The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Resurrection: the vindication of the Christ > Comments

Resurrection: the vindication of the Christ : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 25/1/2019

The gospel according to Mark (70CE), the earliest of the gospels, is curious for its ending that does not include appearances of the risen one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Many things in our modern bible are clearly invention, created to conform to a particular narrative. Rather than the plain unvarnished truth. And given that is so, why does any of a 2 thousand-year-old mythological legend have to have any basis in actual fact? And why do we need to believe these manmade inventions with such fervour?

And why do we give credence to such things as the so-called sacrament of the confession or its alleged seal? Created around 700 years after the alleged Messiah.

Along with the evil of celibacy and all that then flows from it and the normal human frustrations that creates!

A seal that quite literally has served to allow terrible evils to persist and go unpunished in the reality where they were committed.

If we are to hold to something? Why not the irrefutable mighty truth? And no worthier goal! And start with those things we can prove as irrefutable fact, and that love is stronger and more enduring that hate.

That it is often easier to do a good turn than its opposite, given in the first instance everyone involved get a positive outcome out of it. Both the recipient and the donor. A good turn can be as simple as lending a helping hand to someone who has slipped or fallen. Or helping someone, with the gift of time and a word of encouragement, or to get their car started, or a fire put out. Other than charity or material assistance!

There are so many ways to be normal, decent, empathetic human beings besides pounding a pulpit, judging all else and trying to decide which victimless activity is sinful or not!

Only God can make a tree or judge what is truly in a man.s heart! Time to open our minds to the truth rather than manmade fantasy and invention.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 25 January 2019 12:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Golly gosh, what has any of that got to do with Truth & Reality and the human situation especially in this time and place?

Some references which thoroughly deconstruct and outshine the contents of Sells phantasmagorical naive magical thinking.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/bloodsac.html
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/exochrist.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html

The author of these essays points out that unless you actually witnessed and participated in the "events" that you describe everything you say is just "religious" psycho-babble, or an exercise in phantasmagorical magical thinking

Back in the days of polaroid cameras he once humorously quipped - show me the photographic evidence that these "historical" figures actually existed as living-breathing-feeling human beings.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 25 January 2019 2:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AUSTRALIA DAY?

Off Topic and speaking of the Gorilla in the room Australia Day.

I reckon that moving the date of Australia Day would resolve nothing.

26 January denialists would see the date change as a political victory. This would just be the start of their political campaign.

They wouldn't happy until Australia is totally abolished at any day of the year.

Instead they want:

- extra compensation for all "Indigenous" People (presumably including those who are 15/16s "white") and

- an "Indigenous" Third "Indigenous Only" House of Federal Parliament, that has the power of veto over laws and money bills that have already passed the House of Reps and the Senate.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 January 2019 2:32:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CORRECTION - AUSTRALIA DAY?

Off Topic and speaking of the Gorilla in the room Australia Day.

I reckon that moving the date of Australia Day would resolve nothing.

26 January denialists would see the date change as a political victory. This would just be the start of their political campaign.

They wouldn't BE happy until Australia is totally abolished at any day of the year.

Instead they want:

- extra compensation for all "Indigenous" People (presumably including those who are 15/16s "white") and

- an Third "Indigenous Only" House of Federal Parliament, that has the power of veto over laws and money bills that have already passed the House of Reps and the Senate.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 January 2019 2:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting to note that an advertisement promoting one of the leading all-American "religious" psychotics appears on the same page as Sells essay.
This site describes his "character" back in 2011. Since then he has become even more psychotic.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/02/156-franklin-graham.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 25 January 2019 2:56:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is some real truth for the simpletons.

The resurrection, as described in the bible, relates to numerous earlier writings and oral traditions, which number in their hundreds if you wish to do a little research.

More importantly, the resurrection is an allegory, specifically relating to specific terrestrial and cosmic observations.

The act in question relates directly to the Solstice. Here is a pertinent snippet re the solstice from Wikipedia for the uninitiated, “The word solstice is derived from the Latin sol ("sun") and sistere ("to stand still"), because at the solstices, the Sun's declination appears to "stand still"; that is, the seasonal movement of the Sun's daily path (as seen from Earth) stops at a northern or southern limit before reversing direction”.

The reappearance of the skyward march occurs on the third day, i.e. the resurrection of the sun’s journey in reverse again.

