| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2007 11:34:24 AM · #1051 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Forgive the pun, but I find the jump from sharks and mice to human virgin birth to be quite a leap of faith. |
Interesting that Paul, as a contemporary, attributes no reference to virgin birth (or any other miracle) to Jesus in the Epistles. It'd be a bit like David Copperfield's publicist failing to mention magic. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:37:45 AM · #1052 |
Originally posted by pidge:
True, virgin births have been found in sharks, and even mammals like mice. Please note that the mice, (the only mammals I could find) were induced into virgin birth. Forgive the pun, but I find the jump from sharks and mice to human virgin birth to be quite a leap of faith. |
I understand your point. I agree it is not conclusive evidence, however it is enough evidence for me, to not totally discount the miracle recorded. I am also aware of other accounts, whereby Joseph just kept quiet about the possibility of Mary have had relations with another man, or even Joseph himself, with the Virgin birth merely a transfer from other mythology. Again, if virgin births never occurred, then that in of of it self would still not refute a Godly act, however, since we know they do occur, I am willing to allow the benefit of the doubt. Others are not.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:40:52 AM · #1053 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pidge:
Forgive the pun, but I find the jump from sharks and mice to human virgin birth to be quite a leap of faith. |
Interesting that Paul, as a contemporary, attributes no reference to virgin birth (or any other miracle) to Jesus in the Epistles. It'd be a bit like David Copperfield's publicist failing to mention magic. :-/ |
You imply that I accept the virgin birth without question. That I have not sought some rationale for trying to understand where the origin came from. This is not so. However, science, your beloved science that purports to explain evolution, also has proven virgin births.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:48:23 AM · #1054 |
Originally posted by Flash:
However, science, your beloved science that purports to explain evolution, also has proven virgin births. |
In people? |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:49:20 AM · #1055 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You imply that I accept the virgin birth without question. |
I did nothing of the sort. I posted a general observation to Pidge. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:05:48 PM · #1056 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
...Saint Nicholas was real. The traditions are from real events. |
This type of reasoning is foreign to me. I think this is the part where I'm supposed to point to such historical evidence as proof of flying reindeer, an arctic toy factory, and a magic bag of capable of holding nearly infinite cargo. I KNEW it was true, and now I have the proof! |
Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.
R. |
I don't doubt that many of the historical figures existed at one time or another.
But that doesn't in any way shape or form help me believe or not believe much of the bible.
I know there was a great earthquake in San Fransisco many years ago too. But if someone writes a book that claims that God caused it, the fact that the earthquake happens doesn't prove or disprove anything about the claims about God, or his existence, just because the earthquake happened.
I'm sure there was a middle eastern person or persons who did many of the things that Jesus Christ is supposed to have done, fed the poor, treated prostitutes like real people - but that doesn't prove or disprove that he was the son of God. Nor do the mythologising of aspects of his life prove or disprove anything.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:12:08.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:14:40 PM · #1057 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm sure there was a middle eastern person or persons who did many of the things that Jesus Christ is supposed to have done - but that doesn't prove or disprove that he was the son of God. |
That was the purpose of the resurection. Which also, to my knowledge, has not been archeologically or scientifically proven. Although some claim that the shroud of Turin is evidence of a burial cloth. However, others claim it is a fake. Still no proof of a resurection.
That in and of itself is not enough for me to disavow the entire Bible, although for others it would take much less.
edit to add; A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight.
Further, the Magi's travels is recorded by contempory authors of the time as is the killing of infants around the time of Christ's birth.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:24:30.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:22:48 PM · #1058 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight. |
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:25:48. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:27:37 PM · #1059 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight. |
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
And where did I say it was irrefutable evidence of miracles or divinity?
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:28:16.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:28:20 PM · #1060 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That in and of itself is not enough for me to disavow the entire Bible, although for others it would take much less. |
I don't think any of your debating opponents here is saying the Bible is entirely incorrect. I think some actual events and people are described in the Bible. There are real historical people described and acceptance of events and people in the Bible are not an “entirely true” or “entirely false” dichotomy for most agnostics or atheists or even a number of Christians.
(This is not to say that I don’t think some events in the Bible are mythical, political-motivated half-truths, fabricated or edited for continuity by later scribes, but that’s a different discussion.)
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:29:18 PM · #1061 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight. |
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
The Egyptians used to think the sun God Ra rode the Sun around when it rose and set each day. The physical occurrence still happens now. Historical or archaeological evidence that the events may or may not have happened or the people may or may not have existed doesn't do anything to prove or disprove, support or deny any of the theological or spiritual claims though.
I'm sure Mohammad lived too.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:34:25 PM · #1062 |
| Just to throw it in there, I'm not entirely convinced Jesus was an actual historical figure, the corollaries between various other archetypal heroes and gods that went before him being too great to ignore. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:35:06 PM · #1063 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
A Jesus actually did exist as Jesus at least according to 1st century historian Josephus - who I might add, had no particular dog in the fight. |
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
The Egyptians used to think the sun God Ra rode the Sun around when it rose and set each day. The physical occurrence still happens now. Historical or archaeological evidence that the events may or may not have happened or the people may or may not have existed doesn't do anything to prove or disprove, support or deny any of the theological or spiritual claims though.
I'm sure Mohammad lived too. |
It may not do anything to support or deny theoligical/spiritual claims for you, however, it certainly can for me and does. Bear_Music had it exactly correct when he posted something to the effect of "it does offer a parallel as to how one could accept the Bible".
edit to add Bear_Music's actual post; Well, it does make an interesting parallel; there's a historical figure behind the myth, there's a germ of truth at the core of the allegory. It's possible to lay to rest most of one's misgivings about, say, the Bible, by taking that approach.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:46:21.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:40:31 PM · #1064 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to throw it in there, I'm not entirely convinced Jesus was an actual historical figure, the corollaries between various other archetypal heroes and gods that went before him being too great to ignore. |
Or the other stories/heroes were prefaces to the real thing. Should you wish to research Jesus the Christ, you might start with contemporary athors like Josephus.
Do those questioning the accuracy of scripture and specifically the translations of ancient texts, place the same criteria on translations of Homer, Plato, Sun Tzu? If you can accept those writings as "representative" of the author's intent, without personally doing the translation, then perhaps you can begin to understand how I can accept scripture's intent, especially in light of the other circumstantial evidences.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:44:02 PM · #1065 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It may not do anything to support or deny theoligical/spiritual claims for you, however, it certainly can for me and does. Bear_Music had it exactly correct when he posted something to the effect of "it does offer a parallel as to how one could accept the Bible". |
I'm also pretty certain many Kings like James I (James VI) existed. I'm equally skeptical about their ability to perform miracles, curing just by their touch & their divine right - but there is plenty of historical record that claims that did happen, too. After all, this was only a few hundred years ago that the Royal Touch was curing people.
edit: got my numerals backwards James the first & sixth
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:46:04.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:48:22 PM · #1066 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It may not do anything to support or deny theoligical/spiritual claims for you, however, it certainly can for me and does. Bear_Music had it exactly correct when he posted something to the effect of "it does offer a parallel as to how one could accept the Bible". |
I'm also pretty certain many Kings like James I (James VI) existed. I'm equally skeptical about their ability to perform miracles, curing just by their touch & their divine right - but there is plenty of historical record that claims that did happen, too. After all, this was only a few hundred years ago that the Royal Touch was curing people.
edit: got my numerals backwards James the first & sixth |
Are you arguing that because some things are not true (King James), then all things are not true (Jesus' miracles)?
You may not believe in the event at Fatima, however the lives of those 3 young girls effected by it, certainly did.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:49:58.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:49:37 PM · #1067 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do those questioning the accuracy of scripture and specifically the translations of ancient texts, place the same criteria on translations of Homer, Plato, Sun Tzu? |
The distinction would be that there aren't many people claiming that the various translations of Homer, Plato or Sun Tzu are the literal word of God and that we should live our lives according to what they wrote.
I'm certain there are plenty of mistakes in translations of Homer, Plato & Sun Tzu's works. I'm sure those mistakes change intent, meaning and understanding in subtle and not so subtle ways.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:50:14 PM · #1068 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It may not do anything to support or deny theoligical/spiritual claims for you, however, it certainly can for me and does. Bear_Music had it exactly correct when he posted something to the effect of "it does offer a parallel as to how one could accept the Bible". |
I'm also pretty certain many Kings like James I (James VI) existed. I'm equally skeptical about their ability to perform miracles, curing just by their touch & their divine right - but there is plenty of historical record that claims that did happen, too. After all, this was only a few hundred years ago that the Royal Touch was curing people.
edit: got my numerals backwards James the first & sixth |
Are you arguing that because some things are not true (King James), then all things are not true (Jesus' miracles)? |
are you saying that King James wasn't a Divine instrument, healing by touch ?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:53:50 PM · #1069 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Do those questioning the accuracy of scripture and specifically the translations of ancient texts, place the same criteria on translations of Homer, Plato, Sun Tzu? |
The distinction would be that there aren't many people claiming that the various translations of Homer, Plato or Sun Tzu are the literal word of God and that we should live our lives according to what they wrote.
I'm certain there are plenty of mistakes in translations of Homer, Plato & Sun Tzu's works. I'm sure those mistakes change intent, meaning and understanding in subtle and not so subtle ways. |
I have not, and do not, claim that the Bible is the Literal word of God. I have referenced many times the teaching style of Jesus to include allegories and as such, believe scripture contains them as well. I do claim that the translations are a close enough representation for me, to comprehend the nature and relationship that God expects of me. Just as I can comprehend the teachings of Socretes through the writings of Aristotle and Plato.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 12:54:21.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:57:42 PM · #1070 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You may not believe in the event at Fatima, however the lives of those 3 young girls effected by it, certainly did. |
Do you believe in it ? If so - did you become a Catholic ?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:00:40 PM · #1071 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
It may not do anything to support or deny theoligical/spiritual claims for you, however, it certainly can for me and does. Bear_Music had it exactly correct when he posted something to the effect of "it does offer a parallel as to how one could accept the Bible". |
I'm also pretty certain many Kings like James I (James VI) existed. I'm equally skeptical about their ability to perform miracles, curing just by their touch & their divine right - but there is plenty of historical record that claims that did happen, too. After all, this was only a few hundred years ago that the Royal Touch was curing people.
edit: got my numerals backwards James the first & sixth |
Are you arguing that because some things are not true (King James), then all things are not true (Jesus' miracles)? |
are you saying that King James wasn't a Divine instrument, healing by touch ? |
I actually know very little about King James. I could not offer an opinion on his life or events attributed to him. I did use a Bible named the "King James" Bible as reference work for comparison to both a Jeruselum and an NIV.
I do beleive that humans can act as mediums for miracles and have seen first hand the power of prayer. You may ascribe these events as a cosmic force, coincidence, or any number of explainations. The occurrence of asking and receiving is too great a coincidence for me, to just brush it off.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:04:16 PM · #1072 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
are you saying that King James wasn't a Divine instrument, healing by touch ? |
I actually know very little about King James. I could not offer an opinion on his life or events attributed to him. I did use a Bible named the "King James" Bible as reference work for comparison to both a Jeruselum and an NIV.
I do beleive that humans can act as mediums for miracles and have seen first hand the power of prayer. You may ascribe these events as a cosmic force, coincidence, or any number of explainations. The occurrence of asking and receiving is too great a coincidence for me, to just brush it off. |
King James, writing about himself:
Originally posted by King James IV of Scotland, James I of England:
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . . |
A lot of the translation was done with this view in mind. cf, //www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
particularly as the Geneva bible challenged the validity of that divine right.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 13:09:35.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:05:31 PM · #1073 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Just to throw it in there, I'm not entirely convinced Jesus was an actual historical figure, the corollaries between various other archetypal heroes and gods that went before him being too great to ignore. |
Or the other stories/heroes were prefaces to the real thing. |
One would have to believe in the supernatural to accept that. Incidentally, believing Dionysus, the god of orgiastic abandon and unrestrained wine-drinking, to be a herald of some sort of Jesus would be considered quite heretical in most Christian circles. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:06:07 PM · #1074 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
You may not believe in the event at Fatima, however the lives of those 3 young girls effected by it, certainly did. |
Do you believe in it ? If so - did you become a Catholic ? |
I believe the 3 young girls believe it. I believe that the last surviving nun had a personal closed door session with Pope John Paul and that some message was delivered.
My particular denomination is of no consequence - as I do not want this to digress even further into a denominational attack. My views have been clearly portrayed. Make of them what you will.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:06:34 PM · #1075 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do beleive that humans can act as mediums for miracles and have seen first hand the power of prayer. You may ascribe these events as a cosmic force, coincidence, or any number of explainations. |
Or, as I do, to not actually having happened at all. |
|
