DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Co-existence of Science and Theology
Pages:   ... [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] ... [65]
Showing posts 1276 - 1300 of 1614, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/11/2008 01:43:49 PM · #1276
Originally posted by Flash:
And here I thought we were making progress.

I can understand your points on embelishment and even the use of, for political purposes. But to deny the existence of, is beyond my comprehension - in light of references in both Josephus and Tacitus. Writers who had no dog in that fight.


As others have pointed out - I try to write what I mean quite carefully but you are misreading some of my responses.

There are good arguments based on the evidence for there having been a religious leader called Jesus existing around 30AD. There are good arguments that in fact he is a miasma of different religious beliefs, leaders and mythological stories. I don't claim to be able to say whether he existed or not definitively - but there is very limited historical evidence of Jesus having been a supernaturally empowered being, and the main historical evidence (the bible) is a source of questionable provenance: combined and re-written for political purposes by secular leaders, self contradictory, non-contemporaneous etc etc.

Where we are apart (I think) is that you have faith that Jesus not only existed but was supernatural. You are looking for evidence that supports your belief, rather than taking the evidence for what it is (inconclusive and doubtful in relation to supernaturalism). While I can quite happily say "it is not clear", that would be deeply problematic for you, not because of the quality of the evidence, but because it would conflict with your faith to say so.

I would still like to have a response to my question to you: do you acknowledge that if god is in fact the god Bel, and it is a commandment of Bel that you worship no false gods, that at best we are in the same position as each other (both being unbelievers) and possibly that you are in a far worse position than me for having broken that commandment?
 01/11/2008 01:47:14 PM · #1277
Originally posted by Flash:
My points on presenting archeology as biblical evidence is not precisely to prove that a literal account as depicted - occured. Rather to prove that archeological evidence proves that "something" occured from which the subsequent references could have evolved.

One does not logically follow the other. Finding the name Jason, Aladdin or Aesop, even around the relevant times, is not evidence that ANYTHING actually happened, much less the purported stories.
 01/11/2008 01:50:58 PM · #1278
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Milo - you'll have to forgive me, but I do not see your point. Feel free to be more specific.

I'll help out.

I said that there were strong arguments that the Jesus as portrayed in the bible did not exist. You accused me of denying the existence of Jesus.

You are making a very obvious logical leap in your accusation, because I did not deny the existence of Jesus: I only noted that there are strong arguments that he did not exist literally per the bible.
 01/11/2008 01:57:45 PM · #1279
Originally posted by Flash:
What I believe you are claiming, is that if Jesus miracles were so spectacular, then the contemporary world of the time would have been abuzz about them and Paul would have included them into his writings, thus we would read about them. Since he did not, then you conclude that either they did not happen at all, or at the very least, they were considered so inconsequential as to not be worthy of notation.

Yup. Paul may have come after Jesus, but he was still a lot closer to the claimed events than Matthew, Mark or Luke and apparently knew OF Jesus as a person even if they didn't personally meet. To not mention a single miracle is a HUGE omission. Who knows what led him to convert? Maybe a voice in his head told him to or maybe he just sympathized with the messages. Lots of people convert to different religious systems, even those they formerly derided, but that in itself doesn't lend any credibility to supernatural stories.
 01/11/2008 02:01:25 PM · #1280
Originally posted by Matthew:
There are good arguments based on the evidence for there having been a religious leader called Jesus existing around 30AD. There are good arguments that in fact he is a miasma of different religious beliefs, leaders and mythological stories. I don't claim to be able to say whether he existed or not definitively - but there is very limited historical evidence of Jesus having been a supernaturally empowered being, and the main historical evidence (the bible) is a source of questionable provenance: combined and re-written for political purposes by secular leaders, self contradictory, non-contemporaneous etc etc.


This paragraph at least denotes what I thought I credited you with initially, that is that you conclude that "There are good arguments based on the evidence for there having been a religious leader called Jesus existing around 30AD.". That reads much different to me than "there are very good arguments that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible never existed".

Your further clarification of the literalness application is something I did not apply. Primarily because I have repeatedly stated that I do not take the Bible as literal. I do take the events as literally representative, meaning that I acknowledge that there may be infusions of myth or fables or even other religions influence that had a catalyst as the root event, from which archeology can help us uncover - just as it finds evidences in other fields. That does not to me mean that the entire work (the Bible) is wrong on a Literature, History or Philosophical level. Further, when I see evolutionsists guilty of similar "liberties" and not so much as a mention by the defenders of that theory, then I do get a bit more sensitive as to what I perceive to be unfair persecution.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 14:05:00.
 01/11/2008 02:05:11 PM · #1281
Originally posted by Flash:
Myth? perhaps. Ancient story? perhaps. But something worthy of documentation. My points on presenting archeology as biblical evidence is not precisely to prove that a literal account as depicted - occured. Rather to prove that archeological evidence proves that "something" occured from which the subsequent references could have evolved.

First, this is all a far cry from your original post on the subject, where your link was provided as proof positive that Goliath roamed the earth. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily follow that references to Goliath in the bible follow from a name carved on a potsherd. That's too far a leap.
 01/11/2008 02:05:43 PM · #1282
This thread's getting slow to load! :-P
 01/11/2008 02:07:22 PM · #1283
Originally posted by Flash:
I have repeatedly stated that I do not take the Bible as literal. I do take the events as literally representative, meaning that I acknowledge that there may be infusions of myth or fables or even other religions influence. That does not to me mean that the entire work (the Bible) is wrong on a Literature, History or Philosophical level.

You've never explained how you know which parts are fact, fiction or filisophy (hehe), and all you have to do is you accept that Jesus was the Son of God to stray into a biblical portrayal that's not supported by historical evidence.
 01/11/2008 02:29:46 PM · #1284
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. There is a bit of self serving believing on both sides.


Not really. Religious fundamentalists treat creationism as a cornerstone of their belief. There is no evidence for it, but an inherent and compelling self-interest on the part of fundamentalists to believe in it.


Backtracking a bit, I would only gently offer up the following:

Sidestepping for the moment the issue of whether the "creation" was "natural" or "supernatural" (because we can't know that empirically), it nevertheless remains true that science has no explanation for the source of the original components of the "universe". Did everything arrive out of nothing? Is there a prime mover? What's going on here? We don't know.

In many ways it's a ridiculous question, one we cannot wrap our minds around. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Our very concept of "time" as a linear progression of events is almost certainly wrong. In this context, "belief" is a reasonably rational way of making sense of the whole ball of wax...

R.
 01/11/2008 02:31:04 PM · #1285
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Milo - you'll have to forgive me, but I do not see your point. Feel free to be more specific.

I'll help out.

I said that there were strong arguments that the Jesus as portrayed in the bible did not exist. You accused me of denying the existence of Jesus.

You are making a very obvious logical leap in your accusation, because I did not deny the existence of Jesus: I only noted that there are strong arguments that he did not exist literally per the bible.


Yes. What Matthew said. There is a difference between saying âI donât believe that Jesus actually said âLet he who is without sin cast the first stoneââ and âI donât believe Jesus existedâ. Matthew seems to be saying something akin to the first sentence while you seem to be interpreting his words as something akin to the second sentence. Itâs an unsupported leap in logic and this is not the first time youâve done it.
Incidentally, speaking of the âLet he who is without sin cast the first stoneâ story, according to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus does not appear in the book of John until the beginning of the 3rd Century. In other words, the story is not to be found in the earliest known copies (we donât have the original) of John and was mostly likely added by some copyist/scribe at some later date. So, while Jesus may have actually existed, it is very possible that this event did not occur. I believe this is the type of argument that Matthew is making.
01/11/2008 02:37:48 PM · #1286
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In many ways it's a ridiculous question, one we cannot wrap our minds around. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Our very concept of "time" as a linear progression of events is almost certainly wrong. In this context, "belief" is a reasonably rational way of making sense of the whole ball of wax...

I disagree, because "belief" insinuates a guess that is posited not merely in the absence of empirical data, but based on anything the believer can come up in his imagination, usually irrespective of whatever data there may be. That's not reasonable or rational.
 01/11/2008 03:38:07 PM · #1287
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Milo - you'll have to forgive me, but I do not see your point. Feel free to be more specific.

I'll help out.

I said that there were strong arguments that the Jesus as portrayed in the bible did not exist. You accused me of denying the existence of Jesus.

You are making a very obvious logical leap in your accusation, because I did not deny the existence of Jesus: I only noted that there are strong arguments that he did not exist literally per the bible.


Yes. What Matthew said. There is a difference between saying âI donât believe that Jesus actually said âLet he who is without sin cast the first stoneââ and âI donât believe Jesus existedâ. Matthew seems to be saying something akin to the first sentence while you seem to be interpreting his words as something akin to the second sentence. Itâs an unsupported leap in logic and this is not the first time youâve done it.
Incidentally, speaking of the âLet he who is without sin cast the first stoneâ story, according to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus does not appear in the book of John until the beginning of the 3rd Century. In other words, the story is not to be found in the earliest known copies (we donât have the original) of John and was mostly likely added by some copyist/scribe at some later date. So, while Jesus may have actually existed, it is very possible that this event did not occur. I believe this is the type of argument that Matthew is making.


And the type of argument that I do and have accepted all along. The fact that some elements may have been embelished does not to me, refute the entire work. If that were true, then no known liar for the prosecution (read informant) could ever successfully result in a conviction - even though that is a very common ploy used by most defense tables - and I suspect a bit here as well. To say that Genesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is true, is simply wrong. It may be true that parts of the Bible do not make literal sense, but to then claim that there is no literary or philosophical value or that no part is historically accurate (read useful for archeological analysis), to me, smacks of denial. Then when evolutionists pull claims of lineage out of thin air, then I really must protest the lack of candor.

edit to add: In fact, Louis (for as much as I disagree with him) is the most consistent in his arguments. At least he stands by the totality of the Bible as a compilation of other beliefs, specifically naming the many references from which the biblical characters are derived from. I might further add, that this line of thought was absolutely fascinating to me several years ago. There was a professor who taught extensively on this subject (I forget his name), using parrallels from a number of sources to explain the origins of various Biblical events/personages. I found him mesmerizing.

Message edited by author 2008-01-11 15:56:03.
 01/11/2008 04:00:50 PM · #1288
Originally posted by Flash:
And the type of argument that I do and have accepted all along. The fact that some elements may have been embelished does not to me, refute the entire work.


OK, perhaps we could agree that I believe that the Bible is more greatly embellished than you believe. Itâs a matter of degree.

Originally posted by Flash:
If that were true, then no known liar for the prosecution (read informant) could ever successfully result in a conviction - even though that is a very common ploy used by most defense tables - and I suspect a bit here as well. To say that Genesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is true, is simply wrong. It may be true that parts of the Bible do not make literal sense, but to then claim that there is no literary or philosophical value or that no part is historically accurate (read useful for archeological analysis), to me, smacks of denial.


You seem to have a habit of ascribing to your debating opponents positions which they do not hold and then shaking your head in disbelief that they should hold such beliefs. Please stop it. Itâs particularly annoying.

Originally posted by Flash:
Then when evolutionists pull claims of lineage out of thin air, then I really must protest the lack of candor.


Non sequitur.
01/11/2008 04:08:01 PM · #1289
Originally posted by scalvert:
You've never explained how you know which parts are fact, fiction or filisophy (hehe), and all you have to do is you accept that Jesus was the Son of God to stray into a biblical portrayal that's not supported by historical evidence.


I agree. The son of God part, I do not believe was ever proven. 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.
 01/11/2008 04:21:24 PM · #1290
Originally posted by Flash:
Then when evolutionists pull claims of lineage out of thin air, then I really must protest the lack of candor.

It is a non sequitur, but it is also a claim without merit. In fact, this statement is simultaneously a non sequitor, a begging of the question, and probably a few others. Also, it seems to me that your appeals to Matthew and others constitute a "middle position" fallacy.
 01/11/2008 04:29:19 PM · #1291
Originally posted by Flash:
To say that Genesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is true, is simply wrong.

Not even Louis made that claim (another ascribed position). He only said he thought Jesus was fiction, NOT that there wasn't a scattering of philosophy or a few historical references in the Bible. Bits and pieces of any (maybe all) religious texts may have those characteristics. As noted earlier, though,stories of Davy Crockett may be based upon a real person, carry philosophical value... and still be utter fiction. To say that Genesis is full of allegory, without any way of knowing if even a single sentence is historical, yet continue to declare its basic truth is baseless.
 01/11/2008 04:34:10 PM · #1292
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.
 01/11/2008 04:36:38 PM · #1293
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Then when evolutionists pull claims of lineage out of thin air, then I really must protest the lack of candor.

It is a non sequitur, but it is also a claim without merit. In fact, this statement is simultaneously a non sequitor, a begging of the question, and probably a few others. Also, it seems to me that your appeals to Matthew and others constitute a "middle position" fallacy.


non sequitor

"Then when evolutionists pull claims of lineage out of thin air, then I really must protest the lack of candor." This is a specific reference to the many examples already represented and discussed from the articles written by Sean Pitman. It clearly represents my frustration with the double standard seen here as it applies to archeological evidence as applied to evolution and biblical times/events.

How this does not apply to "Genesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is true, is simply wrong. It may be true that parts of the Bible do not make literal sense, but to then claim that there is no literary or philosophical value or that no part is historically accurate (read useful for archeological analysis), to me, smacks of denial. " as I intended, then someone will have to be more specific.

Milo claims that I am ascribing a position to my opponents that they do not hold, yet these pages are full of posts exactly this way. Refusal and rebuttal of every nature of scripture. And acceptance of the evolutionists theory. With holes (read pieces of the puzzle that don't add up), glossed over by the scientists. Even to the point of claims by the scientists themselves that "if the facts don't fit the theory, then so much for the facts...".
 01/11/2008 04:44:39 PM · #1294
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.


True. It is the coupling of this with the prediction of his coming, the treatment of his followers (read persecution), and the subsequent last 2 thousand years of review of his teachings - that imply he may have been more than just ordinary.
 01/11/2008 05:12:53 PM · #1295
Originally posted by Flash:
Milo claims that I am ascribing a position to my opponents that they do not hold...

You do that constantly, but I have not seen anyone else do it. You did it in that very post:

Originally posted by Flash:
...It may be true that parts of the Bible do not make literal sense, but to then claim that there is no literary or philosophical value or that no part is historically accurate...

Nobody made any of those statements. And even more specifically:

Originally posted by Flash:
In fact, Louis (for as much as I disagree with him) is the most consistent in his arguments. At least he stands by the totality of the Bible as a compilation of other beliefs...

I just didn't say that, plain and simple. I was going to wearily let it go until you took on Milo's very accurate criticism.

Originally posted by Flash:
Refusal and rebuttal of every nature of scripture. And acceptance of the evolutionists theory.

Despite what you think, this is an outrageous non sequitor. Aside from the fact that the first part of this statement completely mischaracterizes the responses to your very specific claims, it just doesn't follow that acceptance of evolutionary theory is hypocritical if one rebutts what's contained in the bible, which is what you appear to be saying here.

A lot of time is wasted on trying to reign you in, in my opinion. Your style of discourse is difficult for me to follow, and your interjections of personal affront and groundless exasperation add a lot of unneeded bloat to what you write. If you think your arguments have seminal components, you should concentrate on getting those out, and spend less time on being insulted, on taking on absolutely every point in every post, and making comparisons where there are none to be made.

I also feel compelled to write here that none of this is an attack on your character, it's simply an attempt to point out where you are most weak in your style of discourse in an attempt to move things along a little.
 01/11/2008 05:43:25 PM · #1296
Originally posted by Flash:
Refusal and rebuttal of every nature of scripture. And acceptance of the evolutionists theory. With holes (read pieces of the puzzle that don't add up), glossed over by the scientists.

You are either oblivious to, or are ignoring, the posts. If every single archeological find ascribed to Jesus were true, it would still have absolutely no value as proof of any of the supernatural or spiritual stories of the Bible. Essentially you would have proven the existence of Davy Crockett, not evidence of any of the tall tales attributed to him. Conversely, it doesn't matter one iota whether Neanderthals coexisted with Homo Sapiens or how upright Australopithecus walked.. Whether Neanderthals came first, second or were really a mislabeled Homo Erectus, and whether Australopithecus lived primarily in trees or on the ground, man still evolves from earlier forms millions of years ago... a conclusion reached with more actual, physical evidence than mere fossils alone. Even if we don't know where all the pieces go, or put a few in the wrong place, the basic picture doesn't change.

Originally posted by Flash:
It is the coupling of this with the prediction of his coming, the treatment of his followers (read persecution), and the subsequent last 2 thousand years of review of his teachings - that imply he may have been more than just ordinary.

A storybook prediction is not evidence, and how do you know it wasn't a prophecy of Muhammad anyway? Persecution is what happens when the mainstream populace thinks you're nuts, which could easily be evidence against the Bible's veracity. Thousands of years of review? No... thousands of years of interpretation, translation and revision of someone else's claims of his teachings written decades after his death. Judaism and a few other religions are even older, but the fact that people have believed something for a long time is not evidence of its truth. No matter how you may try to rationalize, there IS no evidence that scripture is anything other than the writings of ordinary first-century people. You only believe it because you believe it, which is fine, but not at all equivalent to the multiple lines of physical evidence that make up our understanding of evolution.
 01/11/2008 06:06:14 PM · #1297
Originally posted by Flash:
This is a specific reference to the many examples already represented and discussed from the articles written by Sean Pitman. It clearly represents my frustration with the double standard seen here as it applies to archeological evidence as applied to evolution and biblical times/events.


When the creationist Sean Pitman decides to submit his critiques to the peer reviewed, professional journals, please let me know. Otherwise, Iâm not particularly interested. Honestly.

Originally posted by Flash:
How this does not apply to "Genesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is true, is simply wrong. It may be true that parts of the Bible do not make literal sense, but to then claim that there is no literary or philosophical value or that no part is historically accurate (read useful for archeological analysis), to me, smacks of denial. " as I intended, then someone will have to be more specific.


Besides yourself, who specifically made the claim that since âGenesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is trueâ? Be specific, please.

Originally posted by Flash:
Milo claims that I am ascribing a position to my opponents that they do not hold, yet these pages are full of posts exactly this way.


Here are several specific examples of you ascribing positions or conclusions to others which they do not hold or, at least, explicitly state:

12/06/2007 11:59:36 AM
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by milo655321:
âFourthly, if there is no god, you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have if you believe in one and follow those ultimately manmade, not the non-existent godâs, rules. Itâs about intellectual integrity.â


This sentence perplexes me, particularly the choice of words "you could end up wasting the only life you will ever have", and more specifically the choice of the word "wasting". I find it illuminating that you see it that way. It implies that following or at the very least striving to follow christian principles is a waste of time.

edit to add; more accurately, a waste of life.


12/18/2007 03:45:57 PM
âSince you cite unnatural occurences as refutation to my point, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that you agree that homosexuality is unnatural.â

12/18/2007 09:28:25 PM
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
You are equating appendages with actions. You are arguing that an appendage (even one that is not common) is natural, as it grew in a "natural" way.

I was disputing your inference that every single natural trait must itself promote survival of the species (that's not true).


01/11/2008 11:43:39 AM
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
No â 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, is beyond my comprehension (â¦)

 01/14/2008 09:24:58 AM · #1298
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.

2. "Besides yourself, who specifically made the claim that since âGenesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is trueâ? Be specific, please. "

