[quote]John S. wrote:
Why do you continue to call them that, are you really that pathetic that you want to start an argument over this?[/quote]
Are you referring to ‘supernatural tales’?
Isn’t that what they are? tales, stories, miracles, historic events… They are certainly supernatural. No one would dispute that. They defy laws of nature. Like walking on water, rising from the dead, etc. True or not true, they are supernatural.
Its the context in which you are trying to express it. If this is what excites your life maybe you need a hobby.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
… I don’t go in blind faith. Makes no sense to me.
There is no other kind of faith. Either you believe or you don’t.
If you have supporting facts it is called knowledge.
You are clearly trolling for a pissing match and you are making yourself look bad.[/quote]
Fair enough,
I’m just try and get an understanding for this stuff. This is what wars are over. Seems so ridiculous. Actually, the wars are more ridiculous as they are “my god is the only god” arguments.
The problem with forums is I tend to voice a bit more than I would in person.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
The problem with forums is I tend to voice a bit more than I would in person.
[/quote]
Well, everyone’s a bad-ass on the internet. True story.
[quote]lixy wrote:
You guessed right. Actually, because of the intrinsic relation between power and blood for the Shi’a, it makes it kinda obvious that a socialist won’t adhere to their principles.
[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know. Socialists have spilled plenty of blood in order to get power.
(I know what you meant. It was just too good to pass up.)
[quote]haney1 wrote:
A better question is what is easier to believe the flood story literally, or that Jesus rose from the dead?
Christianity does not rise in fall on the other parts of the Bible its sole foundation is in the History of Jesus Christ.
So in that sense you are correct in saying “he will not let little things like the laws of physics and biology interfere with his faith”
After all our main belief is clearly against these laws.
No matter how strict or liberal your interpretation of the Bible is that one part unites all believer’s in the defiance of such laws.
[/quote]
Are all Christians as united as you claim?
It seems that there are five pillars of Christian faith:
That Jesus was simultaneously the offspring of Almighty God, born of a human virgin woman; and…
That he was himself the incarnation of Almighty God.
That Jesus (that is, Almighty God) allowed himself to be executed as a human sin offering for all of the sins of humanity, past, present and future.
That he returned to life after three days (during which time he, God, was supposedly languishing in Sheol, the Hebrew underworld) and after saying his farewells and leaving final instructions, was subsequently lifted up into the sky.
That he currently is living in the Kingdom of God (as the incarnation of Almighty God, still supposedly in his human Hebrew body), and will come again sometime to reign on earth for a thousand years.
Do all Christians really believe all five of these points? Remember that until the council of Nicaea, over 300 years after Jesus’ death, there was no consensus at all on any of them, and it was only after Constantine’s massive reform of the various Christian churches that the majority of Christians even accepted the idea of the divine origin and being of Jesus.
Do you, Haney, personally believe all five? Do you believe that your salvation is intrinsically tied to your firm and literal belief in all five?
John 14:6 says that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man may become close to God except by him. I see no mention that a belief in the virgin birth, resurrection and divinity of Jesus is a prerequisite for entry in the Kingdom of God.
Indeed, all the thief on the cross in Luke 23 had to do was to ask Jesus to remember him, and he won a free ticket to Paradise, that very day! Jesus hadn’t even died for his (copious) sins yet, and the man was guaranteed entry to heaven! He didn’t even have to wait around for the Rapture!
Here’s how I interpret John 14:6: If one is to follow the righteous path (οδος) that Jesus walked, accept the truth (αληθεια) that Jesus spoke, and emulate the life (ζωη) of Jesus, then he will come to God.
Of course, as Luke 23 shows us, deathbed pleas for salvation after a life of sin are not out of the question.
Back to you, Lixy:
Of course, in Islam Jesus is considered to be a prophet who announced the arrival of Muhammad, much as John the Baptist announced the arrival of Jesus.
I would guess that the idea of the divinity of Jesus is considered blasphemous in Islam, inasmuch as God is without partner and without equal.
What about the rest? How many Muslims believe that he was born of a virgin? How many believe that he died for the sins of mankind? How many believe that he died at all?
