) iff (LearnsFrom(x, Father) & DrawsTo(Father, x, Jesus) & WillRaise(Jesus, x)))

if we consider Jesus to be saying that anybody who gives himself to God will definitely hear and learn, not just that they're capable of hearing and learning.


It's just an extrapolation off of an already-expounded-upon concept- how are you going to learn if you don't give yourself over to the teacher? Apprentices didn't learn from artisans by living at home- they gave themselves over in service to the master.

Everyone the father gave to him chose to a) belong to God and b) learn from him, and then were referred to Jesus.

Even if these verses can only be applied to Jews (and I think that's far from being certain), it doesn't impact any of your contentions, because they people you were talking about were all Jews.

In Isaiah 54:15-16, God explains how it is him- it is him because he made the blacksmith and the destroyer, not necessarily because he is forcing them to attack Israel. Even if he was, the only free will we're concerned with is the free will to accept or reject salvation.

llamaluvr

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

If you keep using that little guy he's gonna crack his skull open! :-P


The question for which models are proposed is not "how did we get the scriptures on paper?". That question is intuitively obvious. Apply Occam's Razor to it all you want!

The real question is "how were the scriptures conceived?" Was it "men collected stories over time, mixed in historical events, in an effort supply themselves with a religion?" or was it "God breathed it into the minds of men, who transcribed it to paper, for the purpose of revealing his plan of salvation?".

Even if we stick with your boring question, the Razor still can't be applied to the models, because #1 and #2 assume actual truthfulness in the text, while #3 assumes that some were only myths or legends. You couldn't cut God out of #1 and #2 and still get #3.

Also, your body and soul example is wanting, because we have cannot verify that the soul is an extraneous element in whatever you're trying to model. In fact, we have no clue as to what you're trying to model. I can think of one example where you would be right:

The question: "Will Tom Cruise have a funeral?"
1) Tom Cruise will have a funeral because Tom Cruise is human and has a body, and bodies die, and everybody who dies has a funeral.
2) Tom Cruise will have a funeral because Tom Cruise is human and has a body and a soul, and bodies die, and everybody who dies has a funeral.

But that's about as far as I'd go with that one.

It's even worse of an analogy because we can perform actions that are fundamentally unattributable to just a body.

I hope you stand far away from other people and animals when you swing that razor!

johntheapostate

I will go over the discourse between Jesus and his countrymen to show that the author did intend the reader to understand that salvation was a privilege extended to a chosen group and was unattainable to anyone else.

John 6:30-31 “ So they asked him, What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.�

The Jews that had been fed with the five loaves and two fish demanded that Jesus perform another great miracle to show that he was the messiah. Jesus answers them .

John 6:32 “ Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world�

Jesus cryptically states that he is the messiah come to save the world. His audience does not have a clue what he is talking about. He also claims god as his father.

John 6:34 “ Sir they said, from know on give us this bread�

They still think Jesus is talking about bread, no doubt due to him feeding the great multitude.

Jesus then rebukes them for their ignorance

John 6:35 “Then Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe�

Jesus must have told them earlier, that they did not understand his purpose even though they had been witness to his power. ( No doubt due to his beating around the bush ) Jesus then makes a comparison of them and a different group of people.

John 6:37-38 “ All the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will, but to do the will of him who sent me.

Jesus is clearly making a statement that god had chosen a certain group of people who had been singled out from the rest of humanity for salvation through the ability to comprehend and believe in him. The next verse makes it clear that this is the meaning Jesus intended to convey.

John 6:39 “ And this is the will of him who has sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up on the last day�

Jesus confirms the special status of the elect, none from this special group will fail to comprehend and believe his message all the members of this group will be saved The next verse is the one that apologists like to use when making the claim that salvation is available to all

John 6:40 “ For it is the will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

This verse does not indicate that salvation is available to all. It is merely a clarification of the verse preceding it. Jesus had indicated that all that god had given him would be saved. This verse only clarifies the method of their salvation. It is better understood as every member of the privileged group that the Father has given Jesus will recognize and believe in him and will find salvation.

The next verse shows that Jesus countrymen did no belong to that special group.

John 6:41-42 “ At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, I am the bread that came down from heaven. They said, is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, who’s father and mother we know? How can he know say, I came down from heaven.�

The crowd had just been informed of the purpose of Jesus by Jesus himself plus they had been witness to his miracles, and yet they could not comprehend or believe in him. Jesus then clearly(for once) states the reason why.

John 6:44 “ Stop grumbling among yourselves, Jesus answered. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.

This verse could be interpreted. None of you can understand the message because you have not been enabled to do so.

How can this verse be interpreted to mean that god draws everybody and salvation is determined by the free will choice of the individual. Jesus had just rebuked the crowd for their incomprehension and this was the reason that he gave. The meaning of the text is clear. Earlier the concept of a privileged group who were guaranteed salvation had been formulated in the text. They had been privileged to be able to comprehend the meaning of Jesus and this verse is clearly used to confirm that the reason that the privileged could understand the message was because they had been enabled by god to do so, and in direct comparison those that could not comprehend the message had not been enabled.


The next verse that llamuluvr is so fond of, is not in reference to all humanity but strictly to all the member that of the special group of those that had been enabled to believe.

John 6:45 “ It is written in the prophets, They will all be taught by god. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me�

The text had clearly shown that comprehension was extended to all the members of the privileged group. This verse simply states that all those who can comprehend gods message will come to Jesus. It in no way indicates that this comprehension has been extended to everyone or that it was accessible by an act of free will.

Jesus goes on in this line of reasoning for a while and we have the chapter closing with even his disciples grumbling about this teaching and again Jesus confirms his message that belief can only be secured by the enabling of god and that this had not been universally distributed to mankind.

John 6:63-64 “ The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe�

Here Jesus states that salvation can not be comprehended by the physical man but is given through the Spirit from god. He then indicates that his words represent that message but there are some who will not come to the comprehension that enables salvation even though they are hearing the message directly from him. Does Jesus indicate that this was due to their free will rejection of the message. No.

John 6:64-65 “ For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him�

Here we have a clear indication of cause and effect. The text does not say Jesus had known from the beginning who would reject the drawing of god and betray him, the text simply states that Jesus knew who did not believe and then it clearly states why this belief had not been possible in the case of Judas.

Judas carried the name of all the Jews and it is no accident that the authors of the gospels used a disciple with this name to portray the disciple who betrayed Jesus.

I will again state that the author misquoted Isaiah 54: 13 in the text stating " They will all be taught by God" All the translations of the Bible that I have seen indicate that the author of Isaiah intended that verse to mean that the children of Israel would be privileged to be taught by god. and at this time Israel would experience a everlasting supremacy led by god.

llamuluvr claims that this verse can be shown as a prophecy indicating that all the Jews who where hearing the message had been enabled to comprehend it. If so were is the glorified kingdom of Israel that was to accompany this prophecy. Where is the jeweled city?