wordsmyth

davidH,

You may want to grab a pen and take some notes because I noticed a lack of retention from my earlier posts in your last reply. Some of your points I have already addressed, so if it appears I did not address everything in your last post it is because I have covered it already.

I’ve already answered this question. No, I do not find that John anywhere states that Jesus = God. Nor do I believe he is suggesting or otherwise implying as much. In fact, it is abundantly clear that John makes a definite distinction between Jesus and God.

Funny, because that is exactly what you have done here. You didn’t even bother to quote the entire verse, let alone put it in context.

NIV John 14
10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Now that we can see the entire verse, it is abundantly clear that Jesus is stating his words are not his own, but rather the Father (God) doing HIS work through him.

NIV John 7
16 Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.

Yes, it does appear that in this verse Jesus is referring to God (the Father) as “him who sent me.” This verse creates two important problems for you though. First, Jesus makes a definite proclamation that his words (teachings) are not his own, but rather God’s (the Father). Second, you have to reconcile the absurdity of God allegedly proclaiming that he has sent himself to Earth to teach, yet his teachings are not his own. If Jesus = God as you believe, then God’s teachings would be Jesus’ teachings and the passage is rendered incoherent.

Jesus did not come down from heaven… the “Word” did. Jesus the man was born of a woman like everyone else. I realize that you have not yet grasped my position on the importance of this distinction between Jesus the man and the “Word”. Ignoring that distinction will not helped you to reconcile it.

Again, you have accused others of taking things out of context and then done exactly that yourself.

NIV John 7
15 The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?"
16 Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.
17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
18 He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

Jesus quite clearly makes a distinction in verse 17 between his words and God’s, not his words and “the Father’s”. So, your attempt at reconciliation for this passage fails. For your apologetic to have any validity it would have to read, “…he will find out whether my teaching comes from the Father (or my Father) or whether I speak on my own.”

It does not contradict scripture. John makes a very definite distinction between Jesus and “the Word”. A distinction that you have not addressed and continue to ignore.

You continue to ignore the obvious. We already know from early verses (see John 7:16 above) that Jesus specifically states that his words (teachings) are not his own, but that they come from God. Not from the Father separately, but from God. Period.

It would be absurd for Jesus to deny they are his words and then shortly after claim that they are. In John 8:51 Jesus is saying they are his words only in so much as he has spoken them, or verbally passed them on. This is further reinforced in context shortly after as follows…

NIV John 8
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.

Here Jesus states that he keeps Gods word. Again showing a distinction between Gods word and Jesus’ word.

Also note the last verse of the chapter.

NIV John 8
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

For a God Jesus doesn’t seem to be a very brave fellow hiding and running away like that. You would think a few thrown stones wouldn’t bother God in the least. On the other hand, if he were just a man as I keep pointing out, then it makes sense that he would run and hide.

Interesting that you begin by listing “John 14 v 9,10”, yet only quote half of verse 9 and none of verse 10. You should discontinue accusing others of taking things out of context when you repeatedly do so yourself.

NIV John 14
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

In verse 10 Jesus repeats again, that it is not his work (or words, teachings, etc.), but the Father’s. If Jesus and the Father were both God (i.e. one being), then it stands to reason that it would be Jesus’ work, words, teachings, etc. also, yet he continually re-emphasizes that they are not his, but Gods alone.

As NOGO has already pointed out, the word “only” is a later addition, so that kills that part of your argument.
Read the following verse.

NIV John 8
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

Jesus clearly states that he came from God. He doesn’t say he came from the Father in this verse, but specifically says God. You will also note that he clearly equates God and the Father, “If God were your Father,”. Note that Father is capitalized here, so it does not refer to just any father, but specifically to God the Father.
This does not answer NOGO’s question, nor does it help you reconcile your beliefs with what is plainly written. Here is the verse again for clarity.


NIV John 14
1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

Again we see Jesus making a specific distinction between himself and God. Not just between himself and the Father, but a clear distinction between himself and God.

You are correct. It doesn’t imply that Jesus did not consider himself to be God. It states it very matter-of-factly. There is no implication there at all.

What the Jews did not and still do not believe in is the divinity of Jesus. Remember, their messiah was supposed to be just a man, not a god. Now where do you suppose they got that idea?

No, he is not telling them to accept him as God too, but to accept his words and teachings as coming from God who sent him. I have given textual examples of Jesus a)making a distinction between himself and God, and b)stating emphatically that his words are not his, but Gods alone. If Jesus were God, then this would imply they are of two distinct minds because he repeatedly states that they are not his words, and being of two distinct minds destroys the monotheistic ideology of xianity. This is another reason that Jesus cannot be a part of the Trinity.

According to the following verse from Exodus it is not possible to physically see God and live. In context, Moses has asked God to show himself and the following is God’s reply.

NIV Exodus 33
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

This is reinforced here…

NIV John 1
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If Jesus = God, then JtB is flat out lying because many people had seen Jesus at this point and more would see him later still. So, obviously when Jesus says “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”, he is speaking metaphorically and not literally.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! You just contradicted even the most hardened fundamentalist xian scholars. Jesus is never equated with the Father or the Holy Spirit. In the context of the traditional Trinity, which is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is only ever equated with “the Son”. Neither the text nor even most biblical scholars support your view on that. There are numerous verses in which Jesus differentiates himself from the Father, so you don’t have a leg to stand on with that off the wall assertion.

There is a contradiction. I have given textual evidence above where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God therefore he cannot be God. You are now equating Jesus with the Holy Spirit, yet you have not provided any textual support for that assertion either. Conveniently you omit or ignore those verses that do not support your view and attempt to construct a coherent argument out of what remains. That is disingenuous and willfully ignorant.
No, just 2 quotes above this one you emphatically stated that you believe “Jesus = the Father = the Holy Spirit”. Please choose a position and stick with it.

To which Davidh responded…
Yes, please provide more references for this.

Lets take a look at verses 6-8 as you suggested.

NIV Ezekiel 15
6 "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: As I have given the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest as fuel for the fire, so will I treat the people living in Jerusalem.
7 I will set my face against them. Although they have come out of the fire, the fire will yet consume them. And when I set my face against them, you will know that I am the LORD .
8 I will make the land desolate because they have been unfaithful, declares the Sovereign LORD ."

The parable God used in Ezekiel is considerably different than the one Jesus uses in John. In fact, the only similarity between them at all is the word vine.

Where does Jesus say to believe in him “rather” than God? Whether or not Jesus is alluding to the God of the OT when he says “the Father” or “my Father” is not in dispute with me, so that is really a non-argument as far as I’m concerned. If you believe it will somehow help you to make your case, I openly stipulate that whenever Jesus refers to “the Father” or “my Father” he is referring to the God of the OT.

Unfortunately you have not supported this assertion and based on the textual evidence it is quite foolish to continue insisting that Jesus = God when I have pointed out verses where Jesus personally makes a clear distinction between himself and God.




You have once again taken things out of context. Here is the verse in context.

NIV John 17
6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.
8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.

You will notice in verse 6 that Jesus states quite clearly that “they have obeyed your word” signifying that the Word of God did entail commandments, laws, and anything else that would need to be obeyed. Besides, I never stated that the “Word” entailed only commandments and laws.
Simple. None of the other prophets were “the Christ” or “the anointed of God”. They brought the word of God, but they were not “THE Word”. It’s the difference between God speaking to someone occasionally and God implanting all the knowledge he wishes him or her to have.

I covered this in on page 6, first post, first reply. Since you missed it, I will paste it here.

God gave the Word to Jesus just as he gave him life. If God gave you a crippling disease, you would be a cripple. If you were the only one God gave a crippling disease, you would be “the Cripple”. No?
Out of context. Read the verses in context below.

NIV John 14
23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

Verse 23 Jesus says to “obey my teaching.” What is Jesus teaching? The word of God. Verse 24 specifically states that the words are not his, but the Father’s alone. So when Jesus refers to his teaching he is claiming it as his own only in so much as he has repeated or passed on the words of the Father. In other words, “although these words are not my own words, listen to what I’m telling you and obey it.”

