agapeo

Hi to you likewise Joel,

How was your visit with your friend (from Norway I believe)?
Thanks. I thought I should bring this topic back to the first page before it moved off the map.
Fair enuf. No hurry.
I'm sure you will and I look forward to it.
That's interesting. Let me know if you ever discover the source. What I wrote came from my personal note files from Biblical research classes I took over 25 years ago. So it's possible that the one who taught me used sources from some encyclopaedia or whatever, but I seriously doubt word for word.
No harm done. Just wanted to make sure you did understand. I wouldn't want to be confused with one of them thar fundies.
Oh, not at all. It's always a good thing to refresh your memory on fundamental matters. Especially when you get to be my age.
As an aside: Are you by any chance in one of the branches of armed services? Or are you going to Singapore for other reasons? Just curious.

Edited greeting.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Celsus

Absolutely wicked. We went back to our university, met up with old mates, and got absolutely wrecked (alcohol-wise) three nights running. Oh, wait. You probably disprove of hedonism. Forget I said anything.

Actually, I was in the artillery (it's compulsory, as a Singaporean), but it's got nothing to do with that - I've just given up job-hunting here in London.

Joel

agapeo

:lol Well, at least you hold to the tenet of moderation. Only three nights out of seven is all that bad. Ahh, the pursuit of pleasure! To each his/her own. Or so the saying goes.

Celsus

Hey agapeo,

I'm just bumping this to keep it in view. Note I've changed my name. Don't worry, I doubt I'll be harassing you about diabolical mimicry just because of my name change. My books have arrived, I just need to go and collect them, then look through this topic thoroughly...

Joel

agapeo

Hi Joel,
I thought about doing it myself, but . . .
I've noticed that that is the fashionable thing for quite a few to do. I'll stick with agapeo since I'm too rigid in my thinking to think of something original.
:lol Well as Alfred E. Newman says (I think he said it): What me worry.
Fair enuf. At your leisure. Btw -- How's things going with your Father?

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

I knew nothing good would ever come about from your insistence interrupting every two sentences in your quote field. Now that vBulletin has been introduced, the posts are fiendishly hard to read. If I've forgotten anything relevant, say it or what is ignored now will probably be ignored forever. I'm hoping anything I cut'n'pasted to refute is actually your words and not mine otherwise it might be quite embarassing. I'm also switching Bible versions (RSV to KJV) for now, to use Barnes' Notes on the New Testament and The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible as my sources, and both are in the KJV.

Let me address what I think has become a new issue with your last post, and perhaps better since we should see where each of us is coming from.
As I've already said, my approach was to understand your theology. Of course, since you haven't quite elucidated your whole theology means I have to jump to some conclusions in order to construct an argument. My conclusions about theist belief have so far been orthodox, and I'm trying to carry them to their logical end to see if they expose contradiction. It may be that I'm simply using non sequiturs and having discussed this at length with you, it is very difficult for me to see how I can discuss this unless you posted your own summa theologia or whatever first. I have been trying to put myself in your shoes for the discussion, but I may have picked the wrong pair from the pile.

The fact that you aren't orthodox in thinking is firstly, a good thing, because it means you don't rely on the authority of others, but also a bad thing, because I end up putting words in your mouth. So I'm kind of stuck, but I'm trying not to be too pushy. And yes, I have no emotional attachments with any of my arguments so far. Anyway, this was always going to be a difficult discussion, because I'm trying to make sure we never talk past each other. If I was only interested in my own theories of Biblical studies, I'd be focusing more on how everything is mythical.

Re: failed prayer and hell
This argument goes something like this: We can use Paul's insistence that all are subject either to written or revealed law, or natural law (Romans 2:12-15) and therefore all stand condemned (Barnes' notes state the "judged" in verse 15 is just to make the phrase less harsh on Jews). However, prayer, as the intercessory for the condemned, when failing to work, means that they remain condemned.

Therefore failed prayer, unsuccessful missionary efforts (because of failed prayer, because missionaries and their churches always pray for success), etc. mean that the condemned stay condemned. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that they are judged according to "natural law" and this brings back the "Pointlessness of the Great Commission" argument (but unfortunately this thread is buried deep in the forum archives and I don't have the time or inclination to recover it).

I bet that didn't clear up anything, but I've got too much ground to cover, so I'll leave it for now.

Re: existence of hell
Heh heh. I've finally got you (I hope). Creation of the "heavens" in Genesis (1:1, 8, 14, 2:1, etc.) refers to the "sky" (Strong's concordance: shâmayim or shâmeh - 8064). The former is a dual, probably refering to both the arch where we find clouds, and the ether where we find celestial bodies (H-G Study explanation). The NT word for heaven ούρανός or ouranos - Strong's 3772, which can refer to the abode of God does not refer to heaven being "created". Your argument against the existence of hell is thus equally valid against the existence of heaven (as the afterlife reward for the righteous). Anyway, that was my little experiment at using unicode to do Greek characters (the Hebrew looked horrible with the font I'm using and I couldn't get the accents right anyway). Don't think I did it for any reason other than showing-off value.

Re: some aspects of interpretation
I know this is part of an aside, but surely you realise that for the first 300 years or more of Christian history, nobody (or at least very few) actually had a complete set of books of the Bible? Furthermore, other books now excluded were formally included by various sects, some of which had quite bizarre teachings. (By Christian standards of course, by agnostic/atheist standards, everything in the Bible is bizarre. )

Re: James 4:17

I think we should leave this one for now. It's much too hard for me to think from a theist perspective on this one.

