Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 07-29-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If you agree with my 3 points then you have accepted my arguments and the premise for the analogy.

I agreed with points 2 and 3 but you understated point 1. None of which helps rescue your failed analogy and none of which actually supports your position on the guards.

The analogy continues to be fatally flawed.

Matthew's story about guards at the tomb continues to be incredible.

Quote:

It serves no other purpose to discuss the analogy.

The purpose is served if you stop using such an obviously flawed analogy.

Quote:

I am glad we see eye to eye in this case.

I don't think you're even kidding yourself, here.

Quote:

I will work on avoiding point #2, I hope you work on avoiding point #3.

Nice straw man. So far, I've avoided it completely. Get back to me when you can present a rational and coherent argument for your position. :wave:

sschlichter · 07-29-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Many christians probably find comfort in inerrancy but
Could not really define it.

No surprise there. If you're going to insist that contradictory writings are inerrant, you're bound to have a hard time defining inerrancy in a way that can make that work.

I am not insisting that at all. I am saying that many people are not qualified to tell if something is an error because they do not bother understanding the context.

If you read a translation of a text that says something is 4 feet long and the length of the object in question turns out to be not exactly 48 inches, then it is not necessarily because of an error in the text, it may an error in interpretation where you take the current more precise meaning of a foot instead of the meaning that existed at the time of the text. It could also be possible that the context of the passage only required an estimation.

These are issues of interpretation and that is where I beleive the errors arise. I have seen people on this site suggest an error because of a passage where a circular object is described and the circumference was estimated instead of the exact value of pi. This is stupid and if the author needed to adhere to that definition of inerrancy, he would still be writing. this is not an error - if I asked you the value of pi, you would provide an answer based on the context of the question. you might say 3, a little more than 3, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 31.14159. Only the least specific is actually correct (a little more than 3).

Any definition you have of inerrancy that does not take this into account is a waste of time.

although if I recall, you have this same problem with modern language. I say there was exponential growth and you say you want to see the numbers on that. that is why I had to point out the defintion of the term from the dictionary that is a less technical. it only indicated an error (willing in this case) on the part of the interpreter.

sschlichter · 07-29-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If you agree with my 3 points then you have accepted my arguments and the premise for the analogy.

I agreed with points 2 and 3 but you understated point 1. None of which helps rescue your failed analogy and none of which actually supports your position on the guards.

The analogy continues to be fatally flawed.

Matthew's story about guards at the tomb continues to be incredible.

The purpose is served if you stop using such an obviously flawed analogy.

I don't think you're even kidding yourself, here.

Quote:

I will work on avoiding point #2, I hope you work on avoiding point #3.

Nice straw man. So far, I've avoided it completely. Get back to me when you can present a rational and coherent argument for your position. :wave:

you mean matthew, Luke, and John's guards.

IamJoseph · 07-29-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

But one does NOT have the right to make terrible charges and accusations based on belief - and this is the crime of the Gospels, which mass murdered millions by this form of belief. Ultimately, the adherants suffer the stains - if they fail to demand proof - as in a court trial.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Christians have persecuted millions of nonChristians over the ages, they certainly have. But I'm curious nonetheless what specifically you are referring to in the Gospels - assuming you've even read them.

That Jews are born of the devil, that there was a conspiracy and a trial instigated against a Jewish Rabbi, Jews are disbelievers, etc. Such false, desperate charges created antisemitism and mass murder. And all in the name of love. Its surely got nothing to do with love or truth.

J-D · 07-29-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, I'm not going to argue with you that Christians have persecuted millions of nonChristians over the ages, they certainly have. But I'm curious nonetheless what specifically you are referring to in the Gospels - assuming you've even read them.

That Jews are born of the devil,

Where in the Gospels does it say that Jews are born of the devil?

Toto · 07-29-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

That Jews are born of the devil,

Where in the Gospels does it say that Jews are born of the devil?

"You belong to your Father the Devil" John 8:31-47

This is, of course, subject to interpretation.

Vinnie · 07-29-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once Justin did not mention the name or names of the authors of the Memoirs of the Apostles it is very likely that he did not know who wrote the Memoirs.

In Acts of the Apostles, Jesus had 12 apostles, now the Memoirs of the APOSTLES must be from or of the APOSTLES or else Justin should have called it Memoirs of the FOLLOWERS, but he did not.

It is clear that Justin really did not know who wrote the Memoirs of the APOSTLES so he included even people who were not Apostles on one occasion.

Justin referred to many passages found in the Memoirs of the Apostles and never named the author but when he mentioned passages, for the first time, from Revelation he prompltly mentioned John an apostle as the author.

Now, Justin mentioned an apostle John wrote Revelation, yet never mentioned that the same John wrote a Gospel or epistles.

Justin Martyr was very meticulous, he is one of the few writers who mentioned almost every time the name of the author to whom the reference belonged. Justin referred by name to Isaiah over 80 times.

And, it is not really true to say that Justin knew the Synoptics when he never made such a claim. It is not logical to claim that since passages found in the Memoirs are similar to the Synoptics that Justin was aware of them, since it can be that the Synoptics were fabricated using the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin was still making mention of the stolen body story with the guards, he appeared to be unaware that gMark, gLuke and gJohn did not write anything about any guards at the tomb and nothing about the story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Justin Martyr showed no awareness of any named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles or Pauline letters.

You are going to needlessly and impossibly multiply texts as an extra text is not necessary and virtually impossible based upon Justin's quotations. The most probable solution is that Justin and the school he belonged to used both the gospels and prepared harmonies of them. Don't forget, Tatian was his pupil.

Justin most certainly knew the synoptics. He most certainly does not name specific authors with the possible exception of the gospel of Mark being Peter's memoirs. I believe Justin was aware of the presbyter tradition from Papias before him as Ireneaus, the Muratonian Canon and Clement after him knew of it, directly or indirectly.

At any rate, those memoirs of Justin seem to alternate word for word from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. There is little doubt Justin worked with harmonies of Mt and Lk. You have apparently never studied the writings of Justin:

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA (Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way to show, in English, where the original language agrees or disagrees with Matthew and Luke.

Underlined text is Matthean.
CAPITALIZED text is Lucan.
Bold is neither.

Look at the pattern of which text Justin agrees with:

not fear those = Matthew and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = Luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matthew and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Are you suggesting that is was not the texts of Matthew and Luke who were harmonized here but that they carefully alternated out pieces of these now lost Memoirs that Justin knew? That would be quite absurd.

Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

They are NOT SIMILAR, they ALTERNATE virtually WORD FOR WORD between MATTHEW AND LUKE as the example I cited mentions. They are an OBVIOUS harmony of the texts of Matthew and Luke.

Vinnie

Again, it is not obvious at all that Justin was using gMatthew or gLuke in an alternate fashion.

Justin did NOT use any passages or phrases alternately for any other writer in any of his works.

This Justin on Isaiah 66.5-8

Justin used NO alternate phrases for Isaiah 66.5-8, he was virtually word for word.

Isaiah (KJV) 66:5-8 -

Quote:

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word;

Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

6 A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Justin Martyr did NOT alternate passages from any known source. Justin quote passages from numerous known writers and it can be verified that he did NOT use alternate phrases from other writers.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Justin used alternate phrases from gMatthew and gLuke when he did not mention those writers by name and did not use alternate phrases for other writers.

I never mentioned alternating phrases for Is. Please read and respond to what I actually wrote. This is a citation from Justin:

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA (Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way to show, in English, where the original language agrees or disagrees with Matthew and Luke.

Underlined text is Matthean.
CAPITALIZED text is Lucan.
Bold is neither.

Look at the pattern of which text Justin agrees with:

not fear those = Matthew and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = Luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matthew and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

It is obvious Matthew and Luke were harmonized in the writings of Justin. They did not independently and carefully alternate out pieces of these now lost Memoirs that Justin knew. That is an absurd suggestion. Please deal with the evidence and the one example cited (there are more!).

Vinnie

IamJoseph · 07-29-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Where in the Gospels does it say that Jews are born of the devil?

"You belong to your Father the Devil" John 8:31-47

This is, of course, subject to interpretation.

Sure. And one needs massive interpretation how an adherant of such texts interprets them - same for deicide, blood libels and the Protocols. IMHO< the victims are its hapless adherants - do some history lessons for proof. I won't wish you same to you.

All religious scriptures will one day have to adhere to the removel of such stuff. Its a crime against humanity, packaged in love and truth as its facade. This is the job of a real Messiah.

IamJoseph · 07-29-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Where in the Gospels does it say that Jews are born of the devil?

What difference - it becomes subject to interpretation. It takes guts to imagine what how FATHER is interpreted here. Shudder, shudder! :banghead:

Toto · 07-29-2009, 07:50 PM

IamJ - see the SBL paper I listed in this thread. It appears that early Christians did not interpret that verse as applying to real Jews.

Things are more complicated than they seem, as usual.

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

07-29-2009, 07:50 PM	#340
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	IamJ - see the SBL paper I listed in this thread. It appears that early Christians did not interpret that verse as applying to real Jews. Things are more complicated than they seem, as usual.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.