“The Son is equal to his Father”

[Dimi95]

Therefore for either Peter (who checked Mark's gospel) or Matthew (the disciple ..for you), or Luke, to know this story but not to write it, whilst writing other minor miracles, is simply impossible.

Well , i disagree , as there might by side-effects why they did not write it and there are many possibilities(i don't rely on any specific , just i think there is enough to object what you are saying)

There is no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks.

I disagree , i understand and i don't say what you are saying is neccessary right or wrong.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...........................OK… so the rest was ok but you don’t believe He went to Hell.
What we also know is:
Psalm 86:13 For Your graciousness toward me is great, And You have saved my soul from the depths of Sheol.
and
Ephesians 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
At the least, when He took our sins on the cross, his body was marred more than any man (Isaiah 53) as He received the consequences of sin. At the most, as He went to Sheol, the lower parts of the earth, we can believe that possibly there was weeping, gnashing of teeth and torment.............................................

Dead Jesus did Not go to a 'religious-myth hell of burning forever' because there is No fire in 'sheol' biblical hell/grave.
If biblical hell/grave/sheol was a permanent place Jesus would still be there - Acts 2:27
KJV translated the word Gehenna into English as: hell fire.
Gehenna was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed.
The wicked are Not roasted but 'destroyed forever' according to Psalms 37:38; 92:7; 104:35; 145:20; Proverbs 2:21-22
The 'righteous and unrighteous' (Acts 24:15) are to be resurrected out of biblical hell/sheol the common grave of mankind.
Resurrected out of death's deep unconscious sleep - Psalms 6:5; 13:3 ; 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5
This OT teaching is why Jesus also taught and likened death to sleep and Not pain - John 11:11-14
So, there is No weeping or gnashing of teeth and torment in death ( torment is Not torture )
( In Scripture a tormentor was a jailer - Matthew 18:34,30

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But it is.
And Moses said unto Elohim, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The Elah of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?
And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:13-14

'I am that I am' is King James expression.
Rotherham's translation says, ' I will become whatsoever I please. '
The Hebrew TANACH says, ' I Shall Be as I Shall Be .'
In other words, now more insight/meaning given to the Tetragrammaton YHWH (God's Name) - KJV Psalm 83:18 B
Don't forget Genesis 22:14 and Exodus 6:3 because Abraham knew God's name
Even Pharaoh knew God's name but he did Not know it in the same way/ same meaning as Abraham and Moses knew it.
Elohim is Not the Tetragrammaton name YHWH which is often spoken as Yahweh.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Paul had prejudice against Moses:
And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2 Corinthians 3:13

2nd Corinthians 3:12-16 is in reference to Exodus 34:29-35
When Moses was read to the people 'a veil was over their eyes/hearts '.( vss 15-16 )
Jesus knew 'few' in comparison to the 'many' would truly follow him - Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:21-23.
MANY would prove false to Jesus.

 

[ppp]

That would be a subjective position, which I support you in having. I tend to view it as “they really don’t have a defense so they have to resort to sheeple statements”

Over used is not an objective standard. It is just how you feel about it. You are welcome to your subjective feelings.

Don't have a defense against what?

If the book of Acts is false and just a made up story because Iliad has places and is a made up story (when everyone knows that Iliad is a made up story) then I can extrapolate that the history of the revolution of the US is a made up story because, like Iliad, it has places and locations that in that story.

That is not the position being advanced. The position being advanced is that, with respect to credibility, the people who claimed that the god stuff of Iliad is true are indistinguishable from the credibility of people who claimed that the god stuff of Acts is true. That is simply treating historical works by the same standard.

 

[Kenny]

Over used is not an objective standard. It is just how you feel about it. You are welcome to your subjective feelings.

Absolutely… after all, we are talking about my perspective.

Don't have a defense against what?

Well.. that would depend on what one was talking about. But when they hit a portion that they don’t have an objective position, they usually resort to attacking… as the say, the best defense is a strong offense… so they attack the messenger because they don’t have a defense for their position.

That is not the position being advanced. The position being advanced is that, with respect to credibility, the people who claimed that the god stuff of Iliad is true are indistinguishable from the credibility of people who claimed that the god stuff of Acts is true. That is simply treating historical works by the same standard.

No… that would be a misapplication. We know that Iliad was a story and presented as such. The Book of Acts is presented as a historical book, a treatise. Unless one is willing to say that US History books are fictional, then one is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[ppp]

No… that would be a misapplication. We know that Iliad was a story and presented as such

I don't even need to do research to know hat is false. We have records of both pilgrimages and shrines to the homes of the heroes of the Iliad. Both Herodotus and Thucydides treated the Iliad as both cultural and historical. While Thucydides made an attempt at a more analytical i approach, he still treated the Iliad as historical, and was still clearly a believer.

What we know is that the Greeks took their religious beliefs as seriously as you take yours.

The Book of Acts is presented as a historical book, a treatise

These books are all presented as historical books. Treatises. These books all contain supernatural claims. I disregard the supernatural claims in them all equally.

• Herodotus' "Histories"
• Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War"
• Livy's "Ab Urbe Condita":
• The "Shiji" (Records of the Grand Historian)
• Acts

Unless one is willing to say that US History books are fictional, then one is comparing apples and oranges.

Some of what is in US history books is fictional. Appeals to manifest destiny. Trickle down economics. American exceptionalism.