Re: whatever this quote block is about
This is a general conclusion among theologians. However, the average man in the street has to either take things from someone else's perspective, or just not think about it. That means, if one wants the details of it, an agnostic approach may simply be the best one to take since it cannot really lead to negative repercussions. God, if such a thing exists, has created a word that people could argue over the details till the cows come home. So perhaps he should have made things simpler and less controversial? He is omnipotent and omniscient right?

My criticism of anything in which understanding becomes convoluted and too long is that eventually selective memory/reasoning becomes an attractive prospect. This problem is true for any deep theology. From a nontheistic perspective, this controversy matters little. What matters are the real world issues, rather than whether the One True Authority backs you up in an argument or not. Thus secular reasoning can be much more persuasive and less time-consuming since it's focus is on empirical fact and theoretical validity - one can get to the heart of the matter quickly (although it's quite another thing to get some people's heads out of their asses). When we are throwing verses at each other to prove that our interpretation is correct, the discussion quickly bogs down in semantics.

For example, both of us would have no problem agreeing that feeding the starving would be the right thing to do, and in many circumstances, a moral responsibility. However, when we argued from a biblical perspective, we were eventually stuck quite quickly because we couldn't agree who's interpretation was correct. (From my earlier post, I meant superior = correct)

Re: The original question - Are we distorting your god?
So the new question is, "Are you distorting your god?"
Amen, brother. I agree with this statement, but I would still say that they have taken their Bible to (selective but) logical conclusions that may be distasteful to you.

I think the rest of the post is stuff we agree on. If you'd like to share your views on the apparently misogynistic NT verses, by all means. As for the copyist errors bit, my set of Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article with a similar elaboration on unintentional errors. It turned out not to be quite word-for-word, but thematically identical. Tut, tut.

If I've left anything out, let me know. And it's fine for this thread to evolve according to whatever it does. We are the artificial selectors working against the variation, so this might be a nice lesson in the inevitability of drift.

Joel

agapeo

Joel you really should consider moving to New York. The people there seem to live at a break-neck pace and you would most likely give them a run for their money. Translation: I didn't expect you to respond so soon. I'll respond in full after I've had the opportunity to digest your latest and considered an adequate response. But I'll address a few comments now.
I don't know. You'll have to ask Him.
I still find that intriguing (howbeit unimportant) and would be interested in comparing what you discovered with my notes. Could you email (or provide the edition # of this source) a copy of the text?
You bet!

Celsus

Don't worry about my quick responses. I'll bet you that Singapore is more rushed than NY anyday. As for the Encyclopaedia Britannica reference, under "Biblical Literature" (Macropaedia vol. 14) look for the section titled "Texts and Versions". That would be p. 759 in the 1989 printing. I came across it first in the 1980 printing so it should be there as long as you don't dig up the 14th edition.

agapeo

Hi Joel,

What follows is a statement of my core beliefs. I wrote these out years ago and simply had to search my files for them. The details of which would consume way too much time to clarify in this post or in any single post. In any case I hope this assists you in choosing the right pair of shoes. You may notice that there really is very little difference between what I believe and what other Christians believe except in the details which I didn't provide herein. Btw -- thanks for the info on the other stuff. I'll have to see if I can find a copy somewhere.

Statement of Beliefs

1. I believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were Theopneustos, "God﷓breathed," and perfect as originally given; that the Scriptures, or the Word of God, are of supreme, absolute, and final authority for believing and godliness.
2. I believe in one God, the Creator of the heavens and earth; in Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, my lord and savior, whom God raised from the dead; and I believe in the workings of the Holy Spirit.
3. I believe that the virgin Mary conceived Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit; that God was in Christ, and that Jesus Christ is the "mediator between God and men," and is "the man Christ Jesus. "
4. I believe that Adam was created in the image of God, spiritually; that he sinned and thereby brought upon himself immediate spiritual death, which is separation from God, and physical death later, which is the consequence of sin; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature in that all are without the presence of that spiritual nature which was originally created.
5. I believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as a representative and substitute for us, and that all who believe that God raised him from the dead are justified and made righteous, born again by the Spirit of God, receiving eternal life (or that which Adam forfeited) on the grounds of His eternal redemption, and thereby are sons of God.
6. I believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, his ascension into heaven, and his seating at the right hand of God.
7. I believe in the blessed hope of Christ's return, the personal return of my living lord and savior Jesus Christ, and gathering together of all those who have accepted him.
8. I believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust after the occurrence of the above.
9. I believe in the receiving of the fullness of the holy spirit, the power from on high, and the corresponding nine manifestations of the holy spirit, for all born﷓again believers.
10. I believe it is available to receive all that God promises us in His Word according to our believing faith. I believe I am free in Christ Jesus to receive all that he accomplished for me by his substitution.
11. I believe the early Church flourished rapidly because they believed the testimony and witness given them by the Apostles and were united within the framework instituted by God.

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

I think it's quite brave to post that on an atheist board. Anyway, I notice your concept of God is slightly different from the traditional Christian creed. Could you clarify your stance on the trinity? I remember you said you didn't exactly subscribe to it earlier. Was Jesus fully man and fully God?

I'm not going to post any specific arguments against anything you've written there unless you want me to. I'll just bear them in mind as the discussion goes along.

Joel