spamandham

This is going nowhere, and it's off topic anyway.

rhutchin

Sermon on the mount recorded in Matthew 5-7. I believe Jesus said this because He is recorded to have said it in Matthew.

Matthew 5
1 And seeing the multitudes, [Jesus] went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,...

rhutchin

Within the context of the Bible, supernatural events are consistent and credible as the Bible presupposes a supernatural god who created the universe and does other supernatural things. Since no natural process exists for the universe to come into existence, there is no reason to discount the supernatural in the Bible that begins at Genesis 1:1.

Deus Ex

Within the context of the Spiderman comics, Peter Parker can wall-walk right up the sides of buildings.

Neither of us knows that there is no natural process that can account for the beginning of the universe. Even if cosmological arguments were to somehow prove that a deity created the universe, it still does not mean that Genesis is an account of that Creator. It might have been the Supreme Brahman that brought the universe into existence, and not Yahweh or Allah.

avi

When I analyze this passage in John, contrasting it with John 10:30, I rely upon the Greek version of Hort & Westcott, because of my conviction, perhaps erroneous, that after Constantine, versions of "the" bible were corrupted by political intrigue, with the consequence that numerous words/sentences were both inserted and deleted.

Certainly, it is true, the two most famous extant Bibles, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, may also be corrupted with insertions or deletions.

So, I am not claiming that Hort/Westcott is perfectly in tune with the ink drying from John's quill, but, I am comfortable with the notion that someone definitely inserted the word "my", highlighted above, into the text you are following, i.e. "my" was never a part of the ink drying from John's quill. It is a tiny bit deceptive to look at the text in English, because "the" and "my" are both a simple little word. In Greek however, it is clear, examining the manuscript, as you can do yourself, online, "my" is an additional word, not a substitute word.

Why was this done, if I am correct? I believe that "my" was inserted into the text which you are reading, to protect the myth that Jesus was not simply a human, but rather the son of god, thus a divine being. "My" father, is, in my opinion, completely different, theologically, from "the" father. "The" father implies, to me, the notion that a supernatural god is in Heaven looking down on all of us, we are all his children, so to speak, Jesus among them. "My" father, on the other hand, implies that Jesus is God, as is proclaimed in John 10:30.

This thread focuses on words attributed to Jesus. What is so mysterious to me, is how a deity could have made two contradictory statements. Humans make those kind of errors, not gods. Jesus, to my way of thinking, could not be both subservient to God, (knowing less than God, i.e. not omniscient) and concurrently equal to God, omniscient..... One of the best ways to resolve this problem, two thousand years ago, was to add some text: in this case: "my" was inserted, to assist those who puzzled over this strange contradiction in Jesus' statements to his disciples, two millenia before the present day.

avi

rhutchin

That is true. Context is everything.

The Bible presents one account of the creation of the universe and of the involvement of God in the lives of people. Are these accounts that tell of supernatural events implausible using the principle of analogy as you maintained earlier or have you misapplied the principle of analogy or is the principle of analogy bogus.

rhutchin

You have lost me.

Your claim is that the word, "my," has been inserted into the text. However, the insertion of "my" causes you to say, "What is so mysterious to me, is how a deity could have made two contradictory statements." Thus, it is the insertion of "my" that seems to have created the problem you describe.

Then, you say, "One of the best ways to resolve this problem, two thousand years ago, was to add some text:" yet I think you are saying that inserting the text actually created the problem.

Can you straighten me out?

Deus Ex

Yes, it does have a creation story. The point being that even if scientist eventually conclude that the universe must have an intelligient designer, then this does not automatically validate the Genesis creation story. You would still have to provide evidence that your sacred books represent the True Designer. A different creation account from another religion might have the true story. Or no religion may have an accurate account of the Designer.

The question is: How do you KNOW the Christian bible is literal truth? Most Christians will claim that they just know. Or, they call upon a subjective personal experience to validate what they believe. I find the standard theist's answers unsatisfactory.


I find tales of supernatural events implausible because I see no evidence of these events happening around me today. This does not say that supernatural events are impossible. It simply suggests that supernatural explanations are implausible, ie less likely than a naturalistic alternative.

rhutchin

Yes, a problem exists. Pascal described one means to address the issue in his Wager.

If you found a watch on the street, would you think that it was the product of natural processes or would you think that someone had designed it and put it together? Did the computer that you use come about through some natural process that left it hanging from a tree for you to pluck and begin using? The individual cells that make up the human body are vastly more complicated than either a watch or a computer. Yet, you probably believe that some natural process resulted in the first cell and that other natural processes then took that cell and created the variety of life we observe today. Still, you would say that a supernatural explanation is implausible, ie less likely than a naturalistic alternative while maintaining that that same naturalistic process could not have produced nor could produce a watch or a computer. I find that amazing.

Deus Ex

Pascal's Wager does not tell me why I should accept the truth of the bible as opposed to the Koran or Hindu scriptures. Pascal just sets up a false dichotomy between atheism and Christianity. This still does not tell me why I should consider the Christian bible to be literally true.

You are speaking here of intelligent design; I was referring in my previous post to historical methodology. The principle of analogy is that the present is the key to the past. One example would be that Genesis mentions humans living for almost a thousand years. We know that people rarely make it to a hundred years of age, today, thus I am justified in being skeptical about those accounts written in the bible.

Another example would be: If I told you that a guy down the street from me could walk on liquid water, your immediate reaction would be skepticism until you had sufficient empirical proof that my neighbor could indeed walk on liquid water. Since the laws of physics were surely the same in first century Palestine, then I am justifiably skeptical about reports of a Galilean preacher walking on liquid water.