 

[Kenny]

I don't even need to do research to know hat is false. We have records of both pilgrimages and shrines to the homes of the heroes of the Iliad. Both Herodotus and Thucydides treated the Iliad as both cultural and historical. While Thucydides made an attempt at a more analytical i approach, he still treated the Iliad as historical, and was still clearly a believer.

What we know is that the Greeks took their religious beliefs as seriously as you take yours.

Are you saying that it was historical?

If not, then it is apples and oranges.

Whether Greeks took their religious beliefs seriously, isn’t really the topic here. That would be another thread.

These books are all presented as historical books. Treatises. These books all contain supernatural claims. I disregard the supernatural claims in them all equally.

• Herodotus' "Histories"
• Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War"
• Livy's "Ab Urbe Condita":
• The "Shiji" (Records of the Grand Historian)

Are they historical?

• Acts

You haven’t really presented a case for this one.

Some of what is in US history books is fictional.

Of course, you know and I know that isn’t the application. If it is fictional, it is fictional. Why the comment if you already know which ones are fictional?

Appeals to manifest destiny. Trickle down economics. American exceptionalism.

Application?

 

[ppp]

Of course, you know and I know that isn’t the application. If it is fictional, it is fictional.

By that standard, both the Iliad and Acts are fictions written in the style of a history.

I am happy to acknowledge that the non-supernatural elements of both works contain some true statements. I dismiss the supernatural claims in both for the same reason.
.
.

 

[Kenny]

By that standard, both the Iliad and Acts are fictions written in the style of a history.

you haven’t presented support for your statement.

I am happy to acknowledge that the non-supernatural elements of both works contain some true statements. I dismiss the supernatural claims in both for the same reason.
.
.

OK… that is your prerogative. You have every right to hold that position. I don’t dismiss the supernatural

 

[ppp]

you haven’t presented support for your statement.

Presented support for what statement? I used your standard. You defend it.

 

[Kenny]

Presented support for what statement? I used your standard. You defend it.

No… you misunderstood.

I said that if YOU said that there are fictional US History stories, then we already know they are fictional, so why mention it. I didn’t equate the Iliad the same as Acts.

My standard is that if you said “Iliad is fictional therefore Acts is fictional” - that would be apples and oranges.

 

[Dimi95]

By that standard, both the Iliad and Acts are fictions written in the style of a history.

I am happy to acknowledge that the non-supernatural elements of both works contain some true statements. I dismiss the supernatural claims in both for the same reason.
.
.

I have a question

Is the content 'standard' for textual criticism?

 

[ppp]

My standard is that if you said “Iliad is fictional therefore Acts is fictional” - that would be apples and oranges.

That is not the position being advanced. The position being advanced is that, with respect to credibility, the people who claimed that the god stuff of Iliad is true are indistinguishable from the credibility of people who claimed that the god stuff of Acts is true. That is simply treating historical works by the same standard.

 

[ppp]

I have a question

Is the content 'standard' for textual criticism?

Could you be a little less vague?

 

[Kenny]

That is not the position being advanced.

It has been advanced… perhaps not by you, but that is what they have used.

The position being advanced is that, with respect to credibility, the people who claimed that the god stuff of Iliad is true are indistinguishable from the credibility of people who claimed that the god stuff of Acts is true.

That is highly subjective.

If I were to use a mathematical equation to what you just said using I for Iliad and A for acts and G for God stuff...

If G is not credible for I then all G is not credible. A fallacy
If G is not credible for I then A is not credible. Another false statement
You also assume that if something is not credible for you for Acts, then it is false and that all people believe it is not credible.

You could look at this in multiple ways and all end with a dead end conclusion. IMV

Mainly because you are comparing apples with oranges

That is simply treating historical works by the same standard.

Not really as noted.

Are you saying that Iliad IS historic?

 

[ppp]

It has been advanced… perhaps not by you, but that is what they have used.

You are talking to me.

That is highly subjective.

If I were to use a mathematical equation to what you just said using I for Iliad and A for acts and G for God stuff...

If G is not credible for I then all G is not credible. A fallacy
If G is not credible for I then A is not credible. Another false statement
You also assume that if something is not credible for you for Acts, then it is false and that all people believe it is not credible.

You could look at this in multiple ways and all end with a dead end conclusion. IMV

Nope. That is the "equation" for what you claim is being presented by others. You seem to be stuck in that rut. Not my problem.

 

[Dimi95]

Could you be a little less vague?

You said
'I am happy to acknowledge that the non-supernatural elements of both works contain some true statements. I dismiss the supernatural claims in both for the same reason.'

How do you know what is accurate in History?
By what is 'supernatural' and 'non-supernatural'?

I was not following the discussion , but what you stated catched my eye.

 

[ppp]

You said
'I am happy to acknowledge that the non-supernatural elements of both works contain some true statements. I dismiss the supernatural claims in both for the same reason.'

How do you know what is accurate in History?
By what is 'supernatural' and 'non-supernatural'?

I was not following the discussion , but what you stated catched my eye.

I'm glad I asked. That is not one of questions I thought you might be asking.

The supernatural is undefined to anything more specific than not natural.

People claim that the supernatural exists. They, individually or collectively, have yet to demonstrate that they are capable of knowing such. Until such demonstration is made, I am unjustified in believing them.

Until there is a demonstration that anything supernatural exists, it cannot be a candidate explanation.

 

[Kenny]

You are talking to me.

OK

Nope. That is the "equation" for what you claim is being presented by others. You seem to be stuck in that rut. Not my problem.

Then you will certainly need to explain better. It seemed to me like i answered the question