Finally, what would a Muslim say to my interpretation of John 14:6?
I believe the stories are based on real stories or are symbolic in nature. I believe a lot was lost translation. But over all I think the bible is a good book.
I believe them in Catholic sort of way. Hard to explain.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Fair enough,
I’m just try and get an understanding for this stuff. This is what wars are over. Seems so ridiculous. Actually, the wars are more ridiculous as they are “my god is the only god” arguments.
The problem with forums is I tend to voice a bit more than I would in person.
[/quote]
Oh, I’m sure you’re just as annoying in person.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, the fact that there are so many cataclysmic flood myths from so many far-flung cultures should invalidate the idea that any ONE of them is the only true one. It’s like in Pirates of the Caribbean:
[i]“Black Pearl? I’ve heard stories. She’s been preying on ships and settlements for near ten years. Never leaves any survivors!”
“No survivors? Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?”[/i]
I think it’s time for us to do a little shaving with Occam’s razor. In every case, we have a civilization built in the fertile flatlands surrounding a river, be it the Nile, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Volga or the Amazon. These flatlands are also known as… wait for it… the flood plain.
For generations and generations the river flows as normal, then one year, there’s a heavy rain, or maybe an abnormally large glacial melt (global warming, you know), and our fine civilization of adobe and rammed earth gets washed away.
Likely, a few wise people, with foresight enough to pack a few provisions and livestock in a boat before the river bursts its banks survive the flood, and they tell their grandchildren about the experience.
Naturally, the story gets better and better with each retelling, as stories often do, until by the time it gets written down hundreds of years later, it’s no longer a city of five thousand souls that drowns, but every man, woman and child on the face of the earth.
The boat is no longer a humble barge with a few goats and sheep and bags of barley, but a colossal vessel packed with mating pairs of every animal in the world, and provisions for rebuilding the spoiled planet.
And no longer is it a simple account of a mundane meteorological event but a great legend of a global cataclysm caused by an angry god to cleanse the world of evil.
[/quote]
Varq, I agree with you that it is more likely that mundane flood stories morphed into ‘flood mythologies’, but if you put any stock into people like Graham Hancock (whom I personally take with a helping of salt), then you can see that it wouldn’t be a huge stretch to see that at some point in the distant past, a flood could’ve affected large parts of the world at a similar time, perhaps by Caveman Induced Global Warming.
Since the thread was on Bible Stories, I thought I would point out that there are some qualified people who believe that there is a grain of truth in ‘flood myths’.
That first paragraph has to be the longest sentence I’ve written in quite some time! Ha!
[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
Fair enough,
I’m just try and get an understanding for this stuff. This is what wars are over. Seems so ridiculous. Actually, the wars are more ridiculous as they are “my god is the only god” arguments.
The problem with forums is I tend to voice a bit more than I would in person.
Oh, I’m sure you’re just as annoying in person.[/quote]
Yeah, probably. But everyone loves me.
What’s your point?
This has been done to death on this site. Use the search. You didn’t specifically mention creation, you lumped all the Bible together into “stories”.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about your viewpoint that you do mine. It’s absurd.
Let’s go deadlift together now in peace.
What’s your point?
This has been done to death on this site. Use the search. You didn’t specifically mention creation, you lumped all the Bible together into “stories”.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about your viewpoint that you do mine. It’s absurd.
Let’s go deadlift together now in peace.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Are all Christians as united as you claim?
[/quote]
Yes.
I would disagree there is only one pillar and it rest in the claim that Jesus died for our sins, and rose from the dead.
Which is found here
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept
I think your description of the trinity is a lacking for me to know your position on it. So I will not address it.
Virgin birth is not required in my opinion. Especially since the meaning of the word Alma is not easily understood.
However her conception had to have been divine.
[quote]
2. That he was himself the incarnation of Almighty God.
[/quote] see my comment on the trinity
Yes that is the view of all Christians.
Yes that is the view of all Christians.
That is not the view of all Christians. I am an a-mill. And therefore I don?t believe in a 1,000 year reign. When he comes back it is game over.
From my replies the answer is no. And many of them have no real baring on my point that all Christianity is united in believing that He was raised from the dead.