Simple stuff, no mumbojumbo, just a plain fact.
Galen
Posted by Galen, Friday, 25 January 2019 11:43:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not understand you Peter.

On a he one hand you've got a good grasp of some theological subjects for transforming the bible into themes that can effect us each day in any sitution. However, in spite of this constration of applying the bible in a soul searching way, you still manage to not believe any of it. The way you describe it is that they were nessassery lies to make a theological point. Gifts from God but given by man.

Again and again I must ask where your foundation of faith is. And if it is in God, then why the doubt? Why the games of smoke and mirrors? Why would God play a song of lies just to make theological points, when He can do the things described in the bible without making it up? If it a gift from God but none of it ever happened, then God lied.

Which again brings me back to the question, where is your foundation of faith? I worry about you Peter. I greatly disagree with you on some points. But more so I worry about you.

Paul once write in a letter telling the people that he did not come with smart sounding words as his witness, but instead the power of God as Paul's witness, justifying what he preached and taught.

It's from a few glimpses of God acting in my life and the lives around me, that I've come to terms that nothing is impossible for God. It's a foundation that while unstudied in theology, does not rob me to understand theological points. No instead it grants great respect and faith to God for His truths, wisdom, love, and sovereignty.

I hope and pray one day you can come to God on simular terms. Find Him not just in the wisdom that can be studied out of the bible, but also in the reality and magnitude of who He is.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 26 January 2019 5:23:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//that I've come to terms that nothing is impossible for God.//

Can he create a rock so big he can't lift it, then?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 26 January 2019 6:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a single galaxy, the milky way, there are more stars than there are grains of sand n all the beaches of the world. And circling around those stars are very big rocks some would describe as planets Toni.

Our's being the third rock from the sun. And on its surface microscopic life forms clawing around like blind ants trying to harm/kill the others before they themselves are destroyed.

And only because of inculcated indoctrination from early childhood!

Hate has to be learned, aided and abetted by falsehoods and fantasy, that only serves the interests of the power junkies in our midst. {Tyrants, dictators polleis and jesuits?}

Energy can be neither created or destroyed merely transformed. The entire universe including you and I are part of that unified field of energy, which because it can neither be created nor destroyed, needed to exist in some form before the allegorical big bang!

My best rationalization is as part of eternal dark matter/energy. As for big rocks and God lifting them? Where would he or she or? lift them to? Into other really big rocks or a black hole? And for what purpose?

Can the universe think, dream, love fantasize? Well, you and I can and we are an integral part of that unified field of energy called the universe.

The fact that we exist at all required the death and rebirth of countless stars countless times in timed sequence to make a periodic table from the first element, hydrogen. And part way through that periodic table is carbon and consequential carbon-based oxygen-breathing life forms.

To even suggest that the entire universe created itself from nothing is not only fanciful but absurd beyond belief! In order for the universe to have been assembled in the unimaginable size of a Galaxy filled universe, one has to believe either intelligent design or magic. Because from nothing you get nothing!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 26 January 2019 9:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not_Now.Soon,
I am moved that you worry about me. However, I must assert some major points.
As I noted, the gospel writers were intent on communicating to their own communities. This led them to sculpt their narratives to purpose. As readers in late modernity we find ourselves at some distance to the original writers of biblical texts. Firstly, we live in a scientific age that, for good reasons, does not recognise the miraculous as the breaking of natural laws. This makes biblical texts difficult for us. However, it is often the case that writers use the miraculous to point to a theological reality. For example, Jesus is present to the Church as a living body.

Secondly, our place in modernity has made us cling to facts. " If it cannot be proved to have actually happened then it is untrue." This is a new attitude in the theological and hermeneutical landscape that relies on Enlightenment rationalism. The problem is that it cripples our interpretation of texts because we insert a different understanding accessible only to us.

In writing my recent article I am relying on established Biblical knowledge that is pretty well a hundred years old.

I would say to you that you should let go of the idolatry of Enlightenment so that you can see Scripture as it really is.
Posted by Sells, Saturday, 26 January 2019 10:35:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//that I've come to terms that nothing is impossible for God.//

Not_Now.Soon,
He appears to have difficulty in giving us more evidence of this so that we find it less difficult to understand & make us truly believe in what the Bible states. Or, are young children already so guilty to deserve illness & misery whereas politicians, Judges & other megalomaniacs live to old age ?
One side of me tells me that it'd be wiser to have faith but the other side tells me I might be taken for a ride.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 26 January 2019 10:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Individual.

What proof should you like? What proof would you find acceptable? What I have to offer are from my life. Nothing more, nothing less. They big to me because I can tell the difference between regular everyday life, and the few times when God acted in my life. Some were answered prayers (ask for something and God gives it), another was a response to prayer (ask for something and God gave something else, but still delivered the heart of my need).

If none of that counts as proof, then I can only say for you to search for God yourself and see if you can find Him. The only other points I have are from growing in my faith, trusting the wisdom of the bible and trying to apply it.

...However, if you ask for proof before considering to search for God on your own, then I doubt I'm much help. I've tried this conversation witha few others. Most ask for proof without really wanting to look for it, or even consider it. Or they want a burden of proof that I don't have. All I can offer is based on what I've seen and experienced.

I can offer a few other things other people have shared for how God has been in their lives. However, if someone is unwilling to listen to what I've seen, they usually are even more unwilling to listen to what I've heard from others. That limits what proof is available, because they are unwilling to hear or even consider the possibility of testomies of God being real.

If you are intreasted I can give any detail your interested in. If not, that's ok too. There's no reason for me to push and put my life under scrunity for those who don't want to hear it.

My one recommendation though is regardless of wanting to hear my experiences or not, is to search for God on your own. Be willing to at least seek the truth on your own. If I can find God so can you. I'm sure of it.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 27 January 2019 3:35:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter.

I understand what your saying about the different writtings being given to a different community audience. I've heard this theory befor and it makes sense with concerning dome of the termology used and examples given that would be more relatable to each community. Based on that, it is entirely possible that one gospel was focused for Jews and has contained more detail on Jesus's heritage through His Mary, or through Joseph Mary's husband. And why the difference in terms for Kingdom of God, instead of Kingdom of Heaven based on gentile audiences or Jewish audiences for that gospel.

However what I don't agree with is that these differences are that one detail is accurate, and another is not. Reading all four gospels brings in more detail to fill the story of Jesus's life and ministry. The details over lap eachother not replace each other. At least that's my understanding. The gospels offer different details on the same or simular events, without condriction.

For me the idea that each gospel was told for a different audience doesn't take away from the teachings, the events, or the theology that can be based on them. They can still be true without hesitation of saying this is an exergration, or that is a legend made for a point, but never occured. These are points that you've held though. A trust in theological study with the history behind it, more then the trust in God, being able to be truthful, accurate, and still convey the messages that can be gained throughout history without further editing.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 27 January 2019 3:55:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not-now Soon,
Don't get me wrong. All Scripture is inspired by the holy spirit and is hence inerrant. However, a distinction has to be made. It is not inerrant as tested by rational positivism that tells us that if an event did not happen as related in Scripture, then it holds no truth. Scripture is inerrant in the spirit, it bears witness to the Word of God even when various gospels are directed to different contexts. The NT is a unity in that it all points to Christ. For us to see this we must give away any seeking for evidence. Seeking evidence is not faith, it is a search for security, a foundation upon which we may understand the world and build our lives. That is a form of idolatry. To be baptised into the death of Christ is to die to such urgent need for a secure place, backed up by evidence.
Pete
Posted by Sells, Sunday, 27 January 2019 5:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

<<Can he [God] create a rock so big he can't lift it, then?>>

With respect, this is a question from one who doesn't understand the grandeur of the universe and Who created it.

Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?

God is the one who created the entire universe, including the first human beings, and you have such short-sightedness that you ask a trifling question about God's ability to lift rocks that He created.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is a pointless question to ask if God is capable of creating a rock so large he couldn't lift it.

Your view of God is way too small:

"He (God) is the one who made the mountains.
He created the wind.
He lets people know his thoughts.
He changes the darkness into dawn.
He walks over the mountains of the earth.
His name is Yahweh, Lord God All-Powerful" (Amos 4:13).

And you dare to ask the Creator of the mountains if He can create rock so large He can't lift it. His omnipotence is beyond your and my comprehension.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 27 January 2019 6:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B,

<<Many things in our modern bible are clearly invention, created to conform to a particular narrative. Rather than the plain unvarnished truth. And given that is so, why does any of a 2 thousand-year-old mythological legend have to have any basis in actual fact? And why do we need to believe these manmade inventions with such fervour?>>

What are the examples to which you refer?

