17 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by caissad4The fact that a certain event is mentioned in one account and not the other does not mean that the event never happened, it simply means that one author mentioned it and the other didn’t.
No, your bible is not accurate.
The much noted "water into wine miracle" is not even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Neither is the "fishes and loaves" story.
And I guess Jonah really lived in the belly of a whale.
And jesus cured diseases by casting out demons, Does that mean that doctors practice demon elimination?
Your bible is about as accurate let the truth intefere with your attempts to obfuscate.
In Love there is Life
Angela
Some history text books mention the Apollo landing and some don’t. That doesn’t mean that the Apollo landing never happened.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressNaturally, and no one would disagree with this. Angela's comparison
The fact that a certain event is mentioned in one account and not the other does not mean that the event never happened, it simply means that one author mentioned it and the other didn’t.
of the NT documents with the Dead Sea Scrolls was apples and
oranges; the two corpora of writings had two different and largely
non-overlapping foci (although Robert Eisenman has a tremendously
complicated [and speculative, I believe] volume on the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Jerusalem Church, which presents the later documents
of the latter as opposing the pro-Gentile writings of St Paul).
That having been said, the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of St
John are documents with the same aim: the life of Jesus the
Nazarene. That they disagree in a tremendous number of matters
down to the day Jesus was crucified is indicative of at least one thing:
one is not history.
The non-literalist will (rightly) object: they did not have the same aim;
the Synoptic accounts were (partial) attempts at biographical
information -- what Jesus did and where -- even if they are viewed
through the lens of (Hellensitic) Jewish Midrash. However, the Gospel
of John, unconcerned with historical truth, is presenting a powerful
symbolic account that, while sacrificing earthly biography,
chronicles a spiritual journey and, thereby, communicates what the
author believed to be an accurate picture of the Spiritual or Divine
Truth which Jesus represented.
Nemesio
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioThe gospels also support one another “in a tremendous number of matters.” What contradictions do you speak of?
Naturally, and no one would disagree with this. Angela's comparison
of the NT documents with the Dead Sea Scrolls was apples and
oranges; the two corpora of writings had two different and largely
non-overlapping foci (although Robert Eisenman has a tremendously
complicated [and speculative, I believe] volume on the Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Jerusalem ...[text shortened]... n accurate picture of the [b]Spiritual or Divine
Truth which Jesus represented.
Nemesio[/b]
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioIt’s the bizarreness and senselessness of the passages I cited that makes them noteworthy.
Well, that's one form of cultural relativity. That is, you are applying it with
respect two contemporary cultures.
But it can apply to two cultures 1000s of years apart. This is why I emphasize context
with you, Chess Express, is because you are being relativistic in your readings, imposing
bizarre 21st-century interpretations that would have made no sense to the authors and
barely make sense today.
Nemesio
"What does the Bible say about the number of stars? Jeremiah writes: ‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant’ (Jeremiah 33:22). At that time, when men of learning were convinced that there were only about 3,000 stars, Jeremiah wrote that nobody would be able to count the stars.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stars.asp
If modern science told Jeremiah that there were only 3000 stars, how bizarre and senseless would it be for him to say that the stars are uncountable in number because God told him so? It would be akin to saying that there were an infinite number of people in Jerusalem.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe men of the time would reasonably conclude that the number of stars were countable, since we can see them and count them, but it would be very difficult. I think the Scripture was saying that counting the descendants of David would be as difficult as counting the number of stars in the sky.
It’s the bizarreness and senselessness of the passages I cited that makes them noteworthy.
"What does the Bible say about the number of stars? Jeremiah writes: ‘As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant’ (Jeremiah 33:22). At that time, when men of learning wer ...[text shortened]... d him so? It would be akin to saying that there were an infinite number of people in Jerusalem.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWhen did Jesus raid the money changers, at the beginning or end of His ministry?
The gospels also support one another “in a tremendous number of matters.” What contradictions do you speak of?
Whom did Jesus stand before and in what order after His arrest?
When was Jesus crucified, before or after the Passover Seder?
What do the Beatitudes say?
How do you account for the omission of, say, the Raising of Lazarus (a remarkable
miracle) from the Synoptic Gospels?
Have you written down a bullet-point itinerary of St John's account and compared
it with, say, St Luke's?
How many similarities in the story do you see?
Nemesio
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressIsn't that interesting, what you find. If Lincoln was a devout Christian, then I am the Pope by
It is clear that Abraham Lincoln devoted his life to God and the Bible. It is also clear that the Bible influenced his decision to end slavery. I frankly couldn’t care less whether or not these things are enough to meet your definition of a Christian.
comparison!