I know you did not just claim Constantine made theological changes? Please show me one shred of evidence that says he had influence on theology?
If there was no consensus then why did the heretics before Constantine use the NT books?
Why did they re-write them to portray their message? Look at Marcion He used Paul?s books exclusively. He also changed the text to prove his point.
Here you go
? Heretic #1 - Basilides (117-138 AD)
There were undoubtedly many heretics before Basilides, but he is the first major heretic for whom we have any significant evidence. His prime point was that he “denied that Jesus really suffered on the cross” [Metzg.NT, 79] - in line with the Gnostic idea that a divine being could not undergo such suffering.
Instead, Basilides proposed that at the last minute, Simon of Cyrene was switched with Jesus, and as Simon was crucified, Jesus laughed at His enemies, and ascended into heaven.
Clearly, this view is antithetical to Christianity, which holds that Jesus’ suffering on the cross paid for our sins. If there was no cross for Jesus, then there was no payment for sins. Basilides would have gutted Christianity and turned it into a form of Gnosticism, and that would have would have rendered it sterile for REALLY changing lives and for God’s design for transforming the world.
One positive thing that was left behind by Basilides, however: he is known to have quoted the book of 1 Corinthians with the formula, “the scripture says” - the first recorded incidence of a NT quote by that formula (other than the reference in 2 Timothy to Luke).
Heretic #2 - Valentinus (135-165)
With Valentinus, we have a heretic who not only tried to change Christianity - using a mix of his own teachings, genuine Christian ideas, and “Oriental and Greek speculations” - but also wrote his own Gospel, which he called “The Gospel of Truth.” (ibid., 81)
Now it is evident that there is a recognition here of the authority of a written work - and also, indirect evidence that Valentinus was aware that OTHERS made use of books that were considered authoritative; or else, he would not give his work such a bodacious name as “The Gospel of Truth”!
He undoubtedly had to compete with the authoritatively-recognized works of Christianity, so he did what would approximate in our day to putting a label on his work that said, “New and Improved”! In any event, being that he was obviously creating his own material, and was not vested with apostolic authority, there was absolutely no reason to recognize anything he wrote or said as being authoritative for Christianity.
Heretic #3 - Marcion
We come now to the heretic who is credited more than any other for forcing the issue of the creation of a canon - the man who “tabled once and for all the question of a new canon.” [VonCamp.FCB, 147ff.] This was the heretic Marcion.
Marcion was no slouch. He was a wealthy shipowner, and manifestly quite intelligent. But in July 144 AD, he was called upon by the clergy in Rome to expound upon some views of his that he had been promulgating - and what he said was so shocking that it resulted not only in his excommunication, but also in the return of a substantial amount of largesse that he had donated to the church. (Regardless of what any skeptic might say, the clergy were certainly men of principle in that regard!)
What did Marcion believe? His basic idea was that the God of the OT was incompatible with the Jesus of the NT - and so he sought to sever the connection between the two. He believed in a sort of Zoroastrian dualism (described by Blackman as “grotesque” - [Black.Marc, 66]), with the OT God being the just and severe Creator, and the NT God a god of love, combined with an “exaggerated Paulinism” [ibid., 103].
To the end of promoting his view, Marcion went through the Pauline epistles, choosing only some of them (Galatians, the Corinthian letters, Romans, the Thessalonian letters, Ephesians [as Laodecians], Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon - Harr.IC, 210) and “removed whatever he judged were interpolations - that is, anything that did not agree with his understanding of what Paul should have written.” [Metzg.NT, 93]
He also gutted the Gospel of Luke for his purposes, accepting only about 3/4 of it as authentic [Knox.MarcNT, 3] and with the sliced-and-diced Pauline epistles, created his own informal “canon.” The result of his changes, which were in the main ommissions with a few additions and substitutions [Black.Marc, 47], was a set of books completely emasculated of Jewish elements, “an anti-Jewish rejection of both the value of the OT scriptures and the Jewish influence on the Christian community”[MacD.FormCB, 155].
The Marcionite churches promoted a few other oddities: For example, Marcionism forbade marriage and children, so that (like the modern Shakers) all converts had to come from outside. No one was born a Marcionite - not legally in their view, at any rate!
Some things should be noted here:
? It is obvious that a collection of Paul’s Epistles existed at the time for Marcion to pick apart: “Gamble is undoubtedly correct in assuming that Marcion took over an existing collection of Paul’s writings.” (ibid., 157) This is a sign of a literal “pre-canon,” or an idea of a canon, quite some time before the fourth century, even if it was not a closed canon. Metzger therefore notes that Marcion did not create the idea of a canon, but did accelerate a process of fixing the canon that had already begun!
(On the other hand, it seems that the Marcionite heresy caused some reactionary church officials, including Justin Martyr, to avoid quoting Paul for a while.)
? Marcion appealed to the authority of the writings of the Apostle Paul. Even though he conformed the texts to his own ideas, he clearly realized that only with apostolic authority could his ideas get anywhere; for heretics likely had to “justify their vagaries by appeals to acknowledged standards.” [Harr.IC, 210]
? Even with the riches of a wealthy shipowner, there was no way to change what was TRULY considered authoritative. A “political war” in the church was not won by whoever had the largest wallet and the greatest influence; else we might today be known as Marcionites rather than Christians!
? The above point is magnified when we read of Ireaneaus’ complaint concerning Marcion: “He persuaded his disciples that he was more trustworthy than the apostles who transmitted the gospel.” [Gran.FormNT, 125]To have to persuade his followers of this presumes that Marcion was stepping on what was already regarded as authority - and thus we see “apostolic authority” as a criteria in action!
? It is an interesting question, too, as to WHY Marcion would have drawn up such a list, if other “lists” did not already exist. Where would Marcion have gotten the exemplar to argue as he did? Being that Marcion was manifestly a copycat, it seems quite likely that he got his idea for a list from somewhere else - and we have seen that a previously-established collection of Pauline epistles were at the core of his scheme.
In closing: While some have greatly overvalued Marcion’s contribution to the formation of the NT canon (see particularly Knox.MarcNT, 31 and Hoff.Marc), he certainly did serve as a wake-up call for the church.
Heretic #4 - The Montanists
The Montanist heresy, which began either 156 or 172 AD, was perhaps not as destructive as other heresies, but like Marcionism, it spurred the church onwards to the fixing of a canon. The Montanists focused on “ecstatic utterances” and created “new scriptures” based on those utterances. (None of these works are today extant.)
Obviously, there would be a need to ensure that none of these “uttered” works somehow became confused with those that had apostolic authorship!
At around the same time, a lesser group called the Alogi rejected the books of Revelation and John’s Gospel, and Hebrews as well, arguing that the first two were not by John the Apostle, but by the heretic Cerinthus (ibid., 150-1), and the latter was not by Paul. Note again that it is apostolic authority that is being used as a criteria for acceptance!?
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html#heretic
Notice how they are all before the end of the 2nd Century.
As I said. No! They are not all required.
And?? No where does it say that the dead have to wait.
You refuted your own interpretation.
By its self your interpretation is valid. The problem is you need to include the whole of Scripture to get an understanding of Salvation Continually Jesus says the words you must believe on me. Continually it points to him being a sacrifice, and continually the Apostles point to the need for the resurrection.
It is saved by grace, not by living a good life.
You knew that though varq.
We have had another discussion on the Bible before, and if I remember correctly, you were a-mill as well.
Are you playing devil?s advocate, or has your position changes?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here’s how I interpret John 14:6: If one is to follow the righteous path (οδος) that Jesus walked, accept the truth (αληθεια) that Jesus spoke, and emulate the life (ζωη) of Jesus, then he will come to God.
[/quote]
Just one more spur to throw in your interpretation.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him,I am the way,(3598) the truth,(225) and the life:(2222) no man(3762) cometh(2064) unto the Father,(3962) but by me.(1700)
Here are the greek definitions of those words.
G3598
ὁδός
hodos
hod-os’
Apparently a primary word; a road; by implication a progress (the route, act or distance); figuratively a mode or means: - journey, (high-) way.
