| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2010 11:42:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
Unless you use a red letter edition and specifically place the words attributed to Christ as the "most important" and thus a "clause". An interpretation of scripture should not contradict the "red letter" words ascribed to the Christ. These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity.
Another helpful skill would be to have familiarity with how prose are written, what an allegory is - etc. The Bible is many texts. Historical recordings/notations. Philosophy. Spritual teaching guide.
Christ himself is quoted as using parables to teach. Parables are stories designed to use elements familiar to the intended audience to help them understand the message. There can be literal bits and pieces included in the parable, however a parable can also use exageration to help make its point. The important item is the teachable message - not the literal application of every syllable.
but hey...what do I know - I voted republican. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 01:38:35 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Unless you use a red letter edition and specifically place the words attributed to Christ as the "most important" and thus a "clause". An interpretation of scripture should not contradict the "red letter" words ascribed to the Christ. These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity.
Another helpful skill would be to have familiarity with how prose are written, what an allegory is - etc. The Bible is many texts. Historical recordings/notations. Philosophy. Spritual teaching guide.
Christ himself is quoted as using parables to teach. Parables are stories designed to use elements familiar to the intended audience to help them understand the message. There can be literal bits and pieces included in the parable, however a parable can also use exageration to help make its point. The important item is the teachable message - not the literal application of every syllable.
but hey...what do I know - I voted republican. |
So again......it's all about interpretation, the nuance of parable, being familiar with historical context, and as always, the particular favoritism ascribed to any message in its particular application.
That's clear!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2010 02:33:18 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Unless you use a red letter edition and specifically place the words attributed to Christ as the "most important" and thus a "clause". An interpretation of scripture should not contradict the "red letter" words ascribed to the Christ. These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity.
Another helpful skill would be to have familiarity with how prose are written, what an allegory is - etc. The Bible is many texts. Historical recordings/notations. Philosophy. Spritual teaching guide.
Christ himself is quoted as using parables to teach. Parables are stories designed to use elements familiar to the intended audience to help them understand the message. There can be literal bits and pieces included in the parable, however a parable can also use exageration to help make its point. The important item is the teachable message - not the literal application of every syllable.
but hey...what do I know - I voted republican. |
So again......it's all about interpretation, the nuance of parable, being familiar with historical context, and as always, the particular favoritism ascribed to any message in its particular application.
That's clear! |
I don't think its that much about intrepretation at all. The historical events, the lands occupied, the facts that Egypt had slaves, etc etc etc - are not generally disputed interpretations. Lots of Biblical references are fairly regarded as accurate - even literally. So no - is it not ALL about intrepretation.
Parts of scripture are open to interpretation - mainly the "spritual taeching guide" but the Philosophy is no more intrepretable than that of Plato, Aristotle or Hesse. The historical lands occupied, conqueredm, and re-occupied are pretty straight forward. So depending on which "text" you are reading (meaning as a history book, a philosophical treatise, or a spritual teaching guide) actually influences whther there is much interpretation at all. And even in those areas where intrepretation exists - the first "smell test" should be against Christ's quoted words - even though they are not literal quotes. They are still the litmus for the balance of the work - as it relates to a spiritual teaching guide. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 03:07:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Flash:
the first "smell test" should be against Christ's quoted words - even though they are not literal quotes. |
Given the fact that all such references were written years, decades or even centuries after the fact by third party authors who didn't witness the events, that many are direct ripoffs of earlier myths, and that the closest contemporary of Jesus- Paul- is apparently unaware of key stories, it smells mightily of BS. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 05:47:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
the first "smell test" should be against Christ's quoted words - even though they are not literal quotes. |
Given the fact that all such references were written years, decades or even centuries after the fact by third party authors who didn't witness the events, that many are direct ripoffs of earlier myths, and that the closest contemporary of Jesus- Paul- is apparently unaware of key stories, it smells mightily of BS. |
You have posted this numerous times regarding references to red letter edition Bibles. It doesn't change what words are directly attributed to Christ in the least. It doesn't matter when the words were written, nor even if the quotes are actual quotes, but unless you can prove that red letter edition Bibles do not ascribe certain sentences to be of those represented as spoken by Christ - then you have no point to make with me.
Now back to MY point. If one is to study christianity and the basic premises of Christ's teachings, then beginning with the sentences attributed to him and using those phrases and messages to measure other written words from scriprure is a sensible tract. You (scalvert) have already staked out a position (actually numerous times) of your skeptism and disbelief in scripture and Christ. So be it. It does not change the fact that some Bibles print the sentences and phrases relayed as those coming directly from Christ in red letters. If one chooses (which you do not) attempt an interpretive understanding of some passage(s), then having it pass the "smell test" is reasonable. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 06:28:36 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Flash:
unless you can prove that red letter edition Bibles do not ascribe certain sentences to be of those represented as spoken by Christ - then you have no point to make with me. |
I didn't say they weren't ASCRIBED to Jesus. Heck, a picture on toast can be ascribed to Jesus... or Zeus or Klingons or merely a random pattern that our brains try to make out as an image. Some texts ascribe the Egyptian pyramids and crop circles to aliens. So? As an ontologically positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that a given phrase actually was spoken by Jesus. Furthermore, since the original texts did not have quotation marks, the publishers of red letter edition bibles must interpret which phrases were spoken by Jesus... and that varies by edition. Printing a claim in a different color doesn't increase its credibility one iota. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 06:59:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
unless you can prove that red letter edition Bibles do not ascribe certain sentences to be of those represented as spoken by Christ - then you have no point to make with me. |
I didn't say they weren't ASCRIBED to Jesus. Heck, a picture on toast can be ascribed to Jesus... or Zeus or Klingons or merely a random pattern that our brains try to make out as an image. Some texts ascribe the Egyptian pyramids and crop circles to aliens. So? As an ontologically positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that a given phrase actually was spoken by Jesus. Furthermore, since the original texts did not have quotation marks, the publishers of red letter edition bibles must interpret which phrases were spoken by Jesus... and that varies by edition. Printing a claim in a different color doesn't increase its credibility one iota. |
It would be hopeless to argue against someone who compares a text that has more than 5,000 original copies to cross reference, has been studied for the past 2,000 years, by people with more degrees that I can imagine to:
a piece of toast, aliens, and crop circles.
For everywhere except DPChallenge, it's the status quo. The burden of proof is on those against the status quo.
I need to stay out of rant, but it's always like a train wreck. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 07:29:59 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
it would be hopeless to argue against someone who compares a text that has more than 5,000 original copies to cross reference, has been studied for the past 2,000 years, by people with more degrees that I can imagine to:
a piece of toast, aliens, and crop circles. |
"Original copy," now there's an oxymoron. The number of surviving biblical autographs written by the original authors is precisely zero, and the fact that it's even necessary for people with more degrees than you can imagine to interpret the copies is a compelling argument against divine authorship. The number of copies and number of people studying them is not evidence that attributed quotes were actually spoken. Even if you had Mark's handwritten original perfectly preserved, and everybody agreed on it, the phrases attributed to Jesus would be no more proven than an author's quote of King Arthur.
Originally posted by Nullix:
For everywhere except DPChallenge, it's the status quo. The burden of proof is on those against the status quo. |
Everywhere except DPC... and apparently most of the world since the majority of the population is non-Christian and an even greater proportion disagree with your particular version. The flat earth theory and geocentricity demonstrate that status quo bears no relation to burden of proof. |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 08:29:37 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
[It would be hopeless to argue against someone who compares a text that has more than 5,000 original copies |
Hmmm ... original and copies, aren't those mutually exclusive? Just asking.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/18/2010 10:55:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Flash:
unless you can prove that red letter edition Bibles do not ascribe certain sentences to be of those represented as spoken by Christ - then you have no point to make with me. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I didn't say they weren't ASCRIBED to Jesus. Heck, a picture on toast can be ascribed to Jesus... or Zeus or Klingons or merely a random pattern that our brains try to make out as an image. Some texts ascribe the Egyptian pyramids and crop circles to aliens. So? As an ontologically positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that a given phrase actually was spoken by Jesus. Furthermore, since the original texts did not have quotation marks, the publishers of red letter edition bibles must interpret which phrases were spoken by Jesus... and that varies by edition. Printing a claim in a different color doesn't increase its credibility one iota. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It would be hopeless to argue against someone who compares a text that has more than 5,000 original copies to cross reference, has been studied for the past 2,000 years, by people with more degrees that I can imagine to:
a piece of toast, aliens, and crop circles. |
Except for that niggling little problem that our resident skeptic mentioned which continues to be steadfastly ignored. You really have no proof that the words attributed to Jesus are either true or accurate. Considering those bothersome little details like geography and the general education level at the time, expecting these compilations to be accurate and true is a leap of faith all of its own.
Originally posted by Nullix:
For everywhere except DPChallenge, it's the status quo. The burden of proof is on those against the status quo. |
Umm.....you really should look up the definition of status quo. It certainly does not describe the general state of the level of worldwide acceptance of your bible.
Also, since you're the ones claiming this all to be true, the burden of its veracity does in fact, lie with you.
As usual.......we're STILL waiting......
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010 12:32:05 AM · #36 |
| *cough*nowShannon'saproselyte*cough* ;) |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 02:15:07 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Original copy," now there's an oxymoron. The number of surviving biblical autographs written by the original authors is precisely zero, and the fact that it's even necessary for people with more degrees than you can imagine to interpret the copies is a compelling argument against divine authorship. The number of copies and number of people studying them is not evidence that attributed quotes were actually spoken. Even if you had Mark's handwritten original perfectly preserved, and everybody agreed on it, the phrases attributed to Jesus would be no more proven than an author's quote of King Arthur. |
Out of curiosity... what is the standard procedure for proving that written quotations are accurate?
Originally posted by scalvert:
As an ontologically positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to show that a given phrase actually was spoken by Jesus. Furthermore, since the original texts did not have quotation marks, the publishers of red letter edition bibles must interpret which phrases were spoken by Jesus... and that varies by edition. Printing a claim in a different color doesn't increase its credibility one iota. |
You know, if you could read Koine Greek you would find that it's actually quite easy to figure out words are part of quotations, even without quotation marks. Sure, there might be a sentence or two that might be "Mark's words" instead of "Jesus' words", but just because Koine Greek didn't have quotation marks does not mean that people who used the language were unable to communicate what was a quote and what wasn't. Further, Flash's point was that Jesus' words are a good starting point for figuring out biblical teaching. Now, a few problematic verses here and there are not going to make it impossible to figure out what Jesus taught. After all, there are four different accounts which repeat many of the same essential teachings. So if you want to argue that these problematic verses make it impossible to understand biblical teaching you can go ahead and do that, but you will lose the argument. Alternatively, you can try and argue that the Bible does not meet the "standard" (the one that I asked you to define above). You can go that route if you'd like, but if you're standard is too technical (i.e. 21st century) then you'll not only render the Bible useless, but every other written work and most of human history with it. You'll probably lose that argument as well. Good luck! |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:29:02 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity. |
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority.
It is worth highlighting that even where you take your proposed approach, and even if you had the directly reported words of Jesus in his original Aramaic, it does not help in situations where Jesus does not directly contradict another part of the bible.
Jesus, unfortunately, did not leave us with statements like “the prohibition on men sleeping together is repealed from midnight tonight by my divine declaration” – instead he said things like “love thy neighbour”. That means that people have to try and work out if that means that the earlier prohibition is repealed and replaced, modified (and in what way), or if it means that the two instructions run in parallel with different meanings in different contexts, or perhaps Jesus only intended the new instruction “love thy neighbour” only to apply where there wasn’t another conflicting instruction.
The beauty of the imprecision is that the religiously oriented can interpret and re-interpret the bible to have any of these meanings depending on the social climate of the time and their political objectives (i.e. the way that they wish to influence other people). It is a totally malleable tool for influencing people’s behaviours,
This is why, for example, anyone studying history looks at the political objectives of religious leaders in interpreting religious texts one way or another, not the objective meaning of the texts (should such a thing ever really exist).
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:36:52 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
unless you can prove that red letter edition Bibles do not ascribe certain sentences to be of those represented as spoken by Christ - then you have no point to make with me. |
I didn't say they weren't ASCRIBED to Jesus. ...So? As an ontologically positive claim, the burden of proof is on you ... |
There is no ontological claim by me. I don't care if the words ascribed to Christ are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. Regardless of their origin, the FACT remains that these are the words attributed to him and IF one is to study Christianity and specifically the Bible, then understaning the main characters message is a relevant foundation to start.
Unless you can prove this basic premise wrong, then you are wasting your time with me. If I wanted to understand King Arthur's or Zeus' teachings, then beginning with the words ascribed to them is a valid starting point. It doesn't matter if they existed, it doesn't matter if the quotes were actually spoken by a real person or even by them. It only matters what words are referenced as representing their teaching, to begin the foundational understanding of their teaching. Your argument against the existence of Christ or factualness of the quotes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:44:31 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It doesn't matter if they existed, it doesn't matter if the quotes were actually spoken by a real person or even by them. It only matters what words are referenced as representing their teaching, to begin the foundational understanding of their teaching. Your argument against the existence of Christ or factualness of the quotes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. |
Then neither should the existence (threat?) of a heaven or hell or any deity whatsoever. Simply treat one another with respect, without judgment or prejudice or malice or bigotry or...*
*generic statement aimed at all persons, not specifically aimed at Flash |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:46:51 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity. |
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority. |
Within the context of your original point - yes. Meaning, if one needs a "clause" for interpretive reasons of another phrase or sentence, then these ascribed sentences should used to help sort out the confusion.
There are many phrases, writtings, positions, etc in scripture that Christ never specifically addressed. If I were to study the philosophy of "christianity" then I would start with the core message (Gospels and Acts). After that, it then becomes what fits within that core. The fact that you and others point out faults of believers and variations of intrepretation and shortcomings of institutions is more of a man made problem to me. Your continued illimunation of these faults does nothing to persuade me that the core message attributed to Christ is any less valid as a spiritual teaching guide or life philosophy. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:55:20 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Out of curiosity... what is the standard procedure for proving that written quotations are accurate? |
The act of recording the spoken word fundamentally involves translation, selection and as a result inaccuracy. Against that standard, every quotation will be inaccurate: it won’t capture inflection, context, facial expression, body language – all of which are used by people communicating face to face.
In terms of recording the mere words spoken, their accuracy can be evidentially assessed against a number of criteria. Factors that are given high credibility in the modern context include whether a note is contemporaneous (the shorter the time between hearing and recording, the more reliable) and corroboration (high degree of corroboration between independent sources is evidence of reliability – but where the sources are not independent (e.g. in the case of the gospels) then the corroborative evidence is seriously undermined).
Putting this in context, modern research places significant doubt on the ability of the human mind accurately to record and reproduce memories – the mind tends to “make sense” of things in context and in the experience of the person remembering, and then categorise the memories accordingly.
Given the circumstances in which it was compiled, it is highly unlikely that the bible records any speech accurately. It should be accorded the same degree of caution as we apply to other texts of the era: it must be read in the context of the intention of its compilers, and should not be treated as a literal or precise source of information.
Message edited by author 2010-11-19 10:14:58.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010 09:56:34 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by Flash:
It doesn't matter if they existed, it doesn't matter if the quotes were actually spoken by a real person or even by them. It only matters what words are referenced as representing their teaching, to begin the foundational understanding of their teaching. Your argument against the existence of Christ or factualness of the quotes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. |
Then neither should the existence (threat?) of a heaven or hell or any deity whatsoever. Simply treat one another with respect, without judgment or prejudice or malice or bigotry or...*
*generic statement aimed at all persons, not specifically aimed at Flash |
To clarify "...it doesn't matter for my argument to stand". |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 10:12:20 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own. |
These to me, should be the foundation of any study or research - regarding Christianity. |
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority. |
Within the context of your original point - yes. Meaning, if one needs a "clause" for interpretive reasons of another phrase or sentence, then these ascribed sentences should used to help sort out the confusion. ... |
You misunderstand me - my point is that you are making up your own rules on how the bible should be interpreted. Which you seem to agree with. So there can be no objective "truth" - merely a lot of people making up their own rules within a common framework.
Originally posted by Flash:
Your continued illimunation of these faults does nothing to persuade me that the core message attributed to Christ is any less valid as a spiritual teaching guide or life philosophy. |
My original point (which you challenged) was that people are forced to come up with their own rules of interpretation. No question that the modern interpretation of many aspects of christian teaching provide a socially cohesive and progressive approach to communal living.
However, people are also interpreting parts of the bible in an unattractive way. As society progresses I'm sure the majority will reinterpret those verses accirdingly, but in the meantime we have to put up with socially unhelpful interpretations of provisions in relation to things like contraception, female equality, and homosexuality. It is objectionable for religious people to defend those views by hiding behind the "objective truth" of the bible.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010 10:27:50 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I don't care if the words ascribed to Christ are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. Regardless of their origin, the FACT remains that these are the words attributed to him and IF one is to study Christianity and specifically the Bible, then understaning the main characters message is a relevant foundation to start. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority. |
Matthew nailed it. It doesn't matter to Flash whether the attributed words are total fiction— only that they agree with what he wants to believe. Reason need not apply. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 11:17:36 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I don't care if the words ascribed to Christ are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. Regardless of their origin, the FACT remains that these are the words attributed to him and IF one is to study Christianity and specifically the Bible, then understaning the main characters message is a relevant foundation to start. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority. |
Matthew nailed it. It doesn't matter to Flash whether the attributed words are total fiction— only that they agree with what he wants to believe. Reason need not apply. |
It's not so much that it agrees with what we believe, but that others believed it. In fact, others closer to Jesus and those close to Jesus believed and gave their life for it.
I'm not talking about just dying for the faith by beheading, I'm talking about painful death. You think water boarding is bad? Check out some of the ways early Christians died.
If someone chooses death by
being mauled by a lion
scourged and scraped with iron hooks
burned alive
stretched with both feet a night and a day on the rack
bound and suspended on a stake, being exposed as food for wild animals
because of what they believe, I think there's something behind their beliefs.
Except for John all of the apostles were also killed for their faith.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2010 11:20:59 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I don't care if the words ascribed to Christ are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. Regardless of their origin, the FACT remains that these are the words attributed to him and IF one is to study Christianity and specifically the Bible, then understaning the main characters message is a relevant foundation to start. |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My point proven, I think. You believe that highlighted words in certain publications that you select should be read with priority. |
Matthew nailed it. It doesn't matter to Flash whether the attributed words are total fiction— only that they agree with what he wants to believe. Reason need not apply. |
"only that they agree with what he wants to believe."
This is a lie. You have misrepresented my position. I think you intentionally misrepresented my position. An apology is due. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 11:25:24 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My original point (which you challenged) was that people are forced to come up with their own rules of interpretation. |
No. Your position was that the Bible did not contain any "Clause" language and I replied that for me it does - the red letters -
"In any long contract one includes a clause that explains in the event of inconsistency which sections are to be read with priority (acknowledging that in any long set of governing rules under multiple authorship there will be inconsistencies). The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - "
Message edited by author 2010-11-19 11:28:53. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 11:28:30 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It's not so much that it agrees with what we believe, but that others believed it. In fact, others closer to Jesus and those close to Jesus believed and gave their life for it. |
Those are both fallacies rather than logical statements to support your argument. Far greater numbers of people didn't believe it, and plenty have died in similar fashion for opposing beliefs. The simple fact that Jesus, and those closest to him, died at all is a strong argument against both the existence of a god and the power of prayer. |
|
|
|
11/19/2010 11:31:45 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It doesn't matter to Flash whether the attributed words are total fiction— only that they agree with what he wants to believe. |
This is a lie. You have misrepresented my position. I think you intentionally misrepresented my position. An apology is due. |
You just said, and I quote: "I don't care if the words ascribed to Christ are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc." If you don't care, then my statement is not a misrepresentation.
Message edited by author 2010-11-19 11:32:47. |
|
