Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Resurrection then?

In response to Resurrection then? posted by Migisi:

Read my blog "Using the Bible to prove the Bible." And then consider that, before the Bible was canonized, ALL the ancient writings now in the Bible were "nonbiblical."

What you're basically saying is that once an ancient writer embraces Christ, he/she is no longer credible. That's your argument, Migisi, and it represents an EXTREMELY radical and self-serving (from an atheist/agnostic POV) bias.

» Migisi - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by BrianTubbs:
.
A 'false choice'??
.
If God chose to reveal Himself, at least in part, through the written word,...
.
"IF" God chose? Did he or didn't he?
.
"AT LEAST in part"? You mean the bible is not God's complete work? Which parts of God's revelations are missing? Where are they now?
.
then trusting the contents of those words is NOT tantamount to placing one's faith in text
.
But you ARE trusting and putting your faith in text... words written, translated, rewritten, edited, copied, and compiled into a sacred text by imperfect sinful flawed human beings.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Evidence?

In response to Evidence? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
There's been quite a bit of evidence presented in the articles, blogs, and in these discussions - by me and others.
.
Point me to that SECULAR evidence, Brian. I'll read it.
.
What you're basically saying is that once an ancient writer embraces Christ, he/she is no longer credible.
.
The purpose of any sacred text is what? To present and promote a religious belief system. The ancient writers were selected for that purpose.
.
That's your argument, Migisi, and it represents an EXTREMELY radical and self-serving (from an atheist/agnostic POV) bias.
.
The Fundamentalist Christian POV isn't radical and self-serving?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Resurrection then?

In response to Resurrection then? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think the Bible has great historical significance and in different ways. Some of it explicates life from those who lived it and some of it is about the way authority operated and some of it has to do with how history gets witten in the first place.
.
Understanding the concept of media and control of the masses helps us get insight into the value the Bible has had on the evolution of Western Civilization.
.
You are limiting your critique to the resurrection. Is that correct?
.
Not that so much as my exception is with the idea of evidence. The word, corroboration, means the confirmation of a claim with proof positive. When all we have to go on is a compilation of religious texts that were made sacred by a body of priests, we operate on questionable hearsay evidence. This body of priests was comprised of like minded persons all of whom had the same end purposes in mind--more or less. If, on the other hand, disparate groups had been involved in the cannonization of scripture, we might have a less suspicious foundation for making supernatural claims.
.
The men who cannonized scripture were not alone in their beliefs of the supernatural. It was commonly accepted by all but a very few at the top of the heap that supernatural forces were in control of human destiny. To claim such powers for any particular system would provide that system with great power over the simple minded masses.
.
We still have such forces at work in our present day society. It is the media through which the powers that be operate and control the thinking of the simple minded. Check out FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC, along with several of the lesser channels of mind control.
.
My critique is of the thinking of people who make claims of certainty based on hearsay evidence.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by Brother_Jones:

"...when it comes to understanding why the life of Jesus is so completely confusing to many:"

I know Jeff-speak is confusing to you guys as well. I'm interested in matters that matter...and sometimes peripheral issues add context...sometimes not.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by Migisi:

"Correct. The ONLY faith one needs to have is that ~everything~ written in the Book is 100% fact, and the whole and absolute truth."

Crikey! That's not really what my comment extends to. And my brain today refuses to help me out with a better explanation.

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - Standards of Evidence

In response to Evidence? posted by Migisi:

Migisi, only the MOST radical critics of Christianity apply the kind of outrageous standard of evidence that you're making here. You are WAY TO THE LEFT of even LIBERAL New Testament scholars.

For crying out loud, I could rip off name after name of LIBERAL, anti-evangelical NT scholars who reject any claim of divine or supernatural inspiration for the Bible - and YET even THEY - even THEY! - wouldn't just arbitrarily throw out religious evidence as unworthy of consideration!

You are saying that you won't consider any writing by a follower of Jesus as evidence. That means you're tossing out Christian letters NOT part of Scripture as well. Not only that, but you're saying the writer has to be SECULAR. My goodness, Migisi! That rules out Jewish historians like Josephus. It even puts out pagan Roman historians, because they believed in the Roman gods. (Unless you're picking and choosing with that word "secular" - which wouldn't surprise me about you, I suppose).

You also have this extremely distorted sense of a bunch of priests getting together about 100 or so years after Jesus - and saying: "Hey, we need to start a religion. Here, you write a Gospel which we'll name after Matthew. You write Luke. You write John." And on from there. It didn't happen that way!

Finally, there ARE some fundamentalist Christians who are self-serving and extremist. Certainly, but if you would take the time to read from a WIDE variety of New Testament scholars - not just the radical leftists and atheists - then you'd see that a decisive majority of them RESPECT the New Testament even if they don't venerate it as "Scripture." That you don't shows just how outside the mainstream your views on the NT are.

» redback - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by Migisi & Brother-jones:

Migisi. I guess one can have 'absolute' even blind faith on just about any single thing. I was trying to ponder Christianity's Jesus and God without total dependence on the Bible. If they are separate entities, they both existed pre-Bible...according to the Bible. The chronic issue over the claimed innerancy of the Bible was not part of my 'ponder'. (I think 'ponder' must mean a wander to wonder in a muddy pond)

Brother-jones. My response to you was not intended to be dismissive.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Standards of Evidence

In response to Standards of Evidence posted by BrianTubbs:

.
you're saying the writer has to be SECULAR. My goodness, Migisi! That rules out Jewish historians like Josephus. It even puts out pagan Roman historians, because they believed in the Roman gods. (Unless you're picking and choosing with that word "secular" - which wouldn't surprise me about you, I suppose).
.
I don't think Migisi is picking and choosing here. I understood her to mean she wanted a source outside of "the movement," if you will. This is within the accepted denotations of the word, which is derived from the Latin saecularis, meaning "generation" or "age."
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brother_Jones - Respond to PT

In response to Respond to PT posted by redback:

I know Jeff-speak is confusing to you guys as well. I'm interested in matters that matter...and sometimes peripheral issues add context...sometimes not.

I think that you are fairly easy to read. I especially appreciate the fair and non-judgemental approach that you take. Criticism seems to always work better if a friend applies it. But this format is not very condusive to friendly fire. People take sides to prove their religion or lack of it. I think if I had to prove that my Mom was really my Mom everyday of my life, then I would soon grow tired of everybody including my Mom. Everything becomes third person, and we begin to think of
ourselves in the third person. lol.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones