Freaking out about what we really can "know" here...

[outhouse]

Scholarly assertions concerning Christ taking over from John come from a secular point of view which denies God.

Factually false.


Many scholars are of deep faith, they just have an open mind and don't shut out the truth.

 

[outhouse]

The scriptures indicate otherwise.

Text is not credible.

Bud you cannot win this, and I wish I could get you to take a class on he topic so you understand how beautiful the text really is knowing and understanding it with clear eyes.

 

[ether-ore]

That's Is factually true and false and you have no clue about what or who a scholar is to do any criticizing here.

You cannot argue from lack of knowledge on their position.

All I need to know is the net result of these "scholarly" endeavors. You, yourself are an indication. It is the desire to discredit the scriptures and therefore the gospel. But, it matters not. As one prophet has said: You may as well attempt to stop the flow of the Missouri River with your arm as to attempt to stop the progress of the Lord's work.

 

[outhouse]

All I need to know is the net result of these "scholarly" endeavors.

False, ignorance has no credible say here.

It is the desire to discredit the scriptures

You dont have a clue here.


No one is discrediting anything, its understanding the context of who and why the text were written.


NO ONE is disproving the bible, they are understanding it.


Your refusing the fact 1 + 1 = 2 because your book says 37. But in this example your literally blind to the 1's and you don't have a clue what 37 really means because you think you know more then every NT professor that exist.

 

[outhouse]

As one prophet has said:

self proclaimed.



Oh sorry I see what religion you are, explains everything now.


Could you at least look up two words for me. Fanaticism and fundamentalism. I'm sure it has something to do with refusing CREDIBLE education.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I need to know is the net result of these "scholarly" endeavors. You, yourself are an indication. It is the desire to discredit the scriptures and therefore the gospel. But, it matters not. As one prophet has said: You may as well attempt to stop the flow of the Missouri River with your arm as to attempt to stop the progress of the Lord's work.

OK, then. As a hardcore Agnostic (which, if you haven't followed some of the threads), then prove to me your God, your Messiah, the very thing you worship, exist outside of the words of your own religion, prove it. Just, prove it. There may be a god, there may not be a god. I don't know. To someone who has embraced the question mark as a philosophical guide, demonstrate to me that the words of your God is true above the words of thousands of other cultures and religions.

False, ignorance has no credible say here.

Ignorance is a very powerful credible source. For when some say a negative, and when some say a negative, it is the ignorant that step above the crowd and proclaim that "I don't know."
The ignorant, rather than the assured, are afterall, those who drive the inquisitive to search for the answers that the ignorant do not have and would ask when others would ask not. As one who embraces ignorance, I ask you, prove to me there is no god. To the theist, I ask, prove to me there is a god.
While y'all are debating, I would rather enjoy my ignorance and infinite unknowing and painfully and honestly answer that I do not know, and just move on with things and get to things that I can know with certainty or not.

 

[ether-ore]

You have no clue of what your even talking about.

That's rich coming from an atheist.

It builds value to the gospel to understand the truth, it does not take away from it.

As if that were your motive.

YOU personally don't even understand the context of the bible, which means you end up with a limited understanding of what is being communicated through literature.

You know nothing of me or my level of education or what I understand in terms of the plan of salvation. Just fyi... I majored in philosophy and religion. I found most of what was taught at university as humorous at best and bordering on ridiculous at worst. My lifelong study of the gospel profited me more than the degrees I have or the 3.5 overall gpa that went with them. The focus of university education was as you seem interested in was its version of historicity and the method of determining it. Very little focus was on what the plan of salvation was about and the divinity of Jesus Christ was not even discussed. Neither was the atonement touched on. The reason being was and is a secular take on everything. The assumption going in is as you like to point out, that it is all myth anyway.
So...
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not..."

 

[ether-ore]

OK, then. As a hardcore Agnostic (which, if you haven't followed some of the threads), then prove to me your God, your Messiah, the very thing you worship, exist outside of the words of your own religion, prove it. Just, prove it.

There is no proof I can offer you.

 

[ether-ore]

self proclaimed.



Oh sorry I see what religion you are, explains everything now.


Could you at least look up two words for me. Fanaticism and fundamentalism. I'm sure it has something to do with refusing CREDIBLE education.

Cute labels. And from your perspective I'm sure you think they apply and no doubt they were meant as an insult (duh). It's ok. It doesn't matter.

 

[ether-ore]

I have had enough of this. It's going nowhere.

 

[Thanda]

The question then becomes: does this speak to the quality of the evidence or the ignorance of the judge?

It always speaks to both. How much evidence is enough will always differ for different people. For some white people it took simple interactions with black people to figure out the two races were essentially the same. But for others they require scientific proof to believe the same.

As to ignorance: we all posses some level of ignorance. In fact if we are honest, even as a human race we are ignorant about most things in the universe. So if a being comes before us and turns water into wine and makes storms stop by just speaking: we will have to admit that what are witnessing is supernatural: according to the "natural" laws we are currently aware of. And having admitted that we will then say what we have witnessed is a miracle.

A miracle is not necessarily something impossible: it is just something that is impossible for us to do.

 

[outhouse]

Ignorance is a very powerful credible source.

That's fine and dandy but you would not want a doctor or surgeon that is ignorant when your sick. And when you want to know about the past you use the educated.

Now in context I was not talking about a source, I was talking about someone's complete lack of historical education on the topic.

There is no use debating fanaticism or fundamentalism either.

 

[outhouse]

That's rich coming from an atheist.

An atheist who has a passion enough for the history to study the NT and Paul in different universities.

Most of what I post is not my personal opinion, its what is being taught in EVERY state across the country as higher education.

 

[outhouse]

. I majored in philosophy and religion. I found most of what was taught at university as humorous at best and bordering on ridiculous at worst

Its terribly sad when people cannot accept knowledge.

 

[Thanda]

It says ancient men wrote mythology using rhetorical prose as they were not witness to any event recorded.



It says ancient men wrote mythology using rhetorical prose as they were not witness to any event recorded.



It says ancient men wrote mythology using rhetorical prose as they were not witness to any event recorded.

So clearly science isn't very helpful is it? Makes one wonder why you rely so much on it.

 

[Thanda]

Moses never existed and factually has no historicity as existing outside mythology.

NO eyewitnesses to said Jesus mythology. It has no historicity as ever happening.



That is called faith Thanda, not credible history. YOU want to believe, but you refuse to study the topic and actually learn what the truth is.

Are you afraid of the truth, or just would rather poke fingers in your ear and go "I don't hear you"




If you had the education I suggest, it build value in the text, literal interpretation ruin the beauty because that is not the context it was written in.

It is your faith that tells you people made up stories about Moses and many other incidents and that an entire people simply accepted these made up stories as factual history. What your theory suggests is that some wise guy decided he was going to come up with a history for his people; then, after he did so, the whole people just unanimously and unquestioningly accept this new history which entirely contradicted their own knowledge of their true history

Believing that requires more faith than I am capable of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no proof I can offer you.

Then why should I believe you over the hundreds and thousands of other religions?

 

[Thanda]

I have had enough of this. It's going nowhere.

I was about to say that you shouldn't indulge outhouse too much. The topic of this thread was miracles and the nature of knowledge. While discussing this topic outhouse responded to one of my posts, in which I made reference to a quote from one of the gospels, with a long sermon about the supposed non existence of Jesus or the non existence of anything he said. I made it clear to him there and then that he was trying to veer out of topic as the quote I used was really a side note and whether or not Jesus himself said was irrelevant to the point.

In other words what I'm trying to say is that Outhouse wanted to have a discussion about how fictional he believes the Bible is even in a thread that was not about that. To support his claim he sites so called scholars. And he cites these scholars as if they are in agreement. And he sites them as if they know what they are talking about. I have heard many of these scholars and many of them have nothing to go on but their opinions. For example these scholars don't believe Pilate was uncertain about executing Jesus on the basis of the fact that he was a non believer in Judaism. They hardly know Pilate and they know nothing about the feelings and emotions that were in his heart at any time of his life never mind when he was speaking to Jesus. Yet they make bold claims which the Outhouses of the world flock to and gobble up as gospel truth (excuse the pun).

Furthermore there are many scholars with differing opinion. So when Outhouse tells you what "scholars" say know that he is speaking of a particular subset of scholars. Specifically that subset that says the kind of things he likes to hear. If you were to put forward Truman G Madsen as a scholar with a differing opinion he would quickly discount him as not "credible" (his favourite subjective word) enough. So all he is really telling us when he tells us what "scholars" say is "The scholars I like listening to believe most of the Bible is fiction, myth and hallucinations".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In other words what I'm trying to say is that white wanted to have a discussion about how fictional he believes the Bible is even in a thread that was not about that. To support his claim he sites so called scholars. And he cites these scholars as if they are in agreement. And he sites them as if they know what they are talking about. I have heard many of these scholars and many of them have nothing to go on but their opinions. For example these scholars don't believe Pilate was uncertain about executing Jesus on the basis of the fact that he was a non believer in Judaism. They hardly know Pilate and they know nothing about the feelings and emotions that were in his heart at any time of his life never mind when he was speaking to Jesus. Yet they make bold claims which the Outhouses of the world flock to and gobble up as gospel truth (excuse the pun).

The things with scholars, either they know their subject matter or they don't. I've read a few articles from scholars about heavy metal who obviously do not know "snakes from dildos" about metal. But I read one author who was factual about metal and even brought up the blues and classical roots of metal. I also read one author who said Insane Clown Posse is metal, but ICP is clearly not metal.
However, to be considered good scholarly work, it does need to "pass" with those outside of your own clique. Christian scholars and academics, writing for Christian journals and audiences, tend to fail, miserably, in this area.

 

[Thanda]

The things with scholars, either they know their subject matter or they don't. I've read a few articles from scholars about heavy metal who obviously do not know "snakes from dildos" about metal. But I read one author who was factual about metal and even brought up the blues and classical roots of metal. I also read one author who said Insane Clown Posse is metal, but ICP is clearly not metal.
However, to be considered good scholarly work, it does need to "pass" with those outside of your own clique. Christian scholars and academics, writing for Christian journals and audiences, tend to fail, miserably, in this area.

There is always cliques in everything. Much of the study of history is about perspective and is therefore subjective. History is not a "hard science". So there will always be a group of people who have one opinion and another group with a differing opinion. No one's opinions is any more authoritative than the other. So when you make an appeal to scholars one has to keep in mind that those scholars they are appealing to are just a subset of all scholars. With that in mind one has to see the scholars view for what it really is: an opinion.