Since you mention the sacrament of confession, the alleged seal, and celibacy, are these the examples from the Bible that are ‘clearly invention’ to which you refer? Or, do you have some other examples in mind?

Seems like you have some bias against the biblical content with your use of language such as ‘the alleged Messiah’. What evidence is needed for you to move from regarding Jesus as the 'alleged Messiah' to the actual Messiah, Son of God, third person of the Trinity?

<<Why not the irrefutable mighty truth? And no worthier goal! And start with those things we can prove as irrefutable fact, and that love is stronger and more enduring that hate.>>

From where do you obtain ‘irrefutable mighty truth’? What evidence from history gives us access to 100% irrefutable facts?

Do we have 'irrefutable mighty truth' of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and Pol Pot's genocide?
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 27 January 2019 7:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//this is a question from one who doesn't understand the grandeur of the universe and Who created it.//

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'"
-Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

As a pantheist, I believe that the Creation and the Creator are indistinguishable. And with respect, as somebody with a decent education in the sciences, I think I have a better understanding of the grandeur of Nature - or God if you prefer, since no meaningful distinction can be made - than those who prefer to sit and gawp at God/Nature like fools.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 27 January 2019 7:55:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter.

Here it is again. The worry that I see from a brother in faith. You are being dishonest with yourself and robing yourself from trusting God even more, based on whether you understand what's written. What you've said of idolaters towards evidence, can also be applied to idolatry based on rejecting God out of lack of understanding.

I do look at evidence to confirm and strengthen my faith. But I've held onto my faith before there is evidence to back up one point, and before I can understand another point fully. The evidence I see and know only helps strengthen my trust in what God has declared that I haven't seen first hand.

What is better then what comes from God? If God says something, then it is reliable. That reliability doesn't falter when tested. At least it hasn't for me. Faith in God doesn't go away because you believe what the bible says is true (both in the sense that it teaches and points to Jesus, as well as being true that it occurred as well). Nor is it idolatry to have evidence in your life confirm your faith.

I'll say it again because it is worth hearing. The bible is reliable. It is more reliable then theology. Trust God above our own understanding kind of thing is how I mean. Trusting the bible more then trusting the theology about the bible. That alone helps sort out false theology from reliable doctrine, if it doesn't measure up in the teachings and events of the bible.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 27 January 2019 8:00:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is a pointless question to ask if God is capable of creating a rock so large he couldn't lift it.//

And banging on about the God creating the Universe and quoting a lot of pointless scripture is entirely irrelevant to the very specific, yes/no question that I asked, Captain Fallacy. As is berating for my impertinence in failing to show what you consider appropriate reverence for your limited concept of God (oh, the delicious irony). Do you want to try a better answer without such obvious attempts to avoid giving any meaningful answer?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 27 January 2019 8:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

<<or God if you prefer, since no meaningful distinction can be made - than those who prefer to sit and gawp at God/Nature like fools.>>
That's an Appeal to Ridicule Logical Fallacy. It is erroneous reasoning. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

It doesn't deal with the issues we've been discussing.

Your quote from Bertrand Russell was a red herring as I had raised nothing of the issue you pursued with Russell's support.

Let's deal with content instead of falling back to use fallacious reasoning.
Posted by OzSpen, Sunday, 27 January 2019 8:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Let's deal with content instead of falling back to use fallacious reasoning.//

That'd be lovely, Captain Fallacy, but I don't believe you're capable.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 27 January 2019 9:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear, hear and well said, Toni! How can you reason with folk who claim to know gods thoughts so intimately that they are apparently able to witness them as if they were their own thoughts, and from which they are unable to distinguish!? And How can one reason with Sells who claims all scripture as irrefutable truth,

Or Ozpen who wants to argue chapter and verse as a way to close down any discussion of a belief system quite literally founded by the pagan sun worshipper, presiding over all of it, the Roman Emporer Constantine the great,

And that he decided which scholarly tomes would be included in that invented by him and his cohorts and which wouldn't. Like those that seem to say we are all fallen angels trying to return to our former place and positions as Eternals!?

Is Sells trying to claim that the founder of the Church of Rome? Constantine the great, a pagan sun worshipper, was infallible?

And is Oz pen, claiming he can hear the voice of God giving him instructions on how to live and relate to others, particularly those who chose to be born different?