This could be a lot easier if Matthew, Louis, scalvert or Milo would reference any portion of the Bible they believe is accurate or proven. It took nearly 50 pages to get anyone to acknowledge that Jesus was a real person who was a religious leader and was crucified - and even then Louis, does not believe it. More to the point, scalvert and Louis have repeatedly used Genesis references to discredit the Bible/believers. They use the literal interpretation of nearly every verse to demonstrate the inaccuracy and subsequent "unbelieveability" of the Bible. I have not once read a single post from scalvert, Louis, Matthew or Milo that said, "this part of the Bible is in error, however this part is accurate". Since none of those who are arguing against the believability of the Bible, have acknowledged any portions to be accurate, then my "understanding" is that they believe none of it to be. If I am wrong, then please mention the parts you believe are accurate. scalvert has repeatedly asked for me to explain and or demonstrate what parts I believe are literal and what parts are figurative. There is a program on National Geographic Channel titled The Naked Archeologist. He is a Canadian who travels the world (most specifically Jeruselum) looking for evidence of various scriptures. Last nights program dealt with the Assyrian seige of Jeruselum where 185,000 Assyrians were smitten by an angel of the Lord. This is a good example for the following reasons: 1. it is archeologiclly provable that a seige happened in and around the recorded timeframe, due to the underground water system evidenced and dated to the period and the historic actions in the area of the Assyrians. 2. the number of Assyrians decimated (185,000) has no evidence, thus is likely (according to the scholars interviewed) a figurative number. Thus in this one example, we have both a partial literal and partial figurative interpretation of this event, based on the archeological evidence. That is how I approach many items in scripture. After that, some elements must be left to either faith or unbelief - as no evidence has YET been found. I find this position no different than that of the evolutionists who have YET to find the missing link.

(sp)

Message edited by author 2008-01-14 09:42:38.
 01/14/2008 11:47:32 AM · #1299
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 youâre not ârepeatingâ peopleâs words to them, youâre 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 â 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¦)

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.

Originally posted by Flash:
2. "Besides yourself, who specifically made the claim that since âGenesis is full of allegory, therefore no part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is trueâ? Be specific, please. "
This could be a lot easier if Matthew, Louis, scalvert or Milo would reference any portion of the Bible they believe is accurate or proven. It took nearly 50 pages to get anyone to acknowledge that Jesus was a real person who was a religious leader and was crucified - and even then Louis, does not believe it. More to the point, scalvert and Louis have repeatedly used Genesis references to discredit the Bible/believers. They use the literal interpretation of nearly every verse to demonstrate the inaccuracy and subsequent "unbelieveability" of the Bible. I have not once read a single post from scalvert, Louis, Matthew or Milo that said, "this part of the Bible is in error, however this part is accurate". Since none of those who are arguing against the believability of the Bible, have acknowledged any portions to be accurate, then my "understanding" is that they believe none of it to be. If I am wrong, then please mention the parts you believe are accurate. scalvert has repeatedly asked for me to explain and or demonstrate what parts I believe are literal and what parts are figurative. There is a program on National Geographic Channel titled The Naked Archeologist. He is a Canadian who travels the world (most specifically Jeruselum) looking for evidence of various scriptures. Last nights program dealt with the Assyrian seige of Jeruselum where 185,000 Assyrians were smitten by an angel of the Lord. This is a good example for the following reasons: 1. it is archeologiclly provable that a seige happened in and around the recorded timeframe, due to the underground water system evidenced and dated to the period and the historic actions in the area of the Assyrians. 2. the number of Assyrians decimated (185,000) has no evidence, thus is likely (according to the scholars interviewed) a figurative number. Thus in this one example, we have both a partial literal and partial figurative interpretation of this event, based on the archeological evidence. That is how I approach many items in scripture. After that, some elements must be left to either faith or unbelief - as no evidence has YET been found. I find this position no different than that of the evolutionists who have YET to find the missing link.

(sp)

I asked a very specific question, and, again, youâve gone spinning off on another tangent.
You stated that individuals in this thread claim that since Genesis is full of allegory, then âno part of scripture on either a literature, historical or philosophical context is trueâ. Please provide an example (or examples) and be as specific as possible. If you are unable to do that, perhaps you will come to appreciate some of the frustration with your debating style.
01/14/2008 01:00:39 PM · #1300
Originally posted by milo655321:
Read these two statements separated from their context:

Or, to put it even more plainly for those with interpretation impairment:

Some people present good arguments that Jesus never existed.
Therefore, Jesus never existed.

This is the same kind of fallacy as the Pythonesque one:

All fish live underwater.
All mackerel are fish.
Therefore, trout live in trees.

:-)

Pages:   ... [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] ... [65]
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:47:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:47:45 PM EDT.