Jack Chick is the man!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is this from the Bible, the source of all truth?

Nooooooooooo. It's from my (and a host of other folks'😉 observations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nooooooooooo. It's from my (and a host of other folks'😉 observations.

In sameness there is strength, eh? Rather unimaginative even for someone of your extremely limited intellect.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While I agree that denominations and schisms within the body of Christ represents a harsh indictment upon the members, the same do not necessarily negate the message of the Bible.

There is only one truth, regardless the subject matter. If we were to use consensual agreement as the barometer for the rightness of any given field, we could fairly conclude that nothing is true... which we know is not true.

I am not saying that the differences of opinion reflect the validity of the Bible, but rather the reasons for accepting a particular interpretation as truth, lack a logical arguement.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(Incidentally, if you have done one or more of these things, I can chose an example from a completely different field - but I think you're smart enough to get my point.)

Yes I get your point and on the whole agree with it. However, if I choose to study astrophysics I will be able to independantly decide on the validity of the arguement based on logical deductions. I have found in life that many things that I was taught as fact were not actually so. However most people who do study astrophysics agree on all the basic facts as there are logical undeniable reasons for accepting them. This is not the case with interpretation of the Bible so I could conclude that if there are logical reasons for a particular interpretation then they are not very pursuasive reasons, or people have other good reasons for not accepting them, just like many Christians will not accept any science they consider conflicts with their religion however conclusive the proof.


Here, I disagree. For instance, you can criticise a fellow Christian by pointing out that his interpretation does not follow from his own hermeneutic/exegetical principles; or that they are flawed in some way (logical, historical, philosophical). None of these entail a "you're wrong because I say so" argument.
I am yet to meet a Christian whos own principles were self consistent. Which is why I got involved in this particular debate in the first place, if your own beliefs are inconsistent and illogical, then criticizing anothers for the being inconsistent and illogical is merely saying that they are different but not worse or more wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not saying that the differences of opinion reflect the validity of the Bible, but rather the reasons for accepting a particular interpretation as truth, lack a logical arguement.

How so? The Greek is more than a little specific, and the Hebrew, while at turns poetic, is nonetheless focused in meaning.

Originally posted by David C
Viewpoints:

Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

Any takers?

It's all very simple: We're ALL going to hell. If not our own, then someone else's.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said no logical reason at all but more a statement of personal belief.

[b]As for the choice of the books, this was largely decided by the Christian community. The books which fitted what the communities knew of Jesus, were gradually assimilated. They were not "chosen" but just became popular.
Interesting that you have studied the text of the ...[text shortened]... ns today more or less ignore or even deny all writing outside those chosen to be in the Bible.[/b]

As I said no logical reason at all but more a statement of personal belief.

Its nothing like belief. Once you have the correct translation and the authenticity of the text is established, an exegesis is a faily logical interpretation. Lots of people fail exegesises because they take a too personal and belief-orientated approach.

Interesting that you have studied the text of the Bible but know very little of its history.
Many people think that the Church selected all the books and then suppressed all to the contrary. This is reallly not true. The gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke are known to have been in popular use at least 180CE which is aroud the time any gnostics (the contradicting "secret" stories that everyone loves because of the Da Vinci Code) were known to be in crculation. This suggests that the gnostics had been rejected by the communities.
Also why do most Christians today more or less ignore or even deny all writing outside those chosen to be in the Bible.

Read them. You'll see. There's a great one (I forget the name) that portrays Jesus killing a child and sending a village blind. The fact that this "gospel" was not accepted since its inception indicates that it's content was against the communities understanding of Jesus (and the community would know best). Basically, the five main communities (I can only remember Antioch of Syria and Rome) would only accept the familiar story they had learnt from the church fathers. The gospel of Thomas, Magdelane, and Phillip are so remote that the communites rejected them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I get your point and on the whole agree with it. However, if I choose to study astrophysics I will be able to independantly decide on the validity of the arguement based on logical deductions. I have found in life that many things that I was taught as fact were not actually so. However most people who do study astrophysics agree on all the basic facts ...[text shortened]... onsistent and illogical is merely saying that they are different but not worse or more wrong.

However, if I choose to study astrophysics I will be able to independantly decide on the validity of the arguement based on logical deductions.

I don't know if you can always use deduction, but that's a side-issue. The point is - Biblical hermeneutics is no different. You need to learn ancient Hebrew, Greek (and possibly Aramaic as well) along with principles of composition in those times.

However most people who do study astrophysics agree on all the basic facts as there are logical undeniable reasons for accepting them.

Most Biblical scholars will agree on the basic facts as well. They do differ on subtleties of interpretation - but this is true in astrophysics as well. For instance, not all astronomers adhere to the Big Bang theory (as 'established' as it is) - there are still Steady State adherents. And, once one goes to specific theories, there is plenty of disagreement between scientists.

I am yet to meet a Christian whos own principles were self consistent.

Can you be more specific? Also, are you being fair in evaluating individual Christians who may not be Biblical scholars, just as I would be unfair in dissing your astrophysical views because you do not have a PhD in astrophysics?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How so? The Greek is more than a little specific, and the Hebrew, while at turns poetic, is nonetheless focused in meaning.

And yet when we ask for explanations of cirtain phrases on these forums we are never given a specific translation from the Greek but are rather refered to those Secret Decoder Rings or statements like "You have to believe to understand scripture"

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet when we ask for explanations of cirtain phrases on these forums we are never given a specific translation from the Greek but are rather refered to those Secret Decoder Rings or statements like "You have to believe to understand scripture"

Funny, I remember someone just recently wanting to reveal for all the inconsistencies in the Bible, by citing three seemingly inexplicable passages from the OT. They were successfully 'resolved' inside of thirty words.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Its nothing like belief. Once you have the correct translation and the authenticity of the text is established, an exegesis is a faily logical interpretation. Lots of people fail exegesises because they take a too personal and belief-orientated approach.

And yet people disagree on what the correct translation is and as far as I know the authenticity of the text has never been established. And why is a belief oriented approach wrong? And does exegesises somehow explain away all the contradictions, if not what is the answer when there are two alternatives?

Many people think that the Church selected all the books and then suppressed all to the contrary. This is really not true. The gospels Mark, Matthew and Luke are known to have been in popular use at least 180CE which is aroud the time any gnostics (the contradicting "secret" stories that everyone loves because of the Da Vinci Code) were known to be in crculation. This suggests that the gnostics had been rejected by the communities.
You have a very biased approach. As discussed in another thread it goes something like this:
First of the four gospels
50 years pass
last of the four gospesl
50 years pass
Gospel of Judas.
I dont know where other writings like the Gospel of Thomas fits in here.
Why do you separate "The communities" and "The gnostics" surely the gnostics were a community? Are you saying it was a majority thing?
Do you have any good references which show that conflicting texts were not suppressed?

Read them. You'll see. There's a great one (I forget the name) that portrays Jesus killing a child and sending a village blind. The fact that this "gospel" was not accepted since its inception indicates that it's content was against the communities understanding of Jesus (and the community would know best). Basically, the five main communities (I can only remember Antioch of Syria and Rome) would only accept the familiar story they had learnt from the church fathers. The gospel of Thomas, Magdelane, and Phillip are so remote that the communites rejected them.
So all Christians today should rely on the judgement of the early Christian communities?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet when we ask for explanations of cirtain phrases on these forums we are never given a specific translation from the Greek but are rather refered to those Secret Decoder Rings or statements like "You have to believe to understand scripture"

It's seems like your "Secret Decoder Ring" statements need a ring of their own to decode. Where do I que for one?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet people disagree on what the correct translation is and as far as I know the authenticity of the text has never been established. And why is a belief oriented approach wrong? And does exegesises somehow explain away all the contradictions, if not what is the answer when there are two alternatives?

[b]Many people think that the Church selected al all Christians today should rely on the judgement of the early Christian communities?[/b]

As discussed in another thread it goes something like this:
First of the four gospels
50 years pass
last of the four gospesl
50 years pass
Gospel of Judas

And that makes all the difference in the world. When the first Gospel was written, the disciples of Jesus were still around to ensure factual correctness. This is not true of the Gospel of Judas.

What's more, people forget that the last thing that Gnostics were interested in was historical accuracy - it's clear from their philosophy why that is so.

So all Christians today should rely on the judgement of the early Christian communities?

In matters of faith and doctrine, yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As discussed in another thread it goes something like this:

The earliest complete manuscripts of any of the four synoptics are dated to the Codecii Vaticanus (325 CE) and Sinaiticus (350 CE). Any mention of the gospel(s) prior to this are likely interpolations or outright forgeries by Church fathers such as Eusebius. The events described or the historical backdrop may date to 60-100 CE, but the actual texts themselves date from the same era as the Gospel of Thomas, Judas etc. AFAIK, any fragmentary documents are of questionable origin and essentially undateable.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Everytime you post, you merely confirm what you try in vain to conceal.

I'll decline to respond to your ad hominems other than to suggest that you check the definition of exegesis. Unless, perhaps, you feel that eisegesis would be more appropriate in Chick's case. Certainly, he has put more into interpreting NT scripture than your average Sunday warrior.

I'll only ask this of you: on what specifically, from your "humanistic viewpoint", do you disagree with Jack Chick? Certainly not on "salvation is only acheived through the non-meritorious work of Jesus Christ on the cross" thing. Presumably, then, it's his delivery.

Let me try one out on you. Since some Roman Catholics feel they can get to heaven by their works, and pray to statues of the Virgin Mary....are they slated for the Lake of Toasted Marshmellows with heathens like me?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp