Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 08-13-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy5

...why weren't more things retroactively written into them to justify their authority-they could have had Jesus say some rules of the Church, things Paul and Peter had to set up later,

Quote:

Having Jesus say that Peter was the rock upon which the church would be built was enough.

Why would that be enough?

Quote:

Homosexuality was not a big deal then

It was not an issue. That may well have been because no-one was brave/crazy enough to broach it.

Quote:

and is only tangentially mentioned in Paul's letters.

Paul reckoned that homosexuality was a consequence of basic rejection of God- though not always. But in any case, he made it very clear that homosexual practice was impermissible in the divine view.

Quote:

Was it Jesus none of their materials ever had Jesus saying that? I know this is splitting hairs since perhaps he didn't say some of the stuff they claim he did, but I guess I'm just thinking if you're rewriting history, why not rewrite it all the way to reflect your view.

Quote:

I think the texts were rewritten somewhat to reflect the views of Christians in the second century when the texts were more in state of transition

Were they ever in a state of transition? The norm was oral transmission, which is all but impossible to corrupt.

Quote:

but these were not necessarily the views of later Christians, who would have had a harder problem rewriting the texts.

If persecution had severely reduced the value of oral transmission, which is unlikely but possible, it could have been worth trying. But we know that there were by then very large numbers of copies, and re-writing again was impossible.

Toto · 08-13-2007, 02:04 PM

Clouseau: how can I take anything you say seriously if you claim that oral transmission is "all but impossible to corrupt?"

Koyaanisqatsi · 08-13-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Clouseau: How is it that he did not actually sacrifice his son, then?

He did in his heart and mind and action; it was Yahweh who stopped his hand (or rather one of Yahweh's minions).

Quote:

MORE: 'By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.' Heb 11:17-19

That's utter apologetic bullshit. The story of Abraham in Genesis is direct and clear and horrifically brief with no mention at all about Abraham reasoning that killing his own son wouldn't be that big of a deal (as you seem to be using Hebrews here to imply) because God could raise the dead. In fact, if anything, the implication of Genesis 21 would have been to Abraham in Genesis 22 that through Isaac's death, Abraham's other offspring (i.e., all of Israel) would be "reckoned."

Clouseau · 08-13-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Quote:

Clouseau: How is it that he did not actually sacrifice his son, then?

[quoteHe did in his heart and mind and action; it was Yahweh who stopped his hand (or rather one of Yahweh's minions).

Got it. Yahweh stopped him.

Quote:

MORE: 'By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.' Heb 11:17-19

Quote:

That's utter apologetic bullshit. The story of Abraham in Genesis is direct and clear and horrifically brief

So brief if you don't read it all.

Quote:

with no mention at all about Abraham reasoning that killing his own son wouldn't be that big of a deal (as you seem to be using Hebrews here to imply) because God could raise the dead.

It's perfect reasoning to those who have actually read everything.

Quote:

In fact, if anything, the implication of Genesis 21 would have been to Abraham in Genesis 22 that through Isaac's death, Abraham's other offspring (i.e., all of Israel) would be "reckoned."

Read the story. All of it.

Cege · 08-13-2007, 02:52 PM

I'll try to make the point again: Isaac was not Abraham's only son at the time that Isaac was almost stabbed then burnt as an offering to God.

Isaac was Abraham's 2nd son. The first was Ishmael. See Genesis 16

Ishmael was Abraham's first born son, Ishmael was alive when Isaac was almost sacrificed, and Ishmael was still alive when Abraham died. See Genesis 25

It is not true that Isaac was Abraham's one and only son, at least according to Genesis. Genesis and Hebrews are in contradiction on that point.

Clouseau · 08-13-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Clouseau: how can I take anything you say seriously if you claim that oral transmission is "all but impossible to corrupt?"

How about this. I'll take your statements seriously, despite the fact that you apparently believe that oral transmission is easy to corrupt. One takes debating statements on their individual merit, not on the debater's perceived ability, after all.

Koyaanisqatsi · 08-13-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Clouseau: Got it. Yahweh stopped him.

But in order for Abraham to have got to the point where his hand had to be stayed, he would have had to have killed his son in his heart and mind and action; i.e., he killed his son for all intents and purposes. The fact that Yahweh stopped him at the last minute is entirely irrelevant and the fact that this test was utterly pointless for an all knowing being makes it purely evil.

Abraham would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he did kill his son; God just stopped the actual death part.

Quote:

MORE: So brief if you don't read it all.

I have read it all and you're quite wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi · 08-13-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Clouseau: I'll take your statements seriously, despite the fact that you apparently believe that oral transmission is easy to corrupt.

If you've ever played the game of "telephone" (where one person whispers something in the ear of another all the way down a line of ten or twenty people) you would never make such a ridiculously casual dismissal of a valid point.

Oral transmission is not only highly susceptible to corruption over decades if not centuries, it's highly susceptible to corruption within a span of a dozen or so people in just one room.

Clouseau · 08-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Quote:

Clouseau: Got it. Yahweh stopped him.

Quote:

entirely irrelevant

You obviously haven't been reading the thread, either!

Clouseau · 08-13-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Quote:

Clouseau: I'll take your statements seriously, despite the fact that you apparently believe that oral transmission is easy to corrupt.

Quote:

whispers

Whispers? Was Christianity a secret society, too?

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

08-13-2007, 02:04 PM	#52
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Clouseau: how can I take anything you say seriously if you claim that oral transmission is "all but impossible to corrupt?"

08-13-2007, 02:52 PM	#55
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	I'll try to make the point again: Isaac was not Abraham's only son at the time that Isaac was almost stabbed then burnt as an offering to God. Isaac was Abraham's 2nd son. The first was Ishmael. See Genesis 16 Ishmael was Abraham's first born son, Ishmael was alive when Isaac was almost sacrificed, and Ishmael was still alive when Abraham died. See Genesis 25 It is not true that Isaac was Abraham's one and only son, at least according to Genesis. Genesis and Hebrews are in contradiction on that point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.