See my crippling disease analogy above. Jesus was the only Christ (messiah, anointed of God, etc.), and so he is referred to as “the Word” and sometimes even “the Christ”, just as if only one person were ever crippled, they could be referred to as “the Cripple”.

I’ve already addressed this and when read in context your argument falls to pieces.
There is no mention of Jesus stating that he is the embodiment of God either, yet you continue to believe it. You are overlooking the obvious in the verse you quoted. The Word came down from heaven, but Jesus did not.

No, there was much more confusion than that among early xians and it took over 1200 years for them to fully rationalize a Trinity.

• 325 A.D.: Emperor Constantine calls to order the Council of Nice and decrees that Christ is "consubstantial" (of the same nature) with the Father.
• 381 A.D.: Emperor Theodosius calls to order the First Council of Constantinople, there it is decided that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
• 388 A.D.: Emperor Theodosius threatens punishment to all who refute the Trinity.
• 451 A.D.: Emperor Marcian calls the Council of Chalcedon to order, there it is decided that Christ has both human and divine natures.
• 680 A.D.: Emperor Constantine Pogonatus holds the Third Council of Constantinople, there it is decreed that Christ has two wills.
• 1274 A.D.: At the Second Council of Lyons it is finally decided that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

You will notice that Emperor Theodosius in 388 A.D. made certain that no one would openly refute the concept of the Trinity even though it still had not been reconciled within the church. You will also notice that the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. decided that Christ had both human and divine natures, which is what I’ve been trying to make you understand. Jesus was human & the Word was divine.

No, I think you should accept very little of the bible as anything more than ancient superstitions and myths. The philosophy in the bible is ok, but when that philosophy becomes religion, that is when people begin to commit atrocities against one another because they are too ignorant to understand what they are reading.

These are the kinds of assertions that result from willful ignorance. Like most fundamentalists, regardless of how much evidence is shown to you, you will not accept that there are contradictions in the bible unless God himself tells you so. Even though numerous xian scholars agree there are problems within the bible, that will not sway most fundamentalists.

Most biblical scholars agree that the bible has undergone numerous redactions, interpolations, omissions, additions, and harmonizations over the years; so to take the bible literally is not genuinely possible. In fact, the majority of xians today accept that the bible is filled with allegory and metaphor and so should not be taken literally. Fundamentalists, like you, who insist on a literal reading, are very much a minority in the modern world as even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution over a belief in a literal creation.

It is fanatical fundamentalists (redundant I know) shackled to their own dogmatic insistence that they are right and so everyone else must be wrong that led to the bloodshed and conflicts.

This does not address the problem at all, but rather it appears to be an attempt on your part to obfuscate the obvious absurdity of it. If, as you suggest, Jesus = God and the Holy Spirit = God, then what you are asking us to accept is that God anointed himself with himself. Completely absurd notion.
You are still having trouble even grasping my position. If you understood what my position was, then you would realize your answer fails to address my point entirely.
This does not address the problem nor does it even give the appearance of answering my question. Why is Jesus called “the Lamb of God” and not “the Lamb of the Father”? To claim that Jesus = God and then call him “the Lamb of God” is equivalent to calling him “the Lamb of himself”. However, we know that Jesus repeatedly states he is not here of his own volition, but was sent by the Father. Therefore we know he was not here to sacrifice himself, but was sent by the Father to be a sacrifice. Your ideology of the Trinity is becoming increasingly incoherent.

The scripture does not contradict my position and I have provided numerous verses to back up everything here. Ignoring those verses or trying to force them to fit your view does not a contradiction make. Your assertion that Jesus was fully God is not supported by scripture as evidenced by the early xian church’s difficulty in forming a coherent doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. Furthermore, I have shown in numerous verses that Jesus makes a distinction between himself and God.
The following verse is what shows that the passage in question does not imply what you insist it does.

NIV John 3
34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.

Obviously the “one whom God has sent” is referring to Jesus. So here we have another distinction between Jesus and God. Jesus did not send himself, God sent him to speak the words of God.

I can tell that you have a very narrow way of thinking. First of all, I never made the claim that the “Word” meant <strong>only</strong> Gods laws and mandates. If you will look again at the definition of “logos” (transliteration of Word) that I so thoughtfully posted in this thread (page 6 I believe), you will notice that it includes much more than just commandments and laws. Additionally, considering they already had the laws from scripture, it would not make any sense for God to send Jesus to simply repeat them. We know that Jesus did not simply repeat the OT laws verbatim, but taught many things other than Gods commandments. There is a reason they are referred to as the Old Testament and the New Testament. No?
The law here refers to the OT commandments and how man could not adhere to them to Gods satisfaction because of man’s inherent sinful nature. That changed when Jesus was sacrificed to absolve that inherent sinful nature. This absolution was only possible because Jesus was the embodiment of Gods laws. Ironic, no?

Again I feel the need to point out that Jesus was not sent by God simply to repeat the Old Testament, but to bring the New Testament.
I fail to see how it does not fit my interpretation. Kingship is commonly hereditary; and which famous biblical King is Jesus traced to? Also, I notice that you quote verse 36 out of context. Here it is in full…

NIV John 18
36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But <strong>now</strong> my kingdom is from another place."

Notice the “now” part? As if his kingdom WAS once here, but is no longer. Isn’t it interesting how easily everything falls into place when read in context rather than pieced together like a puzzle as you are so fond of.
Earlier you made the claim that Jesus = the Holy Spirit, which if true would make communion in this manner unnecessary and irrelevant. However, if communion in this manner is necessary as the passage implies, then they must be separate entities, which is inconsistent with even the placidly incoherent xian idea of monotheism (i.e. a single God entity). We know that “the Father” and Jesus are not of the same mind because Jesus repeatedly states that his words are not his own, but come from the Father. Now things really become incoherent, as they would have to be separate entities as well if communion between two of them (e.g. Jesus & the Holy Spirit) was necessary. How are these 3 beings (Trinity) really 1 (monotheistic) when they are separate entities with separate minds?
No, Paul makes a specific distinction between Jesus and God. Jesus did not raise himself; God raised him. Not the Father, but God. Period. Now, who does it say raised him?

Again, taken out of context. Here, have a look…

NIV Hebrews 1
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Notice here we see a specific distinction between “the Son” and God. The Son is not described as a part of the same being as he is seen to sit down “at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” The Majesty in heaven obviously refers to God alone.

4 So he <strong>became</strong> as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Notice the “became” part. Not “was” as in always has/had been, but “became” as in just then. If this referred to God it would seem entirely silly to imply he could ever be anything but superior to the angels. Also note that it says his name was inherited, which disputes that he had always possessed the title “Son of”.

14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Here he is likened to an angel or ministering spirit. It is pondered why no other angel or ministering spirit has been given the same rank and/or title.
Yes, he is the Word of God. Not God, just the Word. So again we see a distinction between God and “the Word of”. It appears here like you are aiding my argument rather than refuting it.
No, this is a title attributed to Jesus, and I realize you are not capable of distinguishing between the two. Why would God need a title such as these?

Yes, when taken out of context as you have done repeatedly it might seem to be contradictory. However, when placed in context as I have demonstrated everything falls neatly into place. I have provided numerous passages above that provide definite distinctions between Jesus and God.

I answered this above, but you may have forgotten by now so I will reiterate. The “Word” does represent Gods law, but entails much more than that also. If you will re-examine the definition of “Word” (transliteration = logos), which I posted earlier, you will find that it does include Gods laws and commandments, but it encompasses much more than that as well. Now, if you will examine Romans 7 again, you will note that it was due to man being inherently sinful that the law was powerless. God sent Jesus to teach the law (some new and some old) and as a sacrifice to absolve mankind of that inherent sinful nature so that they could be saved. Anyone who did not believe that Jesus was “the Word” (i.e. Gods Word) obviously would not accept the law and thus is not saved.

Jesus never states, “I am God”. Nor does anyone else ever specifically state, “Jesus is God”. He is called many different things, but God is never one of them.

Radorth

Who are "those"?

BTW, you slipped me a mickey earlier Vors. I didn't ask you for an "exact parallel" in history. But anyway, how about just a story with just say two separate accounts like Luke and John, and say five letters to the believers? Robin Hood, etc are rather pathetic examples as no studied historian would ever call them "genuine history." You obviously don't know much about historical inquiry though your use of five dollar words probably fools some people.

Are you now asserting that Paul wrote Hebrews for sure, or do we have two people who can't tell a dream from reality? And of course anyone who can't tell is sent to the funny farm these days, so even with your "explanation," we're talking Grade A nutball. Or is it two now?

I'm curious. Paul says "I determined to preach nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified." What's that? Another interpolation?

Ah yes, if only Heb 9:14-15 read "....how much more shall the blood of Christ...purge you conscience...And for this reason he is the mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant. And by the way, for those who think I imagined Jesus was crucified down here, I went to Calvary the other day and saw where Jesus died!!! A Roman soldier told showed me the exact spot where Jesus blood dripped!!. I'm bringing you all some of the precious dirt to give to your grandchildren so they can believe too."


You guys would scream "Vouching!!!!" so loud, you'd wake the dead.

We know your game and it's ever changing rules. The only pagan myth around here is that Paul dreamed this up.

And the more I reread Hebrews, etc the more clear it is that they make no sense without the crucifixion and the resurrection. There's no sense going on with this, as we cannot agree on basic assumptions, or even what words mean, apparently. Torture the scripture all you want- all you have is tortured theories.

Nice try though.

Radorth

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

An admission that it is indeed hard to make the Christians look rational.

I agree!

But that these same people who have indeed tortured the scriptures to support their version of the "anointed" of God may have invented large parts of it, if not all of it, is totally unthinkable. Right?

Tell me what about the Gnostic Gospels ... you must agree that these documents were totally fabricated within the 70 year constraint which you have artificially imposed on yourself?

What do you know ... people inventing all sorts of sayings about a man that they have never met. Are these people all liars?
Pious religious people lying about Jesus ... impossible!
All these lies created within 70 years ... impossible!

Plebe

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml</a>

Straight from Infidels.org archives' search engine. Plenty of evidence for NT forgeries and besides, the Canon was decided by vote after setting aside hundreds if not thousands of pages of what are known as apocrypha. Maybe there needs to be a new thread discussing "Forgeries in Christianity?"

Vorkosigan

BTW, you slipped me a mickey earlier Vors. I didn't ask you for an "exact parallel" in history. But anyway, how about just a story with just say two separate accounts like Luke and John, and say five letters to the believers?

What would this prove? The existence or non-existence of parallels would prove nothing as far as historicity.

But shit, if you want parallels, just look at Folk Taoism, which produced a Savior, a Mary and Infant, a Heaven, a hell, a triune god, a pope, a satan, a salvation theology, the whole nine yards.

Robin Hood, etc are rather pathetic examples as no studied historian would ever call them "genuine history."

The issue is, how do you distinguish between fiction and history? That is the question that you have consistently refused to answer.

Are you now asserting that Paul wrote Hebrews for sure, or do we have two people who can't tell a dream from reality? And of course anyone who can't tell is sent to the funny farm these days, so even with your "explanation," we're talking Grade A nutball. Or is it two now?

This is just raving and ranting. All I said was, none of these documents requires an earthly crucifixion for Jesus. Please show that they contain any events from the later gospels. You have now failed to do this in two posts.

I'm curious. Paul says "I determined to preach nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified." What's that? Another interpolation?

Ah yes, if only Heb 9:14-15 read [i] "....how much more shall the blood of Christ...purge you conscience...And for this reason he is the mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant.
We know your game and it's ever changing rules. The only pagan myth around here is that Paul dreamed this up.

And the more I reread Hebrews, etc the more clear it is that they make no sense without the crucifixion and the resurrection. There's no sense going on with this, as we cannot agree on basic assumptions, or even what words mean, apparently. Torture the scripture all you want- all you have is tortured theories.

Apparently, since you cannot read, I'll explain it to you one more time.

Nobody is disputing that the early writes believed the savior Jesus was crucified and resurrected. The early writers all believed that this occurred.

The issue is WHERE THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE. So show from Hebrews that these events TOOK PLACE ON EARTH and not in the subheavens.

Clear now? Simply showing that Paul or Hebrews or 1 Clement discussed a crucifiction/resurrection is not enough. You must show that it took place ON EARTH.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Ah yes, Jesus was crucified in heaven in one of Paul's dreams, so Paul kept writing letters and going to jail so he could make more money.

Ah sure. I understand your position. It's very simple.

Heh. Unfortunately it raises produces more questions than answers, you know like "Did Paul know it was a dream and did he tell anybody? Are you saying he knew it, but forgot to tell people?" I imagine your answer- depending on what it was- would lead them to believe either you or Paul was something of a nutball.

I expect the "myth" will be around for a long time until you folks find a better explanation, using ordinary definitions of English words. Your theory certainly takes the pressure off on this end though.

Radorth

NOGO

Paul says he saw a vision. Other people hear voices. These people are not "nutballs" as you say. They are people with mental health problems and in those days these things were not known.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Sojourner553

I gave you every opportunity to tell me how you view this . You first have to put out a response before someone can understand it (or the world). Anything less is IRRATIONAL.

My question is simple: Are the demons spoken of in the Bible real -- or were they later additions from pagan myths...

Refusing to answer -- indeed getting hostile to "test" questions does not inspire me you have a position of strength here. Do you not imply on your site that you have many answers.

I have known Christians (usually Catholic) who state demons "must" be real because they are in the Bible. I know other Christians (usually Protestant) who state these are myths -- but they still believe the core message of Christianity is genuine.

I strongly suspect as a Catholic you feel you follow the Catholic trend I listed above... but don't like admitting to the existence of demons --because mainstream science views such beliefs as superstition.


I would hope reason and argument would make a reasonable person see things in a "reasonable way". Can you explain your position better-- You seem to imply that reason and argument can make a reasonable person act "unreasonable"... Seems to me this begs an explanation (ie, if you wish to stay within the rational realm.)


But it is Christians who talk about perfection and eternity!!! Sin is usually defined as "missing the mark" based on a standard of divine "perfection".


Science emphasizes the opposite: that one can never have perfection of knowledge. Rather testing and rationality are the best judges of truth -- but never perfect judges of truth.

The Enlightenment proposed using science and rationality -- saying it was a better predictor of truth than faith and authority.

Here is the father of the Enlightenment in England --John Locke--the same "villain" whom the US Constitution used to base its philosophies of human freedom and democracy.

Care to tell me where Locke stresses perfection??? Because my readings on Locke imply his principles are based on just the OPPOSITE of standards of perfection, (what you have termed "Enlightened bias"). It is because we do NOT have perfection of knowledge that Locke stresses tolerance and individual freedom.

Of course if the faith and authority route really worked -- there would have been no religious wars in history plus no disagreements of "What God really wants" among religious groups today.

BTW: Who is YOUR authority? The pope? If so, which one?

Oops -- just slipping into my Enlightenment world outlook again, where I deceive myself into thinking I am asking "unbiased" RATIONAL questions -- or as you put it-- rational questions that are out of "place".

For to me, ALL RATIONAL QUESTIONS have a "place" -- PRIMARY not SECONDARY viz-a-viz authority and faith... (You reverse these positions -- but only in those instances where YOU/your authority deem the primacy of reason "inappropriate".)


Isn't that the real issue?

Sojourner

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Ah yes, Jesus was crucified in heaven in one of Paul's dreams, so Paul kept writing letters and going to jail so he could make more money.

Huh? This claim was made where?

Unfortunately it raises produces more questions than answers, you know like "Did Paul know it was a dream and did he tell anybody?

Who said it was a dream? Doherty's theory, and Ellegaard's, is that the early Christians discovered the story of Jesus' death and resurrection through allegorical readings of the OT. Paul have visions and other experiences of a spirit Christ (this is undisputed). The issue is not whether Paul dreamed, but where he located the death and resurrection of Jesus. So far you have said nothing that bears on that question.

Vorkosigan

Answerer

Without the bible, the christians have no other historical records of proving Jesus' existence as we can see from all of the above posts. Then again, the bible is never really or highly regarded as a fully accurate historical record by most archeologists.