Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 06-28-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Note that it is a rational discussion of facts is in fact the domain of this forum. If your participation here has to fall back ultimately on "this is what the bible says", and "this is what my faith tells me is true", then you really don't have a basis for real participation.

My basis for participation is examination, in Biblical context, of proposed internal textual inconsistencies, as demonstrated here, where #55 has been acknowledged by its poster to be a false contradiction, and has been removed from the list.

Likewise, my basis for participation is demonstrated here, here, and here.

These are "a rational discussion of facts" regarding the content of the texts.
That may not be a subject in which you are particularly interested, but others are.

Thanks for the reminder simon.

Quote:

Still somewhere way North of 300 to go simon, are you keeping track?

I do remember requesting that you start at the beginning and address them one by one in order. It is a polite request, why not honor it ?

The question still stands, and as yet you have utterly failed to address, or even touch on well over 300 of these proposed internal textual inconsistencies.
Why is that so simon?

Sheshbazzar · 06-28-2011, 04:45 PM

And

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

There is no annihilation in the NT.

The NT;

Quote:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.(Matt 10:28)

?

Quote:

If any man defile the temple of G-d, him shall G-d destroy; for the temple of G-d is holy, which [temple] you are. (1 Cor 3:17)

?

Your post in #234 did nothing to address the obvious meaning of these verses.

And how about this bit of inspired Scripture;

Quote:

A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. (Psalm 37:10)

Or this one;

Quote:

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of YHWH shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. (Psalm 37:20)

Or;

Quote:

He preserveth not the life of the wicked: (Job 36:6)

Or;

Quote:

But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off. (Psalm 37:38)

Or;

Quote:

Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. (Psalm 104:35)

Or;

Quote:

YHWH preserves all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy. (Psalm 145:20)

Or;

Quote:

When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, (Prov 10:25)

Or;

Quote:

For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. (Prov24:20)

Or;

Quote:

"For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says YHWH of "Hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch. (Mal 4:1)

Quote:

Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things," says YHWH of Hosts. (Mal 4:3)

But then HE must be wrong, right simon? Do you really peceive whch end of that "Rod of Iron" you are laboring to be on simon?

.

simon kole · 06-28-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

From the post: Matthew 5:17-20, 19 indicates the Jewish Law/Traditions should be followed as well as Luke 16:17. Hebrew scripture citations that indicate the Jewish Law/Traditions was permanent: Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-17, Mal 3:6-7 and never to be replaced or added to: Deut 4:2, 13:1

Contrast that to Paul's writings that I cited heavily in that post...

Not only Paul, but the letter to the Hebrews reveals the Law is abolished.

In Christianity, OT revelation is understood in the light of latter NT revelation.
The NT explains very clearly the what, the how, and why the OT Levitical law is now obsolete.

This is where we begin to diverge. I think the NT stuff that comes along is an indication of evolution of thought within Judaism and the early forms of Christianity, not a new revelation to shed light on the OT. The OT makes sense without further illumination.:notworthy:

Suffice it to say that the letter to the Hebrews strongly disagrees.

Quote:

It explicitly states that it is a permanent arrangement between God and his chosen people, the Israelites. It explicitly states that it is is not to be replaced (to use your word "obsoleted") or added to. The OT explicitly states that anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher (Deut. 13).

The text explains how they will be known as false teachers--they will say, "Let us go and worship other gods."
That does not describe the NT writers.

Quote:

That's why Judaism still exists today. It (the blood rituals and slavery laws and bizarre rules about all sorts of things) just became harder to swallow for people that were living in a more and more advanced society. Paul was largely responsible for evolving Judaism into a Gentile-friendly movement. And that evolution has continued to this day. Protestantism (into 30,000+ denominations its important to note) evolved from Orthodoxy/Catholicism . Calvinism and Arminianism evolved from prior forms of Christianity, becoming a distinct "species" in the 16th century and later.

I don't think that's a sign of new revelation, I think that is evidence that people are responsible for the characteristics and viewpoints of Christianity, not God. A charismatic guy like Paul, or Luther, or Calvin produced their own, very human takes on Christianity and convinced enough people that they're right to get their own sub-following. The divergence of the Christian "species" started pretty much from day 1 with the emergence of groups like the Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics, and the like, now mostly extinct...

That's why a relatively static text can be used to justify slavery in one century and decry it in the next. Because society has changed not the book. That's why killing and torturing your neighbors over their religious belief can be justified via the Bible in one century, and dismissed in another century. People reinterpret "God" how they want, God doesn't reveal new things.

Interesting. . .but totally contrary to the NT reports.

schriverja · 06-28-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Sorry, we cross-posted. I expanded my post to allude to what I mean. Some of the points of contention (regarding unity) are still awaiting for responses.

For instance, here is a post that I feel demonstrates disunity (the notion of Hell versus annihilation).

The second death, which is the lake of fire (Rev 21:8), does not mean ""annihilation or "loss of being," as is seen in 2Th 1:9, which uses the words "eternal destruction" in relation to Christ's second coming.

The meaning of the Greek word, olethros, used by Paul and translated "destruction" in 2Th 1:9, is to slay or to kill, as is seen in Paul's useage of it in 1Co 5:5, 10:10, 1Th 5:3, and also in Heb 11:28, where several forms of the Greek word are used. The word does not mean annihilation or loss of being.

Likewise, the Greek word, apollumi is translated "destruction, perdition, damnation, perishing, lost" in Mt 7:13, 10:28; Lk 13:3,5; Jn 3:16, 10:28, 17:12; Ro 2:12, 9:22; 1Co 15:18; 2Co 2:15, 4:3; Php 1:28, 3:19; 2Th 2:3,10; 1Tim 6:9; Heb 10:39; Jas 4:12; 2Pe 2:3, 3:7,9,16; Rev 17:8,11. The meaning of apollumi is kill, waste, ruin or loss of well being. It does not mean annihilation or loss of being, as is seen where several forms of the word are used in Mt 2:13, 8:25, 9:17, 22:7, 26:8,52, 27:20; Lk 5:37, 15:4,6,24; Jn 6:27; 1Pe 1:7.

From here:

Quote:

Annihilate:
eliminate: kill in large numbers; "the plague wiped out an entire population"

To reduce to nothing, to destroy, to eradicate

wreaking or capable of wreaking complete destruction; "possessing annihilative power"; "a devastating hurricane"; "the guns opened a withering fire"

I'm not particularly interested in a semantic argument on whether or not the literal greek word for annihilate was used interchangeably with death/killing. To me, in modern English, slaying/killing mean the same thing as annihilation. My original point is that Jesus in the gospels speaks of a lake of fire that people are thrown into to be tormented, not just killed or destroyed. Revelation has similar imagery. Paul seems to me to think that people who aren't raptured are killed outright in the destruction of the world (or the world of that time). He never says that people are kept around to be tormented for eternity. That would have been a hard sell to the Gentiles. To the Jews that would have been more palatable, because the OT God already was known to be vicious at times. If Paul references a Lake of Fire or some other everlasting torment correct me. Also, the notion of Hell, certainly that of a place of punishment, isn't in the OT at all. It seems to an evolution of thought within Judaism/Early Christianity dating to around the first century. The closest thing in the OT is Sheol, but that's a place that both the righteous and unrighteous end up. Likewise, Heaven* seems to be an evolution of thought with no real precursor in the NT.

*by Heaven I mean some sort of spiritual kingdom as modern day Christians mean it. 'heaven' is referred to as the physical sky, where apparently God physically resides, several places in the OT.

Sheshbazzar · 06-28-2011, 05:39 PM

And the verses I listed in post #252 above are not all that obscure.

simon kole · 06-28-2011, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Wrong!

The majority view among NT scholars is that none of the gospels predate Paul's writing (sure, you can find some ultra-conservative fringe scholars who date the gospels extremely early, but that view is not the consensus.)

And scholars are pretty evenly divided as to whether Paul is even the author of 2 Timothy, so basically, you have an unprovenanced book that is likely written by a forger claiming that all scripture is god-breathed. Whoopty-do

There are scholars, and there are latter-day speculators in novel conjecture with no conclusive proof.

What you seem to be saying is that you feel you have absolute facts on your side, and that every scholar that disagrees with you is engaging in conjecture and speculation. I hate to tell you this, but historians can never have absolute knowledge about events that have passed us in time; particularly events that happened thousands of years ago. Historians must use some conjecture and speculation in an attempt to find the most plausible reconstruction of a poorly attested historical event.

Actually, you make my argument very well.
It is the attempt to "reconstruct" millennia-old events, using "plausible conjecture" which excludes the actual "knowledge" of them reported in the ancient texts, that is manifestly unfounded.

Quote:

The only people who think that have absolute knowledge about what happened in Palestine during the first few centuries CE are pseudo-intellectual fundamentalists who believe that God's ghost whispered the answer into their ear.

And the only people who think the actual ancient reports of the events are not "knowledge" regarding them, and that speculative conjectural "reconstruction" two millennia later is valid "knowledge" of them, are the intellectual pseudo-historians captivated by their fancy for their own novel ideas.

simon kole · 06-28-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Note that it is a rational discussion of facts is in fact the domain of this forum. If your participation here has to fall back ultimately on "this is what the bible says", and "this is what my faith tells me is true", then you really don't have a basis for real participation.

My basis for participation is examination, in Biblical context, of proposed internal textual inconsistencies, as demonstrated here, where #55 has been acknowledged by its poster to be a false contradiction, and has been removed from the list.

Likewise, my basis for participation is demonstrated here, here, and here.

These are "a rational discussion of facts" regarding the content of the texts.
That may not be a subject in which you are particularly interested, but others are.

Thanks for the reminder simon.

Quote:

Still somewhere way North of 300 to go simon, are you keeping track?

I do remember requesting that you start at the beginning and address them one by one in order. It is a polite request, why not honor it ?

And I do remember replying that was more work than I wanted to sign up for.

Quote:

The question still stands, and as yet you have utterly failed to address, or even touch on well over 300 of these proposed internal textual inconsistencies.
Why is that so simon?

Having a hard time just getting to them.

And I will not be addressing all 300 of them, including the numerical and immaterial contradictions. I will address the ones that interest me.

Deus Ex · 06-28-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

And the only people who think the actual ancient reports of the events are not "knowledge" regarding them, and that speculative conjectural "reconstruction" two millennia later is valid "knowledge" of them, are the intellectual pseudo-historians captivated by their fancy for their own novel ideas.

Methinks that you don't know much about historical methodology. The biblical texts are but limited pieces of the puzzle which historians use to try to decipher what happened to spawn the christian mutation that occurred in Palestine 2,000 years ago. Historians cannot simply base their conclusions on unprovenanced, anonymously (and pseudonymously) written accounts that serve as propaganda for a particular faith movement. There is a big difference in modus operandi between historians and apologists.

dockeen · 06-28-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

There is a big difference in modus operandi between historians and apologists.

And objectives. Historians are after the truth, apologists want to back up a pre-existing
theological position.

Given data that is in opposition to what they have theorized, a historian may modify
his position based on the new data. In the same position, I have no doubt that an
apologist would hide the data or lie about it.

simon kole · 06-28-2011, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

There is no annihilation in the NT.

The NT:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.(Matt 10:28)

?

Mt 10:28 is addressed in post #234.

Quote:

If any man defile the temple of G-d, him shall G-d destroy; for the temple of G-d is holy, which [temple] you are. (1 Cor 3:17)

?

Greek word here is phtheiro, which means to destroy by corrupting. In context, 1Co 3:17:

"If a man defile (Gr. phtheiro) the temple of God" (local church--mar it by leading it away from holiness of life and purity of doctrine),
him shall God destroy (Gr. phtheiro--retributive destruction of one who is guilty of the sin of phtheiro).
The meaning of destruction, etc. is addressed in post #234.

Quote:

Your post in #234 did nothing to address the obvious meaning of these verses.

And how about this bit of inspired Scripture;

My post #234 regarded annihilation in the NT.

Annihilation in the sense that shriverja uses it, does not mean destruction of the body, or even reducing it to dust.
It means destruction of the being of one's spirit, so that there is no entity in eternity.

Annihilation, in the sense that shriverja uses it, is not in the NT.

Nor is that the meaning in your verses below, where it refers to destruction of the body.

Quote:

A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. (Psalm 37:10)

Or this one: But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of YHWH shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. (Psalm 37:20)

Or: He preserveth not the life of the wicked: (Job 36:6)

Or: But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off. (Psalm 37:38)

Or: Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. (Psalm 104:35)

Or: YHWH preserves all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy. (Psalm 145:20)

Or: When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, (Prov 10:25)

Or: For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out. (Prov24:20)

Or: "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says YHWH of "Hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch. (Mal 4:1)

Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things," says YHWH of Hosts. (Mal 4:3)

But then HE must be wrong, right simon? Do you really peceive whch end of that "Rod of Iron" you are laboring to be on simon?

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

06-28-2011, 05:39 PM	#255
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And the verses I listed in post #252 above are not all that obscure.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.