14 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillFirstly we must assume that Matthew was telling the truth (not using poetic license etc).
The audience seemed to think that what they heard was quite unique.
[b]"And when Jesus finished these words, the crouds were astounded at His teaching. For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes." (Matt. 7:28,29)
They were "astounded" at His teaching. It must not have therefore sounded like old rehash.
And confirming miracles occured immediately after that demonstrated His divine authority.[/b]
Secondly, his audience was probably mostly poor, illiterate and had not heard very many speeches before. If you give a speach in nearly any part of the world today with poor uneducated folk I am sure you could astound them with almost anything from Shakespere (if you put it in modern English) to Obama.
The fact that the audience was astounded is hardly evidence that it was not an old rehash.
The bit about 'confirming miracles' is irrelevant as whether or not he had 'divine authority' has nothing to do with whether his message was unique.
14 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill i am sorry that you must listen to such ill informed and ignorant codswallop from persons who know absolutely less than zero about the scriptures they are seeking to repudiate, my goodness, if chess has taught us nothing, it has taught us to at least be versed in our adversaries variations. is it not worthy of note, that the Pharisees and Sadducees, lawyers and politicians in today's rhetoric were also, astounded at his teaching', one could hardly call them 'ignorant', although i suppose the original poster of this ill informed query would be more knowledgeable on this, his chosen subject, 'ignorance of the scriptures', than even a 10 year old Christian child, well versed in scripture could lay claim.
===============================
the sermon on the mount has no new ideas in it, it is simply represented in a new way.
==================================[/b]
The audience seemed to think that what they heard was quite unique.
"And when Jesus finished these words, the crouds were astounded at His teaching. For He taught them as One And confirming miracles occured immediately after that demonstrated His divine authority.
Therefore the officers went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, and the latter said to them: “Why is it you did not bring him in?” The officers replied: “Never has another man spoken like this.” - John 7:45,46
14 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead==================================
Firstly we must assume that Matthew was telling the truth (not using poetic license etc).
Secondly, his audience was probably mostly poor, illiterate and had not heard very many speeches before. If you give a speach in nearly any part of the world today with poor uneducated folk I am sure you could astound them with almost anything from Shakespere (if yo ther or not he had 'divine authority' has nothing to do with whether his message was unique.
Firstly we must assume that Matthew was telling the truth (not using poetic license etc).
===================================
I can assure you that the athiest, such as yourself, is starting out with a conviction that neither Matthew or any other Gospel writer is telling the truth. With the athiest it is a given that the Bible is not telling the truth no matter what it is telling. So your "first" may have a kind of objective sound to it, but it is fraught with skeptical bias.
You're looking for reasons to not believe.
=====================================
Secondly, his audience was probably mostly poor, illiterate and had not heard very many speeches before.
==========================================
I think this is someone proud of modern man. The assumption is that people of two millennia ago could not be just as skeptical, discerning, and critical as today's people are.
They may not have had modern science. But they had human experience plenty. And they could listen and compare with what they knew of human experience. Anger has not changed in all these years. Neither has adultery, anxiety, unforgiveness, theft, lack of enthuisiasm for things Godly, unbelief, imperialism, greed, grudges, unthankfulness to God, etc. These things plagued that generation as they do our own.
I don't buy the "poor, illiterate" crowd theory, that they could not critically compare what Jesus was saying to their daily life experience.
===================================
If you give a speach in nearly any part of the world today with poor uneducated folk I am sure you could astound them with almost anything from Shakespere (if you put it in modern English) to Obama.
The fact that the audience was astounded is hardly evidence that it was not an old rehash.
===================================
I think this is rather arrogant or elitest of you. I think I'll trust what Matthew wrote. He was a tax collector turned disciple.
The questions asked Jesus in the Gospels reflect thoughtful people who could grill a teaching just as well as anyone could today. Thomas, one of the twelve, demanded empirical proof of Christ's resurrection. That was very scientific of him.
John records lawyers trying to trap Jesus in contradiction. There were educated people in His audiences also. And unschooled people can be very discerning too.
I find it much more profitable to simply take the witness of the Gospel writers at face value. When they speak of unbelief, they do so frankly and realistically. When they speak of the crowd being impressed, they do so credibly. And when they speak of the misunderstanding of the crowds, which were frequent, they also do that candidly.
They were not always impressed with what Jesus taught. This is one instance in which they were. I take it at face value as I take other portions which discribe their staunch rejection of what Jesus said.
Afterall, those who were at one time impressed seemed to have found reason latter to have Him crucified. And of all the people He taught and held only 120 were left at the end, to remain together prayerfully.
By worldly standards that's not too many totally convinced people after speaking to thousands over the course of three and one half years.
=====================================
The bit about 'confirming miracles' is irrelevant as whether or not he had 'divine authority' has nothing to do with whether his message was unique.
=====================================
No it is not irrelevant. It is very relevant. In other words Jesus really praticed what He preached. When He spoke of the "kingdom of God" He also ACTED like a Godly KING should, with authority.
14 Apr 09
This arrogance about education can be puzzling. I lived in the Boston area where there is Harvard and MIT and many other top colloges. Then I moved to the bucolic southern area in North Carolina.
I found less educated country folks to be extremly sharp about many things of human life. They could see through a scam faster than you could say Jimmidy Cricket.
Have to go now.
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillYet like it or not it is an important point that you clearly would not like to think about. If you wish to show that Jesus astounded his audience then you have at least give reasonable cause for us to believe that the sole reporter of the event (who did not witness it himself anyway) was telling the truth and further based his report on reliable information and was not embellishing the tale (as is normal in such circumstances).
I can assure you that the athiest, such as yourself, is starting out with a conviction that neither Matthew or any other Gospel writer is telling the truth. With the athiest it is a given that the Bible is not telling the truth no matter what it is telling. So your "first" may have a kind of objective sound to it, but it is fraught with skeptical bias.
You're looking for reasons to not believe.
I think this is someone proud of modern man. The assumption is that people of two millennia ago could not be just as skeptical, discerning, and critical as today's people are.
You seem to have missed the fact that I quite clearly stated that todays people are no different.
I don't buy the "poor, illiterate" crowd theory, that they could not critically compare what Jesus was saying to their daily life experience.
Maybe I am not following the argument at all. I thought we were discussing whether or not Jesus' message was unique not whether or not the crowd could critically compare what Jesus was saying to their daily life. If anything I fully agree with you, they would be astounded for exactly that reason. But that does not in anyway show that his message was unique.
He was a tax collector turned disciple.
I rather doubt that. The Mathew who wrote the Gospel almost certainly never met Jesus.
The questions asked Jesus in the Gospels reflect thoughtful people who could grill a teaching just as well as anyone could today. Thomas, one of the twelve, demanded empirical proof of Christ's resurrection. That was very scientific of him.
What has that got to do with the crowd on the mount?
Why cant you follow whats being discussed instead of going off on a tangent?
I find it much more profitable to simply take the witness of the Gospel writers at face value. When they speak of unbelief, they do so frankly and realistically. When they speak of the crowd being impressed, they do so credibly. And when they speak of the misunderstanding of the crowds, which were frequent, they also do that candidly.
Yet you fail completely to address the main thrust of my argument which was that we would expect them to be impressed but that is not evidence that the message was unique. I can find you plenty of impressed crowds all over the world at any point in history listening to 'old rehash'.
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillBut would they or would they not be impressed if you spouted Shakesphere? I was not arguing that the crowd was undiscerning but merely that it is unlikely that they had read the Greek philosophers or any other ancient texts that put forward the same arguments. The fact that they were impressed does not in any way indicate that nobody else said the same things but merely that the members of the crowd probably had not heard those things before.
This arrogance about education can be puzzling. I lived in the Boston area where there is Harvard and MIT and many other top colloges. Then I moved to the bucolic southern area in North Carolina.
I found less educated country folks to be extremly sharp about many things of human life. They could see through a scam faster than you could say Jimmidy Cricket.
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you insist on offering words from the Bible as evidence to prove something?
Jaywill i am sorry that you must listen to such ill informed and ignorant codswallop from persons who know absolutely less than zero about the scriptures they are seeking to repudiate, my goodness, if chess has taught us nothing, it has taught us to at least be versed in our adversaries variations. is it not worthy of note, that the Pharisees and Sa ...[text shortened]... g him in?” The officers replied: “Never has another man spoken like this.” - John 7:45,46
The Bible is rife with much content that is simply unacceptable, wrong, foolish, or downright evil by modern civilized standards.
To quote the Bible is not to offer evidence of a fact. Period. Full stop.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it may be from a joke site but the verses are real
http://www.funny.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Funny.woa/wa/funny?fn=CIRLM&Funny_Jokes=Dear_Dr_Laura
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan, Jim
14 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Scriabini would be very skeptical about citing any references from Zahlanzi the pansy, for while he is an interesting fellow and i do genuinely like his posts, the condescension and abuse aside, he suffers from spiritual myopia, and we find that on reflection, things may become hazy if we were also to succumb in such a manner. It is very simple my learned friend, for we have reasoned and concluded that it contains incontrovertible evidence of inspiration, many instances of which i have already outlined to you, therefore, what i have to say is of limited value, even questionable, being the product of an imperfect and incomplete reasoning for i simply do not have all the facts, if on the other hand the scriptures are inspired, then you have divine wisdom, far superior to anything i could give.
Why do you insist on offering words from the Bible as evidence to prove something?
The Bible is rife with much content that is simply unacceptable, wrong, foolish, or downright evil by modern civilized standards.
To quote the Bible is not to offer evidence of a fact. Period. Full stop.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]it may be from a joke n for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan, Jim[/b]
you mention homosexuality, to the Orthodox Jew, to the Muslim, and according to scripture it is an abomination. now you could , unless you had the whole picture, reason that God hates homosexuals, that they are deserving of death etc etc, however, on further inspection, we can readily determine, that its not the individual themselves, but the act of homosexuality that is condemned, and that the adherent of scripture, while under duress to love the person, does not in anyway mean, that we must love what they do! this raises that ancient and somewhat legalistic issue, whether we have a right of self determination in matters of morality, or whether God, has the right to determine the boundaries, so to speak, each and everyone must come to their own conclusion, but if you have convinced yourself that the Bible contains divine wisdom, then the choice is crystal clear, is it not?
14 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabinactually between you and me it was just a cheap dig at Whitey, for i have resolved not to speak to him unless he says something positive to me 😉
Why do you insist on offering words from the Bible as evidence to prove something?
The Bible is rife with much content that is simply unacceptable, wrong, foolish, or downright evil by modern civilized standards.
To quote the Bible is not to offer evidence of a fact. Period. Full stop.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]it may be from a joke n for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan, Jim[/b]
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh!
actually between you and me it was just a cheap dig at Whitey, for i have resolved not to speak to him unless he says something positive to me 😉
Expect nothing from the people; and keep up begging them to give them your life for free ye lang leggedy beastie😵
14 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow revealing.
i would be very skeptical about citing any references from Zahlanzi the pansy, for while he is an interesting fellow and i do genuinely like his posts, the condescension and abuse aside, he suffers from spiritual myopia, and we find that on reflection, things may become hazy if we were also to succumb in such a manner. It is very simple my learned fr ...[text shortened]... ced yourself that the Bible contains divine wisdom, then the choice is crystal clear, is it not?
you say "evidence of inspiration" is enough?
I've seen a lot of that in modern literature to wonder why you've singled out that particular pile of old, translated folk tales.
you say " the adherent of scripture, while under duress to love the person, does not in anyway mean, that we must love what they do! this raises that ancient and somewhat legalistic issue, whether we have a right of self determination in matters of morality, or whether God, has the right to determine the boundaries, so to speak,"
Out of this pile of irrational manure, I can (if I hold my nose) extract something of a premise that stands in contradiction to the only thing of which I am relatively certain in life: the rule of law is above the rule of any one person or group of persons -- no one is above the law.
And the law is not given by "divine inspiration" or read out from just any source, Bible or no. Law is the product of a process of lawmaking that rests on the consent of those made subject to the laws.
That is why whatever the various religious texts from various religions may have to say on human conduct, they are of no practical import or significance.
The only question that remains at the heart of this is one you seem unable to recognize or appreciate.
That question is who decides and under what authority? That is why I say what you've put there is manure -- for it depends on an invisible friend whom anyone can claim inspires them to act out their beliefs.
The questions related to the right and wrong of human actions are not decided merely by each individual. Each person must accept the responsibility that comes as a necessary consequent of individual freedom, and we all possess to one degree or another freedom of will. However, those who would hold individuals accountable for their choices in acting out their will are not some vague, hazy concept of "God", whatever that might be. Nor is the decision regarding the right and wrong or lawfulness of an action decided by what some religious official declares his sacred text dictates. These decisions are matters that must be determined in the real world by real laws carried out by real persons who may impose rather serious consequences on other, real persons.
Three Somali pirates just served as an object lesson in how this chain of command works under law.
It is too bad that one has to report other kinds of decisions made when religious fanatics take charge of real world legal matters based on their own "inspiration":
Taliban executes 14-year-old girl for planning to elope
A 14-year-old girl and her boyfriend have been executed by a Taliban firing squad after being caught eloping.
By Ben Farmer in Kabul
Last Updated: 1:24PM BST 14 Apr 2009
The pair were shot dead in front of their village mosque as their villagers looked on in south western Afghanistan, a district official said.
Hashim Noorzai, head of Khash Rud district of Nimroz province, said the girl, called Gulsima, had been unhappily engaged to marry when she fell in love with Aziz, aged 17.
The pair attempted to escape the village of Lokhi and planned to head to Iran and marry, but were captured by villagers and dragged back.
After two days of deliberation, a council of elders had been unable to decide how to resolve the dispute, Mr Noorzai said.
Half the elders favoured some way of allowing them to marry, while the other half favoured execution.
As the council was deadlocked, local Taliban militants stepped in, overruled village religious leaders and declared the lovers must be executed, he said.
Ghulam Dastageer Azad, governor of the province, said the execution was an "insult to Islam".
Nimroz, a sparsely-populated, desert province on the borders of Iran and Pakistan has little or no Afghan government or foreign presence.
Taliban militants rule large swathes of the province with impunity and dispense justice based on their own interpretations of Sharia law and tribal code.
Abdul Jabar, police chief of the province, admitted he had no police stations in the district and said and many of the fighters who summarily judged cases were themselves often no more than 18 or 19.
Across the border in Pakistan, a deal to allow Sharia law in the Swat valley has seen Taliban militants hold public executions.
Mobile phone footage appearing to show a 17-year-old woman being publicly flogged for adultery in the valley sparked international outrage earlier this month.
Under Pashtunwali, the tribal morality code in southern Afghanistan, relations between unmarried or unrelated members of opposite sexes are strictly regulated.
Extrajudicial "honour killings" are also practised by families who believe a relative has brought them shame, including by refusing to marry a chosen partner.
The Taliban swept to power in the mid 1990s by offering strict justice and Islamic order after years of chaotic rule by predatory and rapacious warlords.
Their travelling justice commissions continue to settle disputes in much of the lawless south where the government has no power and traditional tribal power has been eroded by decades of war.
14 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Scriabinwading through, up to my knees in misconception and an utter and complete failure to understand the issues at hand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will dismiss the defendants lewd claims to horse manure and irrationality, for the evidence before the court is now almost incontrovertible! (this is my favorite word at the moment, i stole it from pink floyd, the wall),
how revealing.
you say "evidence of inspiration" is enough?
I've seen a lot of that in modern literature to wonder why you've singled out that particular pile of old, translated folk tales.
you say " the adherent of scripture, while under duress to love the person, does not in anyway mean, that we must love what they do! this raises that ancient a nt has no power and traditional tribal power has been eroded by decades of war.
anyhow, to wit, is it not so that each individual decides each and every day, whether they will submit to the law or not, and yes each and every day, persons for one reason or another, contravene that law! is it not so?, from minor offenses of the traffic ordinance to murders and thievery etc.
what infact are they doing, if they contravene the law in a premeditated fashion? they are deciding for themselves, what is acceptable and what is not, regardless of Law, thus Gods universal sovereignty is similar, you can choose to submit to it or not, the decision is entirely a personal one, regardless of its actuality or existence or enforcement, hopefully the analogy is sound and you grasp what i am saying.
Now this brings us on to another, in my opinion, incredibly interesting topic, what happens when one is ignorant of the law? does it negate ones duty, oh i am sorry Mr. Procurator of Fiscal, i did not know it was an offense to run that chess player down, i thought if he played that move, it was perfectly legitimate, no, ignorance is not an excuse.
what have we to say then, that there is a law, the human conscience which governs all humanity, did not the Nuremberg trials, contrived and engineered specifically for the purpose at hand, its admitted, but never the less, did they not establish that there are laws which are inherent in every human, laws based on conscience, thus the Nazis could not state that they were simply following orders, for these 'innate human laws', should have overridden their allegiance to state, therefore, by definition, there does seem to be a law, which is above state Law, the law of human conscience and furthermore, what also seems to be true, is that this Law is governed on an individual basis!
Now the surprising and to me totally amazing element is, where does this sense of justice come from? for in every culture there is a sense of it, is it not the case? i therefore purport to state that this Law is only explicable by considering it to be of a divine nature, a reflection of the creators justice, for to be perfectly honest, it seems incredible and totally superfluous, that a species that is supposed to have reached its zenith through competition and annihilation of the weakest elements, should have developed such a noble and virtuous quality, don't you think?
as for the Taliban and the Nazis, please believe me, it is very harrowing for me to read these accounts, if I may at some other occasion, for i fear already that i have bored you with my long post, that we could discuss this and why it happens, for i have a theory that you could perhaps confirm or dismiss - kind regards Robbie.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by duecerThen we disagree. While I provided backing for what I say, you have provided none. Where else are these non-original ideas?
the sermon on the mount has no new ideas in it, it is simply represented in a new way.
parables were a common form of teaching, not unique to christ. I stand by my original post.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno, I do not think there is anything particularly noble or virtuous about human beings. We flatter ourselves while lying through our teeth, especially to ourselves.
wading through, up to my knees in misconception and an utter and complete failure to understand the issues at hand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will dismiss the defendants lewd claims to horse manure and irrationality, for the evidence before the court is now almost incontrovertible! (this is my favorite word at the moment, i stole it from ...[text shortened]... happens, for i have a theory that you could perhaps confirm or dismiss - kind regards Robbie.
Everything can be justified, we are never to blame. We admit error or confess transgressions only when we can use that for some personal gain. That is human nature and it is what it has always been, past, present and I expect the same in the future.
And you persist again in shifting your ground to find some flimsy, worn out, tired old argument insisting that things go better with Coke, or God, whatever. The so-called moral argument for the existence of God argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
Not true.
Our sense of justice follows from reason and does not depend on any transcendental quality either in ourselves or outside of us. Morality, ethics, law, all may be advocated and observed strictly within the bounds of the natural world.
What you call "natural" law is merely a convention to describe agreement, or acquiescence -- the consensus that defines what we know as reality.
We are arguing about words, not things. There is no "thing" that corresponds to the "divine." There is only a word, and we do not agree on what it may refer to.
I know the difference between a chair and a horse, between the floor and the ceiling, and so do you. but we know this because we both agree on how to use the words.
There is no way to USE the word "divine" and have it refer to anything besides that word. You therefore are merely MENTIONING the word "divine" and you refer to a tradition of belief that has no basis in fact as do the words "chair" and "horse."
So, again, I accuse you of talking nonsense. You aren't talking about anything -- you are just using words that have no corresponding referrant outside of thoughts whose only existence is between a pair of ears. However many of these pairs of ears share that thought does not create in being that which the word is supposed to identify. You can choose to belief in a unicorn. You can get 2 billion people to share that belief. None may ride one, nonetheless.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not surprised, it is your favorite debating tactic (pretend you are offended and stop answering questions). You have two very good reasons not talking to me in this thread:
actually between you and me it was just a cheap dig at Whitey, for i have resolved not to speak to him unless he says something positive to me 😉
1. I asked a question about the resurrection that you do not want to answer.
2. I queried your claim that earthquakes were a result of Adam and you made the mistake of not checking your post on the subject and denied having said it. I then called you on it and you are one of those people who hates to admit having made a mistake.