Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
NGO charities like Bernardo's who help families and children would be considered a political entity under such a broad umbrella,

Any processes within an NGO that sought to apply authority to the governance of the organization's affairs, to decide upon rules and regulations, and to define the rights and responsibilities of the organization's members or employees, would be in the small p political realm, certainly.

Originally posted by FMF
Any processes within an NGO that sought to apply authority to the governance of the organization's affairs, to decide upon rules and regulations, and to define the rights and responsibilities of the organization's members or employees, would be in the small p political realm, certainly.

ok I think I get it now, everything that governs with laws, that seeks to regulate behaviour is a political entity, even something like the laws of aerodynamics which regulate the behaviour of aircraft or gravity which govern the behaviour of planets must under such a definition be considered political. It makes complete sense. 😕

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am asking you about Christ statement and the fact that no first century Christian held public office and how we are to reconcile this to your claim that the Bible was written for political purposes. it simply does not make any sense, sorry and nothing you have said seems able to reconcile it.

I don't see how Christ's statement alters the purpose of the Bible in its entirety. If there were a rule that said members of group X (Christianity) must not hold public office with group Y (let's say the Romans) then such a rule would be a small p political arrangement for those who were members of group X.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok I think I get it now, everything that governs with laws, that seeks to regulate behaviour is a political entity, even something like the laws of aerodynamics which regulate the behaviour of aircraft or gravity which govern the behaviour of planets must under such a definition be considered political. It makes complete sense. 😕

Anyone seeking to govern societies with laws that regulate behaviour is operating in a political realm and with political purpose. Things like the "laws" of aerodynamics and gravity are not in the realm of politics as they are simply technical descriptions of physical facts about the natural environment and are not the result of people deliberating on how to organize the societies they live in and how to govern their interactions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What are we to make of the FACT that Christ himself would not become embroiled in political struggles and stated that he and his followers were 'no part of the world' including the worlds political institutions.

Not sure that's a fact. Do you have a reliable source for that?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Not sure that's a fact. Do you have a reliable source for that?

It is a piece of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine extrapolated from John 17:15-16, in a similar way to how they choose to extrapolate 'no blood transfusions' from Acts 15: 28-29.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Do you have a reliable source for that?

The bible is reliable? Or did you mean accepted.

Originally posted by apathist
The bible is reliable? Or did you mean accepted.

The bible is not a reliable historical source. If the bible is the only source, it cannot be considered a fact.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Not sure that's a fact. Do you have a reliable source for that?

All that is known about the Christ is written in scripture but you will not accept that still it would be easy to demonstrate from scripture that Christians were not to hold any political office. As for early Christians not holding political office this is well known and understood.

In The Early Church, historian Henry Chadwick says that the early Christian congregation was known for its “indifference to the possession of power in this world.” It was a “non-political, quietist, and pacifist community.”

A History of Christianity says: “There was a conviction widely held among Christians that none of their number should hold office under the state . . . As late as the beginning of the third century Hippolytus said that historic Christian custom required a civic magistrate to resign his office as a condition of joining the Church.”

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.

“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.

They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire. Some indulgence might, perhaps, be allowed to those persons who, before their conversion, were already engaged in such violent and sanguinary occupations; but it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes. -

http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/Gibbon.htm

How many Historians would you like?

Originally posted by FMF
It is a piece of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine extrapolated from John 17:15-16, in a similar way to how they choose to extrapolate 'no blood transfusions' from Acts 15: 28-29.

Oh dear let me extract that foot for it seems to be protruding from your mouth in a most unseemly manner. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see how Christ's statement alters the purpose of the Bible in its entirety. If there were a rule that said members of group X (Christianity) must not hold public office with group Y (let's say the Romans) then such a rule would be a small p political arrangement for those who were members of group X.

It cannot be reconciled with your ludicrous claim, sorry and what is more history is testifying against you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear let me extract that foot for it seems to be protruding from your mouth in a most unseemly manner. 😵

You said "What are we to make of the FACT that Christ himself would not become embroiled in political struggles and stated that he and his followers were 'no part of the world' including the worlds political institutions."

I believe you are referring to John 17:15-16 which says: "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it."

If, when you typed the words 'no part of the world', you were not referring to John 17:15-16, you should just say so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It cannot be reconciled with your ludicrous claim, sorry and what is more history is testifying against you.

If you don't think the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs, then you should just come out and say so.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Am glad you are looking to spend more time on this issue. Perhaps you have realised it is not such a minor issue after all?

But please, don't get distracted by the donkey. Instead, try to look objectively as to 'why' it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem, and understand how this impacts on all other biblical prophecies, in r ...[text shortened]... divinely inspired. There's no scope or resilience to even a minor infallibility or fabrication.

Am glad you are looking to spend more time on this issue. Perhaps you have realised it is not such a minor issue after all?

What is more significant is the personality, character, words, impact, and expression of Jesus. I mean "We don't know where He was born" is not a question of no signifcance. But if you don't take what it says, you still have a Person born somewhere.

The significance of the way He lives and how He speaks kind of overshadows the mechanics of things related to the traveling of His parents back and forth to Bethlehem.

My belief has long been that when the wise men came from the East to find this "born king" of Israel, Jesus was about two years old. This is different from much of the art work which shows three wise men in a stable gazing at a baby.

The child Jesus was, I believe, about two years old with His Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. Mathew does not say they went into a baby in a manger in a stable. Mathew and Luke, ( who does talk about the shepherds going to see a baby in a manger), were not covering exactly the same events, I think.

According to Matthew Herod had all the boys killed who were two years and under in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16).

I am vaguely aware of controversies that such a genocide is hard to find reported in Jewish records. I am not a newbie at being aware of so-called "higher criticism" from some professors.


But please, don't get distracted by the donkey. Instead, try to look objectively as to 'why' it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem, and understand how this impacts on all other biblical prophecies, in regards to their credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thankyou. And I would say to you visa versa. The detail you've chosen to quibble about is comparatively insignificant, I think, to the words, deeds, personality, power of testimony borne by the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you want me to believe Galilean fishermen gathered around and decided to concoct a fictitious person Jesus and plant words in His mouth as a hoax ? What did it do for them to fabricate such a fiction except cost them them much persecution and death?

The donkey was just an example of things people can FIND to complain about if they want to. In fact there was a controversy over how many donkeys were involved in the entrance into Jerusalem. There was a "Two Ass Theory" years ago. I think it was two asses that came up with the theory.

So I would say vica versa. I still regard this "How did they travel back to Bethlehem?" to be mostly a distraction from the power of the personality of Jesus Christ.



That's the down side of the entire bible being divinely inspired. There's no scope or resilience to even a minor infallibility or fabrication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, let's see. I would like you to name another single book written on earth, which in as many words as you find occurring between Genesis chapters one and 10, that tells us this many things:

1.) the origin of the heavens and the earth
2.) the origin of living things
3.) the origin of the creation of human beings
4.) the origin of a seven day week
5.) the origin of the institution of marriage
6.) the names of the first man and woman
7.) the origin of the design of man
8.) the origin of the names of the animals
9.) the origin of sin and wrong doing
10.) the origin of death
11.) the origin of clothing
12.) the origin of the first worship of God
13.) the origin of the first man-made religion
14.) the first murder
15.) the first city built
16.) the origin of musical performance
12.) the origin of workers with metals
13.) the origin of agriculture industry
14.) the origin of polygamy
15.) the origin of calling on God by name
16.) the longest living man
17.) the reason for divine judgment
18.) the first record of divine salvation from divine judgment
19.) the origin of human government
20.) the origin of monotheism
21.) the origin of the diversity of human languages
22.) the origin of the scatter and spread of people over the earth

I would like to you submit ONE book with as many words as it takes in Genesis chapters 1 through 11 to describe this many things of interest to humanity.

I got persuaded that I am dealing with a book divinely inspired.
It was a gradual process. But I eventually got persuaded.

I await your candidate for another one book that tells man as much in as many words as the book of Genesis 1 through 10 (maybe 11 too).