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html#14
When his Christian friends at Petersburg interfered to prevent his proposed duel with Shields, and told him that it was contrary to the teachings of the Bible and Christianity, he remarked:
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession" (Letter of W. Perkins).
---
In a discussion touching upon the paternity of Jesus, he said:
"There must have been sexual intercourse between man and woman, and not between God and his daughter."
---
"If God be a just God, all will be saved or none" (Manford's Magazine).
---
It has been stated that Lincoln was opposed in his political campaigns on account of his disbelief. This is confirmed by a letter he wrote to Martin M. Morris, of Petersburg, Ill., March 26, 1843. In this letter, he says:
"There was, too, the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose, with few exceptions. got all that church. My wife has some relatives in the Presbyterian churches, and some with the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either the one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to go for me, because I belonged to no church -- was suspected of being a Deist. ... Those influences levied a tax of a considerable per cent upon my strength throughout the religious controversy" (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 271).
---
During the war his attention was called to the notoriously bad character of army chaplains. He expressed his contempt for them, and for orthodox preachers generally, by relating the following story:
"Once, in Springfield, I was going off on a short journey, and reached the depot a little ahead of time. Leaning against the fence just outside the depot was a little darky boy, whom I knew, named Dick, busily digging with his toe in a mud-puddle. As I came up, I said, 'Dick, what are you about? 'Making a church,' said he. 'A church?' said I; 'what do you mean?' 'Why, yes,' said Dick, pointing with his toe, 'don't you see? there is the shape of it; there's the steps and front door -- here's the pews, where the folks set -- and there's the pulpit.' Yes, I see,' said I, 'but why don't you make a minister?' 'Laws,' answered Dick, with a grin, 'I hain't got mud enough'" (Anecdotes of Lincoln, p. 86).
---
When interrogated as to why he had never united with any church, Lincoln replied:
"When you show me a church based on the Golden Rule as its only creed, then I will unite with it."
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by ColettiThat’s only half the message. The other half is that the stars are like the sand in that they are uncountable.
The men of the time would reasonably conclude that the number of stars were countable, since we can see them and count them, but it would be very difficult. I think the Scripture was saying that counting the descendants of David would be as difficult as counting the number of stars in the sky.
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured:”
18 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhen did Jesus raid the money changers, at the beginning or end of His ministry?
When did Jesus raid the money changers, at the beginning or end of His ministry?
Whom did Jesus stand before and in what order after His arrest?
When was Jesus crucified, before or after the Passover Seder?
What do the Beatitudes say?
How do you account for the omission of, say, the Raising of Lazarus (a remarkable
miracle) from the Synoptic Gospels ared
it with, say, St Luke's?
How many similarities in the story do you see?
Nemesio
Whom did Jesus stand before and in what order after His arrest?
When was Jesus crucified, before or after the Passover Seder?
The Gospels were written anywhere from 60-125 AD. It’s understandable that the exact order of events may not match. The fact that there are multiple accounts of the same events is just stronger evidence that they occurred. Do the quibbles that you mentioned matter in regards to why Jesus was sent here? The Gospels all agree on the main points.
1. Jesus was the messiah
2. Jesus came to save the world from the consequences of sin.
3. Jesus was crucified to fulfill his mission.
4. Jesus rose from the dead.
These four points make up the hub of Christianity.
What do the Beatitudes say?
What contradictions have you found?
How do you account for the omission of, say, the Raising of Lazarus (a remarkable
miracle) from the Synoptic Gospels?
All four gospels account for the miracles that Jesus performed. How do you account for the fact that the Apollo landing is omitted from some history books? Different authors choose to write about different things.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioSo you found a website that says one thing, and I found a couple that say another. There are 2 conclusions you can draw from this.
Isn't that interesting, what you find. If Lincoln was a devout Christian, then I am the Pope by
comparison!
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html#14
When his Christian friends at Petersburg interfered to prevent his proposed duel with Shields, and told him that it was contrary to the teachin ...[text shortened]... n Rule as its only creed, then I will unite with it."
1. Both of our sources are right. Lincoln lost his faith for a time and then found it again.
2. One or both of our sources are wrong.
"In regards to this great Book (the Bible),
I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man.
All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.
All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it." -- Abraham Lincoln
"I believe I am an humble servant in the hands of our Heavenly Father; I desire that all my words and acts may be according to His will." -- Abraham Lincoln
“genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.” -- Abraham Lincoln
“But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us…” -- Abraham Lincoln
“Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!” -- Abraham Lincoln
http://www.eadshome.com/Lincoln.htm
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess Express3. Lincoln had faith for a time, but lost it.
1. Both of our sources are right. Lincoln lost his faith for a time and then found it again.
2. One or both of our sources are wrong.
Where do your citations come from? Letters from when? Speeches from when?
My source is offering chronological evidence which strongly supports #3.
IN the prosecution of this inquiry, the testimony of one hundred and twenty witnesses has been presented. The testimony of twenty of these witnesses is to the effect that Lincoln was a Christian; the testimony of one hundred is to the effect that he was not.
Of those who have testified in support of the claim that Lincoln was a Christian, ten admit that during a part of his life he was a disbeliever in Christianity, while not one of the remaining ten disputes the fact.
Face it: he was not devout like you claimed. He was certainly spiritual, in the same
way that Thomas Paine was spiritual, but a 'devout Christian,' c'mon!
Nemesio
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess Express
The Gospels were written anywhere from 60-125 AD. It’s understandable that the exact order of events may not match. The fact that there are multiple accounts of the same events is just stronger evidence that they occurred. Do the quibbles that you mentioned matter in regards to why Jesus was sent here?
Have you studied stemmatics by any chance? The source evidence strongly supports that
Sts Matthew's and Luke's accounts are based on St Mark's (along with Q). That there are
multiple accounts is simply a matter of the later authors' use of the earlier one in St Mark.
The processes by which these conclusions were drawn are the same that yield editions of
the Iliad or other ancient texts.
What a side-by-side examination of St Luke and St Matthew reveals, however, is that they
were redactors. They edited St Mark (and Q) to suit their theological perspective of
Jesus. That's why they report slightly (or not so slightly) different readings of their texts.
The Gospels all agree on the main points.
1. Jesus was the messiah
2. Jesus came to save the world from the consequences of sin.
3. Jesus was crucified to fulfill his mission.
4. Jesus rose from the dead.
Can you humor me and cite the Scriptural citation for 2 and 3 in all four Gospels?
What contradictions [in the Beatitudes] have you found?
Do you feel that 'Blessed are the poor' and 'Blessed are the poor in spirit' connote
the same thing?
All four gospels account for the miracles that Jesus performed. How do you account for the fact that the Apollo landing is omitted from some history books? Different authors choose to write about different things.
A history book about Apollo that failed to discuss the landing would be a poor book.
Wouldn't you agree? These are books about Jesus and His ministry. How do you
account for the fact that His landmark miracle -- raising Lazarus from the dead four
days after his expiring -- is absent in three of the texts?
Nemesio
18 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]Devout can be defined as deeply and sincerely religious, or devoted to a personal interest or cause. Lincoln was that in regards to God as I have shown with my sources. The fact that some testified that he was a Christian and some testified that he wasn’t just goes to show that people have different ideas about what being a Christian is. As the scripture tells us most people don’t even know themselves let alone somebody else. In the end it is God who decides.
3. Lincoln had faith for a time, but lost it.
Where do your citations come from? Letters from when? Speeches from when?
My source is offering chronological evidence which strongly supports #3.
IN the prosecution of this inquiry, the testimony of one hundred and twenty witnesses has been presented. The testimony of twenty of these witnesses is in the same
way that Thomas Paine was spiritual, but a 'devout Christian,' c'mon!
Nemesio
I don’t have much interest in researching this any farther. If you find five sources that say one thing and I find five that say another what does that show? It shows that people have different opinions about a man who lived over a hundred years ago. Is that surprising?
Anyway, getting back to the original discussion about cultural relativity, the point I was trying to make was that absolute relativity leaves no room for the moral advancement of society. If Lincoln and all those who came after him were strong relativists, I think we can both agree that slavery would still be in effect. After all, Lincoln was white and therefore benefited from it.
18 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Devout can be defined as deeply and sincerely religious, or devoted to a personal interest or cause. Lincoln was that in regards to God as I have shown with my sources. The fact that some testified that he was a Christian and some testified that he wasn’t just goes to show that people have different ideas about what being a Christian is. As the scripture tells us most people don’t even know themselves let alone somebody else. In the end it is God who decides.
By this standard, you would have to admit, then, that I am a devout
Christian. Do you? You certainly cannot deny that I am interested
in the Bible, and I certainly strive to espouse the tenets of compassion.
Anyway, getting back to the original discussion about cultural relativity, the point I was trying to make was that absolute relativity leaves no room for the moral advancement of society. If Lincoln and all those who came after him were strong relativists, I think we can both agree that slavery would still be in effect. After all, Lincoln was white and therefore benefited from it.
I am confused by your term 'absolute relativity.' Could you explain?
It would seem to me that if Lincoln was a cultural relativist, he
would agree that he would simply 'live and let live' and slavery would
have continued.
Can you confirm if I've understood you correctly?
Nemesio