It has to be such a comfort to Folk like Ozpen who hear voices coming out of thin air and extremely distracting, to say the least, but even more so when like Ozpen, you understand what they are saying!?

Moreover, for the latter, such a comfort to know you're always right!
Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 28 January 2019 11:00:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B,

<<And is Oz pen, claiming he can hear the voice of God giving him instructions on how to live and relate to others, particularly those who chose to be born different?>>

Quit inventing this information about my views. I have never EVER stated that. You have created disparaging comments about me and not engaged in constructive discussion.

<<It has to be such a comfort to Folk like Ozpen who hear voices coming out of thin air and extremely distracting, to say the least, but even more so when like Ozpen, you understand what they are saying!?>>

Is it a comfort to you to scoff at people like me, engage in creative fiction about me, and present your sarcastic views?
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 28 January 2019 11:11:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I wanna know is what all this inconsequential religious mumbo jumbo has to do with

First Fleet How to Invade Australia for Dummies Day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet#Arrival_in_Australia
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 January 2019 11:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not-Now Soon,
That you must trust material evidence is a sign that you only trust in the flesh that does not avail. Moreover, that "evidence" if understood as evidence that the events in the bible actually did happen as told lies is on very shaky ground as biblical scholarship over the last hundred years has shown. Only the spirit counts. Scripture points to things of the spirit, that is why it uses parable, metaphor, analogy because it is not talking about what we now call "facts". Again, I must insists that your approach to the bible is a modern one that the premodern or informed scholarship in our own time does not recognise it as a proper approach. It is time for solid food!
Peter
Posted by Sells, Monday, 28 January 2019 12:10:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My atheism is often challenged by believers who tell me to read the Bible. My reply to them is that among other things, my atheism is a result of having read the bible without influence of others who would seek to interpret it for me. One of the "other things" which makes me believe that the bible was not written or influenced by a mythical god was my close relationship with a schizophrenic for several years.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 28 January 2019 4:49:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter.

Be very careful yourself of your own view. Because the criticism you hold of me, applies more so to you. Unless You can correct me on this, you don't believe several parts of the bible because the evidence of such things being impossible. At least they seem impossible to you. Miracles must be exaggerations or added on later, or somehow something else then as they are written.

I've seen this perspective before, but your version of it goes further to even deny that Jesus rose again in his body. I trust what the New Testament says about that. That's all the evidence I need. It's the foundation I can be satisfied with. If that is shaky ground to you, then we will part ways on what we think of as solid foundation, and what is shaky ground. You can trust scholars who might not even believe in God. I will trust the Bible.

There is no reason to think the bible teaches spiritually only, but that it was never intended to be true historically. That reasoning is not based on anything that makes sense. Now a days we have several scholars run an idea of reinventing history from their modern views of ancient interpretation. There's even a view calling for the historic Jesus, which is a term of rejecting Jesus as being history except for parts that the scholars who use that term, they say may have happened.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 3:37:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Don't you see it Peter? The smoke and mirrors on interpretation? They say this is an older way of understanding the bible as non literal, when they made it up recently to justify not believing it themselves. I would love to see justification on their view of historical interpretation, because it is quite the claim. Until there is justification then this is a just a shaky concept that many other concepts and perspectives are built around.

Where I agree with you is that the Spirit counts. There are deeper lessons in the history, and in the teachings. We're we disagree is that you think the bible is only spiritual lessons with deeper meanings. I think the bible is also practical. What is written can be used for our application, as well as read with the simple foundation of it being true.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 3:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet,

<<What I wanna know is what all this inconsequential religious mumbo jumbo has to do with First Fleet How to Invade Australia for Dummies Day?>>

There are people on this forum who don't accept that the OT and NT are reliable historical documents that can be trusted. I presume you refer to my comment about Captain Cook.

The facts are that for those who engage in historical science, when we try to determine anything that happened in the past, distant past, whether Captain Cook, Jesus' resurrection, Joshua's life or the life of Albert Einstein use tests to determine authenticity of any document.

Historians, as I am, use certain criteria to discern whether a document is authentic or not. My use of Captain Cook was to show that if we check out the criteria historians use to discover what happened with Captain Cook, we have to have to do the same with historical investigations in the OT and NT.