G225
ἀλήθεια
alētheia
al-ay’-thi-a
From G227; truth: - true, X truly, truth, verity.
G2222
ζωή
zōē
dzo-ay’
From G2198; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590.
G3762
οὐδείς
oudeis
oo-dice’
Including the feminine οὐδεμία oudemia
oo-dem-ee’-ah and the neuter οὐδέν ouden oo-den’
From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: - any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought.
G2064
ἔρχομαι
erchomai
er’-khom-ahee
Middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] word, ἐλεύθομαι eleuthomai or ἔλθω elthō; which do not otherwise occur); to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively): - accompany, appear, bring, come enter, fall out, go, grow, X light, X next, pass, resort, be set.
G3962
πατήρ
patēr
pat-ayr’
Apparently a primary word; a ?father? (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.
G1700
ἐμοῦ
emou
em-oo’
A prolonged form of G3449; of me: - me, mine, my.
Jesus is saying he is the only road to God.
I am the only truth to God.
I am the only way to Life with God.
and no one man or woman is able to get to God except through Him.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
In a Freudian voice:
…ahhh, you’re projecting your lack of a father in your life unto God, since in early childhood we develop our view of God depending how our parents were with us, specially our fathers…
you’re blaming God for the pain and anger you feel due to your father’s absence in your life…
your sense of justice feels violated and your holding God accountable.
very interesting…
In a Tyler Durdenian voice:
Shut up! Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? Listen to me! You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen.
[/quote]
In a Mr. T voice:
Man up fool!! God ain’t like your father!!!
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Here’s how I interpret John 14:6: If one is to follow the righteous path (οδος) that Jesus walked, accept the truth (αληθεια) that Jesus spoke, and emulate the life (ζωη) of Jesus, then he will come to God.
Just one more spur to throw in your interpretation.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him,I am the way,(3598) the truth,(225) and the life:(2222) no man(3762) cometh(2064) unto the Father,(3962) but by me.(1700)
Here are the greek definitions of those words.
G3598
ὁδός
hodos
hod-os’
Apparently a primary word; a road; by implication a progress (the route, act or distance); figuratively a mode or means: - journey, (high-) way.
G225
ἀλήθεια
alētheia
al-ay’-thi-a
From G227; truth: - true, X truly, truth, verity.
G2222
ζωή
zōē
dzo-ay’
From G2198; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590.
G3762
οὐδείς
oudeis
oo-dice’
Including the feminine οὐδεμία oudemia
oo-dem-ee’-ah and the neuter οὐδέν ouden oo-den’
From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: - any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought.
G2064
ἔρχομαι
erchomai
er’-khom-ahee
Middle voice of a primary verb (used only in the present and imperfect tenses, the others being supplied by a kindred [middle voice] word, ἐλεύθομαι eleuthomai or ἔλθω elthō; which do not otherwise occur); to come or go (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively): - accompany, appear, bring, come enter, fall out, go, grow, X light, X next, pass, resort, be set.
G3962
πατήρ
patēr
pat-ayr’
Apparently a primary word; a ?father? (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.
G1700
ἐμοῦ
emou
em-oo’
A prolonged form of G3449; of me: - me, mine, my.
Jesus is saying he is the only road to God.
I am the only truth to God.
I am the only way to Life with God.
and no one man or woman is able to get to God except through Him.
[/quote]
Brilliant!
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
This is a discussion forum. We can discuss politics and world issues and why not religion? Why the not question the creation of our universe? [/quote]
Because discussions about the basis of faith tend to devolve into pissing matches along the lines of “if Superman and Spiderman got in a fight who would win”. In other words, discussions uncontaminated by evidence.
If you are really interested in learning about faith, notwithstanding Vanq’s learned posts, I suggest you rely on something other than forums. Try "The End of Faith, by Sam Harris.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Are you playing devil’s advocate…?
[/quote]
Ya got me.
Devil’s advocate is my favorite game.
I’d love to parse all of your excellent points, but it’s 2:15 AM and I’m ready to drop. Another day, perhaps?
V
Incidentally, haney, what Koine concordance software is that that you’re using? That looks pretty cool.