| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2008 01:18:50 PM · #1301 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
Just a couple of comments.
1. Any "listenting" training I have ever participated in, requires the one doing the listening to repeat what they heard in order to verify that they in fact have understood what was said. In this format, it seems perfectly logical to me, to repeat in my words what I read others have said to verify that I understand their point. At which time, they are supposed to clarify further, or concur that the understanding has been met. It is difficult work to get persons to understand each other. In a written format, it can be even more so. Any rewrite of ones position, was/is intended to verify understanding of the position presented. |
But you’re not “repeating” people’s words to them, you’re changing them or omitting parts, giving them entirely different meanings. Take for instance this exchange between yourself and Matthew:
01/11/2008 11:43:39 AM
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
No – I think that there are very good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the bible never existed, or at least that his life has been substantially embellished and revised for political purposes in 300-400 AD. |
(..)But to deny the existence of [Jesus], is beyond my comprehension (â€Â¦)
Emphasis added. |
Read these two statements separated from their context:
Statement 1: There are good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible never existed.
Statement 2: Jesus never existed.
Do you see the difference between these two statements? Matthew is making the first statement. You are are "repeating" back the second statement. |
I will take this one first.
What you are saying is that Matthew in the 1st sentence is "qualifying" his sentence with the term "as portrayed in the Bible". My read of it would require the use of the word "the" prior to Jesus. However, lets go forward and claim that the word "the" is implied due to the qualification phrase of "as portrayed...", then I would argue that my reply of Jesus never existed included by definition "as portrayed in the Bible" as there was no other Jesus being discussed. So it appears to me that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot point out my failure to "understand" the application of the word "the" before Jesus and then claim that my reply is erroneous, when it was you who failed to read "as portrayed..." as part of the definition of the word Jesus in the reply.
Further, in recent posts I have noticed a couple of things. 1). much more use of terms of courtesy (ie. please), and as long as that continues, then there will be no references from me regarding mockery, etc. 2. scalvert has been much more specific in his definition of rebutting scripture and narrowing it to the "supernatural". This is a much more definitive place for our argument. It reads to me, that he acknowledeges that there may be some accurateness to some verses, based upon either a historical, philosophical or literature context, however his contention is that no "evidence" exists (outside the Bible itself) for any support of a supernatural entity(ies) named Yahweh or Jesus. This is a position I would like to further explpore. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 01:53:10 PM · #1302 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I would argue that my reply of Jesus never existed included by definition "as portrayed in the Bible" as there was no other Jesus being discussed. So it appears to me that you cannot have it both ways. |
Sure you can- Jesus may have really existed, but only as a regular human with some followers, not as the supernatural being portrayed in the Bible. We can accept that he existed and yet still not know if he actually said or did ANYTHING attributed to him in the Bible. There are no first-person memoirs or eyewitness accounts... only stories written decades later by people who never actually met him. Stories of virgin birth, resurrection, prophecies, sons of gods, celestial signs, healing powers, etc. existed long before the time of Jesus. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 02:06:13 PM · #1303 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My read of it would require the use of the word "the" prior to Jesus...etc |
It comes down to this. You can talk about missing articles and definitions of "the" all day long, but any reasonable person operating from the barest understanding of discourse will be able to tell you that Matthew's sentence is to be in no way equated with the statement you attributed to him. This is all a curious waste of time, especially in light of the fact that Matthew himself subsequently disabused you of your assumption. The best thing to do would be to accept the criticism levelled against you, be precise in your responses going forward, and move on.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 14:06:26. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:13:40 PM · #1304 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Jesus may have really existed, but only as a regular human with some followers, not as the supernatural being portrayed in the Bible. We can accept that he existed and yet still not know if he actually said or did ANYTHING attributed to him in the Bible. There are no first-person memoirs or eyewitness accounts... only stories written decades later by people who never actually met him. Stories of virgin birth, resurrection, prophecies, sons of gods, celestial signs, healing powers, etc. existed long before the time of Jesus. |
I thought this was Louis' point when he referenced the many parrellels to scriptural events/personages. It was also my reference a few posts back, to a professor that taught extensively about this (I will try to identify him - however I think his work may have been identified earlier in this thread. PBS would sometimes carry his lectures on religion where he would correlate multiple deities/events with other beliefs throughout history - essentially stating that christianity had its foundations in many other preceeding religions).
Since you have focused on the supernatural aspects of Bible verses, I would like to further investigate your views on supernatural events in general. In other words, aside from scriptures accounting of events/personages, do you believe that any entities/events have a supernatural explanation? Do spirits in any form exist? Can anyone predict future events? Can anyone ever come back from the dead? Is there any event that would fit the definition of a miracle? If you do not believe any of the preceeding, then you must explain away the following.
1. We know of 66 events (healings) that the council of Lourdes regards as miracles.
2. We know that people are identified as clinicly dead, yet survive. (how do some skydivers survive jumps where their chute fails to deploy or high story falls like the recent window washer incident).
3. We have unexplained occurences such as Stigmatas, tears of blood from statues, exorcisisms, ghosts/spirits, etc.
4. We can reasonably predict things a few seconds in the future (read our Etheric sense), and our ability to draw conclusions about past history as it applies to furture events (ie. gravity, predicting childrens behavior based upon your own, etc).
5. We know that some people can speak in "tongues" and interpreters verify the translations in languages that the original speaker couldn't possibly know.
If the above is true (and I'm not saying that you agree or disagree as you have not answered yet), then it simply becomes a matter of degree that the Bible does or does not include events with a perceived supernatural element.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 16:20:49. |
|
|
|
01/14/2008 04:57:15 PM · #1305 |
Originally posted by Flash:
do you believe that any entities/events have a supernatural explanation? |
Trick question... supernatural isn't an explanation. It means beyond current scientific understanding. It's the absence of explanation, and lightning, comets, auroras and bubonic plague were all considered supernatural just a few hundred years ago. Just because a given phenomenon (if true) isn't currently understood by science doesn't mean there isn't a rational explanation, and I can certainly appreciate the improbability of miraculous events without attributing them to magic.
Message edited by author 2008-01-14 17:04:51. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 06:13:12 AM · #1306 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you do not believe any of the preceeding, then you must explain away the following. |
They can all be explained in various ways, but the most appealing to the mentally unsophisticated is to say "god"; it requires no cynicism of human behaviour, no understanding of biology, physics, or the mathematics of probability and chance. I'll focus on one example:
Originally posted by Flash:
how do some skydivers survive jumps where their chute fails to deploy or high story falls like the recent window washer incident).
|
This article explains various reasons why people *can* survive great falls.
If there was a strong correlation between how strongly people believed in one god or another, and how likely they are to survive an accident in improbable circumstances, then you might have something. Especially if believers of a particular god were constantly being "saved". Until then, I'll probably rely on physics (and screaming) rather than prayer if I am ever in a situation so unfortunate.
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 06:13:25.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:16:15 PM · #1307 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you do not believe any of the preceeding, then you must explain away the following. |
They can all be explained in various ways, but the most appealing to the mentally unsophisticated is to say "god"; it requires no cynicism of human behaviour, no understanding of biology, physics, or the mathematics of probability and chance. |
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God.
I'll post the link in a moment. I cannot seem to find the one I'm looking for. Here are a couple regarding the Lourdes miracles.
Lourdes link
Link 2
Link 3
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 15:05:16. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 12:59:21 PM · #1308 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you do not believe any of the preceeding, then you must explain away the following. |
They can all be explained in various ways, but the most appealing to the mentally unsophisticated is to say "god"; it requires no cynicism of human behaviour, no understanding of biology, physics, or the mathematics of probability and chance. |
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God.
I'll post the link in a moment.
Lourdes link
Link 2
Link 3 |
What truly is odd is that you would use these links as a means of support to your argument. The comments contained therein in no way support your contention, but rather indicate that mathematicians are more apt to want the study the phenomenom and try to truly identify whether they can be explained.
There exist countless examples of things that transpire for which there is seemingly no explanation... but it is a quantum leap to ascribe godly intervention to these events.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 02:05:57 PM · #1309 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What truly is odd is that you would use these links as a means of support to your argument. The comments contained therein in no way support your contention, ... |
Unfortunately I have to agree. I keep a page of links to use in these discussions as I come accross them. However the specific quote I am looking for I cannot find. I thought it was in these and it is not. Several attempts to find it have come up short. I did find stats on numbers by discipline, but I cannot find the link now -that referenced the 39% of believing scientists and the subsequent inclusion that mathematicians are the highest.
Here is one article with stats by discipline. It is almost opposite the other research articles that say both in 1914 and today, the percentage of scientists believing in God is 39-40%. This link, although a separate study, says that 30-40% do not believe in god. Regardless, some do and some don't.
In spite of the Lourdes links not addressing mathemeticians, the links do provide an opprotunity to review the process by which the Lourdes miracles are examined, scrutinized and evaluated. This may or may not be of interest to readers here.
Message edited by author 2008-01-15 15:13:25. |
|
|
|
01/15/2008 02:16:12 PM · #1310 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God. |
Odd indeed. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 11:14:27 AM · #1311 |
1. I did smile when I read the cartoon above.
2. This article is simply an example of how events can lead to "some" believing in miracles. Certainly the person themselves is quoted as saying such. 40 minutes without a pulse seems like a long time to me. I did read once where some trances can put one's body into a coma like state with extremely slow metabolic rates. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 11:20:46 AM · #1312 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God. |
Odd indeed. ;-) |
That cartoon reminds me of my time grading Dynamics homework and exams when I was in engineering school. Students would do all of these elaborate, but incorrect calculations and then, simply put the correct answer at the bottom.
I would always take off most of the points for the problem and note, in my best red pen, "Miracle steps require a note from a higher being."
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 11:41:32 AM · #1313 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God. |
Odd indeed. ;-) |
That cartoon reminds me of my time grading Dynamics homework and exams when I was in engineering school. Students would do all of these elaborate, but incorrect calculations and then, simply put the correct answer at the bottom.
I would always take off most of the points for the problem and note, in my best red pen, "Miracle steps require a note from a higher being." |
I preferred the assignments I'd occasionally get when the handwriting would change entirely half way through the paper. Always seemed to be one of the few females in the engineering dept that would have these handwriting lapses. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:18:38 PM · #1314 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a major breakthrough for me, just to read that some now acknowledge that evidence exists that a person named Jesus, existed, was a religious figure, and was crucified - according to written record of the period. |
There may well have been, but that alone doesn't make him anything more that an ordinary man. |
An interesting development: possible evidence of Jesus' existence as an ordinary man. Note also the reference to Jesus as a common name at the time. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:36:04 PM · #1315 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Odd that mathematicians are the most likely scientists to believe in God. |
Odd indeed. ;-) |
That cartoon reminds me of my time grading Dynamics homework and exams when I was in engineering school. Students would do all of these elaborate, but incorrect calculations and then, simply put the correct answer at the bottom.
I would always take off most of the points for the problem and note, in my best red pen, "Miracle steps require a note from a higher being." |
I preferred the assignments I'd occasionally get when the handwriting would change entirely half way through the paper. Always seemed to be one of the few females in the engineering dept that would have these handwriting lapses. |
Most of the students trying to put one over on me were either the "frat boy" types or the foreign students, though I didn't go easy on anyone. I also had the advantage of being anonymous to the students themselves. Otherwise, I might had had to escape an angry mob.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 12:37:36 PM · #1316 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a major breakthrough for me, just to read that some now acknowledge that evidence exists that a person named Jesus, existed, was a religious figure, and was crucified - according to written record of the period. |
There may well have been, but that alone doesn't make him anything more that an ordinary man. |
An interesting development: possible evidence of Jesus' existence as an ordinary man. Note also the reference to Jesus as a common name at the time. |
It's also fairly common currently in Mexico, though they pronounce it "Hay-soose".
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 03:56:58 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
An interesting development: possible evidence of Jesus' existence as an ordinary man. Note also the reference to Jesus as a common name at the time. |
1. Thanks for the link. I would not have seen it otherwise. At least you are grasping my use of archeology to uncover evidences of scriptural recordings - whether literally accurate or merely the basis for a yarn.
2. Your use of the term "ordinary man" reads to me as, if this is the tomb of The Christ aka Jesus of the Gospels, then the evidence of these osuaries indicates that he did not literally rise from the dead as scripture indicates and thus had a life with a wife and child(ren), thus was a ordinary man. If this is your definition (you should confirm that it is so that I do not fall victim to posting words you did not mean), then it would certainly raise those kinds of questions. Unfortunately, due to the other evidence of grafitti scrawl and lost articles/notes, then it likely will remain a mystery.
3. Your reference to the word Jesus being a common name raises other questions in its own right. Namely that eventhough the girls name Britney was a very popular name within the last 25 years, the mention of the name Britney today, would evoke very specific antic recollections from this paparazzi icon. In other words, simply because a name is common, does not in itself negate potential acts associated with a specific person so named, as our Ms. Spears so aptly demonstrates almost daily. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 04:04:01 PM · #1318 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Your reference to the word Jesus being a common name raises other questions in its own right. Namely that eventhough the girls name Britney was a very popular name within the last 25 years, the mention of the name Britney today, would evoke very specific antic recollections from this paparazzi icon. In other words, simply because a name is common, does not in itself negate potential acts associated with a specific person so named, as our Ms. Spears so aptly demonstrates almost daily. |
The mention of the name Britney might be immediately associated in people's minds with Britney Spears, but that's not the same thing as saying that you've found the Britney Spears' grave by going to an arbitrary cemetary in Los Angelas and finding the name "Britney Spears" on a tombstone. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 04:21:11 PM · #1319 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Your reference to the word Jesus being a common name raises other questions in its own right. Namely that eventhough the girls name Britney was a very popular name within the last 25 years, the mention of the name Britney today, would evoke very specific antic recollections from this paparazzi icon. In other words, simply because a name is common, does not in itself negate potential acts associated with a specific person so named, as our Ms. Spears so aptly demonstrates almost daily. |
The mention of the name Britney might be immediately associated in people's minds with Britney Spears, but that's not the same thing as saying that you've found the Britney Spears' grave by going to an arbitrary cemetary in Los Angelas and finding the name "Britney Spears" on a tombstone. |
I made no such claim that it was. So that you do not fall victim into writing words for me that I did not say (as I have been recently accused of doing to others), please know, that my reference to Britney, was solely in the context as written by scalvert - that because Jesus was a common name then we cannot know if any of the things attributed to "Jesus" were even referencing the Jesus of scripture. My example is specific in that, it may be true that we do not know, however the people of the time would have known. If you were to write about a person named Britney who had a child career addessing thousands of people, had a very strained relationship with her family, was constantly hounded by the authorities and was crucified in the press, then eventhough Britney is a common name in these times, the general populace would likely surmise your writings to be about Ms. Spears. The same could be argued for Jesus.
The grave is another matter entirely. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 04:23:53 PM · #1320 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Unfortunately, due to the other evidence of grafitti scrawl and lost articles/notes, |
You know, that really isn't what the article says. It says the name was only scrawled on but if he was the Son of God it would be more ornate. It doesn't say that the tomb was graffitied. I.e., it isn't an 'unfortunately' other than it doesn't make it look important enough.
The name on Jesus's ossuary was scrawled on, like graffiti. There was no ornamentation. And there should have been. After all, his followers believed he was the Son of God. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 05:17:56 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by Flash:
because Jesus was a common name then we cannot know if any of the things attributed to "Jesus" were even referencing the Jesus of scripture. My example is specific in that, it may be true that we do not know, however the people of the time would have known. |
Not necessarily. I don't really know HOW common the name Jesus was, nor if there were other well-known individuals with that name. "Michael" might be attributed to Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson or someone else entirely, even though both are known by millions (maybe billions) of people. Even a less common name like, say... Madonna could be attributed to more than one person. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 05:19:34 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by Flash:
...was solely in the context as written by scalvert - that because Jesus was a common name then we cannot know if any of the things attributed to "Jesus" were even referencing the Jesus of scripture... |
Sorry, but he never said that. He merely said that the article concerning the tomb mentions that the name "Jesus" was common at the time. You're assigning meaning to other people's statements when there is none explicitly implied. And because your post spoke in detail about the tomb, and because you mention the commonality of the name apparently in that context, and because you compare Britney to Christ (!), and because you ulimately were not clear about exactly what it was you were talking about, it seemed you were suggesting that the tomb was Jesus' because he was popular at the time. I can only suggest you be more concise, if you don't wish to be misconstrued. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 09:52:23 AM · #1323 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Your reference to the word Jesus being a common name raises other questions in its own right. Namely that eventhough the girls name Britney was a very popular name within the last 25 years, the mention of the name Britney today, would evoke very specific antic recollections from this paparazzi icon. In other words, simply because a name is common, does not in itself negate potential acts associated with a specific person so named, as our Ms. Spears so aptly demonstrates almost daily. |
The mention of the name Britney might be immediately associated in people's minds with Britney Spears, but that's not the same thing as saying that you've found the Britney Spears' grave by going to an arbitrary cemetary in Los Angelas and finding the name "Britney Spears" on a tombstone. |
I made no such claim that it was. So that you do not fall victim into writing words for me that I did not say (as I have been recently accused of doing to others), please know, that my reference to Britney, was solely in the context as written by scalvert - that because Jesus was a common name then we cannot know if any of the things attributed to "Jesus" were even referencing the Jesus of scripture. My example is specific in that, it may be true that we do not know, however the people of the time would have known. If you were to write about a person named Britney who had a child career addessing thousands of people, had a very strained relationship with her family, was constantly hounded by the authorities and was crucified in the press, then even though Britney is a common name in these times, the general populace would likely surmise your writings to be about Ms. Spears. The same could be argued for Jesus. |
The same you say could not be argued about your jesus. If, instead, we wrote about Britney Spears years after she had passed, based upon memory or hearsay and then waited a couple thousand years then their situations could be the same. Would the people of the future know whether or not Britney Spears did all of the things written? Perhaps the authors of that book were mistaken with another Britney. Perhaps the tales of multiple Britneys were combined in said book. There is a great chance, in fact, that the specific Britney being written about, in this case Britney Spears, did not even exist. The people reading the book in thousands of years, much like we read the bible now, would not know or be able to prove anything completely.
So saying that the general population at the time knows of Britney Spears/jesus christ, has no effect on how factual the information presented is, making the Britney Spears book and the bible completely circumstantial. |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 03:04:02 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by MrBradHeisler:
So saying that the general population at the time knows of Britney Spears/jesus christ, has no effect on how factual the information presented is, making the Britney Spears book and the bible completely circumstantial. |
Does this make all of history completely circumstantial? |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 02:16:57 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by MrBradHeisler:
So saying that the general population at the time knows of Britney Spears/jesus christ, has no effect on how factual the information presented is, making the Britney Spears book and the bible completely circumstantial. |
Does this make all of history completely circumstantial? |
History is not circumstantial. History cannot be circumstantial because history is exactly what happened in the past. However, the way history is recounted and recorded, that can be circumstantial. |
|