So, there is no inconsequential religious mumbo jumbo with my mentioning Captain Cook in association with Jesus' resurrection.

As an historian, I use the same criteria for discerning whether the resurrection is an historically accurate account or whether Captain Cook sailed in the Endeavour up the east coast of what was to become Australia.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 8:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU

<<One of the "other things" which makes me believe that the bible was not written or influenced by a mythical god was my close relationship with a schizophrenic for several years.>>

David, would you give up eating tomatoes if you found a rotten one in a bag of them? Labelling the God promoted by Christianity through the Bible as 'a mythical god' demonstrates a presuppositional bias.

At least Richard Dawkins, one of the world's pre-eminent atheists, was honest enough to admit in a public discussion at Oxford University with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams:

"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did" (Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist, The Telegraph, 24 Feb 2012) at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

I have a question for you: Two gases are important for life on earth. I breathe in oxygen I can't see. I breathe out carbon dioxide I can't see. Plants absorb the carbon dioxide for their own food and release oxygen for me to breathe. What causes you to reject the Creator God who caused this system to happen with the first human beings and has maintained this process since the beginning of time?

To what do you attribute the origin of this cycle of life?
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 8:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

<<that "evidence" if understood as evidence that the events in the bible actually did happen as told lies is on very shaky ground as biblical scholarship over the last hundred years has shown>>

That is 'biblical scholarship' of liberalism with voices like these:

(1) Tillich, "Christianity prefers the symbol of resurrection" of Christ (1968.1:308);

(2) Bultmann understood "myth" to refer to historical phenomena and "mythology" to a way of thinking. So a "myth" was a report of an event involving supernatural forces or persons. Thus, Jesus resurrection was a “mythical event, pure and simple” (Bultmann 1970.1:15).

(3) Spong, "Did Easter reverse the verdict of Jesus’ death? No, I don’t think so… I think Easter is real, but it is not an event that takes place inside human history” (1994:143).

(4) Crossan, "It was Mark himself who created the empty tomb story and its failed anointing" (1995:185);

(5) Barth, "The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle -- that is, without really touching it" (Commentary on Romans, 6th ed, p. 30).

<<Only the spirit counts. Scripture points to things of the spirit, that is why it uses parable, metaphor, analogy because it is not talking about what we now call "facts".>>

Are you kidding? Do you encourage us to trust your spirit and its interpretation through parable, etc? Is that what you say? Sounds awfully subjective to me.

Do we live in an objective world where my computer can be known, or do I need some subjective experience to be applied here. I'm serious!

<<Again, I must insists that your approach to the bible is a modern one that the premodern or informed scholarship in our own time does not recognise it as a proper approach. It is time for solid food!>>

Would you please quit putting people down who, you say, are not aware of your <<informed scholarship>>? Such scholarship on the resurrection often redefines what the biblical texts state.

Tom Wright, Gary Habermas, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Norman Geisler, Paul Barnett and Ben Meyer in their 'informed scholarship' disagree with the liberals you promote.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 29 January 2019 8:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//What causes you to reject the Creator God who caused this system to happen with the first human beings and has maintained this process since the beginning of time?//

Since the beginning of time? Try getting your facts straight, Captain Fallacy.

Time began at the Big Bang, 13.799 ± 0.021 x 10^9 years ago; the Earth wasn't formed until about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. Life got going pretty quickly after the formation of the Earth, but probably not until after the formation of oceans 4.41 x 10^9 years ago. The oldest evidence of life found so far is 4.1 x 10^9 years old, from right here in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2015_data_release
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2015/10/14/1517557112.full.pdf
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 6:58:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

<<Time began at the Big Bang, 13.799 ± 0.021 x 10^9 years ago; the Earth wasn't formed until about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. Life got going pretty quickly after the formation of the Earth, but probably not until after the formation of oceans 4.41 x 10^9 years ago. The oldest evidence of life found so far is 4.1 x 10^9 years old, from right here in Australia.>>

Are they proven facts or hypotheses by evolutionary scientists which have YET TO BE PROVED written all over them?

On what basis could you give that time estimate to the Big Bang?

You are making some assertions here that have your kind of certainty written over them:

+ "Time began at..."

+ "the Earth wasn't formed until about..."

+ "Life got going pretty quickly after the formation of the Earth..."

+ "The oldest evidence of life found so far is 4.1 x 10^9 years old..."

At least "the Big Bang" agrees with God's point of view: The earth had a begging. It is not eternal.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 8:12:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Are they proven facts or hypotheses by evolutionary scientists//

Evolutionary scientists doing cosmology? O.... kay.

//which have YET TO BE PROVED written all over them?//

If you're waiting for scientific theories to be proven, you'll be waiting a mighty long time, Captain Fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory"

//On what basis could you give that time estimate to the Big Bang?//

That estimate is based on CMB data gathered by the Planck spacecraft. I did provide a link, although for some reason it appears to not have worked properly. I'll try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)

//You are making some assertions here that have your kind of certainty written over them://

I sure am. My kind of certainty being the kind that says whilst scientific theories are tentative and can be overturned by evidence, they're a still a damn sight better than the scriptural alternatives.

//At least "the Big Bang" agrees with God's point of view: The earth had a begging. It is not eternal.//

No, the Big Bang deals with the beginning of the universe, and has nothing to say about the age of the earth. Current estimates of the age of the earth are based on radiometric dating.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 8:59:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni,

«It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise»

No, this is not the Hindu view.

Looking it up, I find this to be a private idea of one Hindu mathematician (Jñânarâja) who lived around 1500AD.

«If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause»

No, because God is not a thing.

Viewing God as a thing is the kind of material idolatry which Peter Sells refer to. Better no God at all than a God which is a thing!

---

Dear Alan,

«Along with the evil of celibacy and all that then flows from it and the normal human frustrations that creates!»

Celibacy is a gift and a virtue, not an evil. It offers invaluable freedom from sexual cravings and the turmoil that come with them. The evil you refer to has to do with people who failed to keep their promise to be celibate.
Frustration only occurs during the transition for someone who already lived an active sexual life and is now trying to quit. The frustrations within the dating "meat market" scene are even bigger. When one learns celibacy before puberty, it comes smoothly and easily.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I enjoy your conversation with Peter.

Please contemplate on the difference between truth and fact.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 2:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet,

<<What I wanna know is what all this inconsequential religious mumbo jumbo has to do with First Fleet How to Invade Australia for Dummies Day?>>

There are people on this forum who don't accept that the OT and NT are reliable historical documents that can be trusted. I presume you refer to my comment about Captain Cook.

The facts are that for those who engage in historical science, when we try to determine anything that happened in the past, distant past, whether Captain Cook, Jesus' resurrection, Joshua's life or the life of Albert Einstein they use tests to determine authenticity of any document.

Historians, as I am, use certain criteria to discern whether a document is authentic or not. My use of Captain Cook was to show that if we check out the criteria historians use to discover what happened with Cook, we have to use the same criteria with historical investigations in the OT and NT.

So, there is no inconsequential religious mumbo jumbo with my mentioning Cook in association with Jesus' resurrection.

As an historian, I use the same criteria for discerning whether the resurrection is an historically accurate account or whether Captain Cook sailed in the Endeavour up the east coast of what was to become Australia.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 31 January 2019 8:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu.

You asked for me to consider the difference between truth and fact. Often people use the terms interchangeably. "The truth of the matter is..." "The fact of the matter is..."

When they are used, more often the terms are a means to convey a point, regardless if it is factual in how facts are usually something provable. Or that it is the truth regardless if it actually is the truth or not.

How the terms are used is important because just talking about the truth doesn't mean that the truth is actually being addressed. Regardless if the term used is truth or fact.

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is a term for subjects that we can see, hear, or otherwise measure. The truth can include these things but you can't measure if a person is being deceitful, or on anything of their intents. But the reality is that a person can have a good intention or a harmful intention that just isn't measurable even though it is there. Though the reality of certain things can be addressed as being true or not, even if they are not addressed as facts and measurable observations to point to the truth.

On the matter that Peter and I am talking about is on whether Christians should count the bible as a reliable source of what is true and what isn't. He seems to take a position that doesn't make sense to me. Not just a position of not taking the bible seriously and not reading it as some Christians do. But instead to deny that Jesus died and rose again as an event that actually occurred. Can you be Christian with that perspective? Peter has made such a question something to consider. I don't think you can.

I know your opinions on the matter of Christianity not being true, but being something that can point to God. But you're not a Christian, Yuyutsu. If you don't believe in the texts of the bible, that changes nothing of your beliefs.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 February 2019 3:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy