What Sells apparently doesnt understand is that he is totally convicted of the mortalist "vision" of how things seem to be.
Everything he writes is a testimony to this fact.

The "vision" or model of human beings as described by scientific materialism. Scientism being the ruling paradigm which PATTERNS every last minute fraction of our "culture"---and has done so for a long time now.

Chapter One of this reference, titled The Purification of Doubt describes the anti-spiritual blindness of the common dreadfully sane mind---the mind that "informs" Sells writings on religion.

http://www.dabase.org/nirvana.htm

Nietzsche was correct when he claimed that "god" was dead. The possibility of a truly Divine Life was and is completely absent.

The "resurrection" didnt happen.

http://www.dabase.org/bloodsac.htm

Of course Sells does not mention the other half of the equation. Namely the totally absurd belief that true believers will be bodily resurrected at the "second coming of Jesus".

Which body will be "resurrected"? That of the newborn baby, a young child, teenager, a thirty year old in the prime of their life, the decrepit body of someone who wasted away with cancer?

What about bodies vaporised by a nuclear explosion?

These are the secrets of the Kingdom of God taught by Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive.

The Divine must be understood to BE at the "inside" of the world, and everyone in the world. Therefore, rather than seek for God as "outside", or as some Rule or Ruler of the world, the Divine MUST BE ACCEPTED AS the Ruler of the heart, and the mind, and the body---such that the ego-"I", or the selfish heart CEASES to be the False Ruler of the active life of the human individual.

The Kingdom of God is neither in nor of the world, but IT must be established within the heart of every individual. THIS practical moral and devotional teaching about right life is the first secret taught by Jesus.

It was the basis for his "outer" or public teaching work.

The second secret is the SPIRITUAL teaching about how to establish Kingdom of God within the heart, mind, and body by means of psycho-physical self-surrender of heart, mind and body into Communion with the Divine Spirit Breath.

By means of this comprehensive psycho-physical practice of Spirit Breath, worshippers or devotees would be established in constant Communion, or at-one-ment with the Living God.

Thus worshipping devotess were to constantly and INWARDLY with full concentration of heart, mind and body, Ascend into the Kingdom or Absolute Condition of the Light of the world. Or the Indivisible and Self-Illuminated Divine Spiritual Fullness That Shines Eternally Above the heart, mind and the body of every human being.

This was the esoteric or "inner" dimension of the teaching of Saint Jesus which was reserved for those who responded to the "outer" teaching---and calling.

I thought the article started well for apologetics, yet agenda overtook rational and objectivity went out the window. I don't profess to be knowledgeable regarding the bible, over the years any time I've looked at it, was from a cultural, psychological, and anthropological aspect, a pet subject of mine and part of my work. So I wondered at the following

<”This has produced “scientific man” who will not believe anything unless there is objective, observable evidence. A thorough application of this principle would produce a person who was uninterested in art or love, a frightening prospect. It is no wonder that there exists the character of the mad scientist.”>

This isn't the case, historically those representing a deity display condemnation and censorship of both love and art. Historically and objectively observed to this day, something you find much less of in non ideologically controlled cultures. Observable evidence is how we determine justice and functionality within rational societies, if it's not applied in understanding, you end up with irrational societies. I believe there is ample observable evidence supporting that hypothesis.

<”That Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate” confirms this historical nature.”>

I've come across this argument many times and have yet to find any reputable evidence supporting it ever happened. All the verifiable historical evidence shows it didn't. So another deception.

<”My hope is that Christians may be able to rejoice on Easter morn with the traditional greeting “Christ is risen!” and be answered equally enthusiastically by “He is risen indeed!” and do so with a clear conscience.”>

Using deceptive arguments doesn't give one a clear conscience, neither does trying to forget the visible outcomes inflicted upon all those through out history over run by those following what's scientifically accepted myth.

There's nothing wrong with having a belief, it's a psychological necessity. It doesn't matter if your belief can't be verified. What's fundamentally unconscionable, is to go to such lengths as to claim what is not and has never been as outcome of your belief.

<”That Jesus was “crucified under Pontius Pilate” confirms this historical nature.”>

I've come across this argument many times and have yet to find any reputable evidence supporting it ever happened. All the verifiable historical evidence shows it didn't. So another deception."

stormbay, just confirming that I am reading you correctly here: Are you suggesting that all the verifiable historical evidence shows Jesus was not crucified?

It appears that is what you're saying, but I just wanted to confirm.

If that IS your claim, then how do you explain away the gospel accounts, tacitus, josephus, and also paul, who was writing 20 years after the event, and says he was passing on an earlier tradition that says Jesus "died for our sins"? In other words, followers were reporting Jesus death within a few years after it happened

"The controversy between science and religion has revolved around whether God existed as a supernatural being and whether he could interfere with natural processes. We must admit, I think, that science has won the day here and has successfully chased God from the physical world."

The quote above is a big concession, and lies at the heart of this article. There are many "miracles" and "inexplicables" breaking the laws of nature and which are simply unexplained by science. Just check out "Lourdes cures" sometime, not to mention Fatima public ones. Even atheists admit these facts. Assuming these and others can all be explained away in the future indicates a rationalist mind at work whose subjective capitulation in the religious domain is a rather sad one. How does one handle the Shroud in light of the new evidence as well? Check our the Sudarium in Spain. It even fits the Shroud, they have now found. The Carbon14 dating has been blown away..Note the Pollen evidence as well.

If Jesus Christ is truly present in the validly confected Eucharist as the Catholics believe they have, then Christ has been present since He was transfigured as He promised, and likely to the end of time. Interestingly, it was only at the breaking of bread that they recognised Him at Emmanus. Also Aquinas has wonderful material on the transfigured body.

I feel a little sorry for this author. He seems an abused victim of the 19th century Historical Critical Method of scholarship. Have a read of this new Pope's book called "Jesus of Nazareth" and have your eyes opened....

Also check this link, and works quoted on it. I found them useful.
http://www.rcta.com.au/RCTAApologetics-Apr2008-GospelDating.html

There is a third option.
He didnt die.
It was all a big hoax.
It worked too!

People love conspiracy theories, none moreso than in the case of Jesus Christ, it seems

Aga

Most medical scientists and many Christians would not accept the Lourdes “cures” as miraculous. There are plenty of plausible natural explanations for these phenomena. And even if science could not explain them, so what? Yours is a classic ”God of the gaps” argument, confining God to the shrinking domain of things than cannot (yet) be explained by science, on the spurious logic that what science cannot explain must be due to divine intervention.

I have never been comfortable with faith grounded in the supposed “proof” of long-ago (or recent) demonstrations of God’s supernatural powers.

We do not have, and will never have, forensic evidence that would objectively prove that the body laid in the tomb came to life again. The experience of Jesus’ early followers led them to believe that, though Jesus died on the cross, his life continued beyond the tomb. We do not know what happened in the tomb, nor do we have words or science to explain precisely the phenomena that led them to that conviction. I do not believe that those experiences entailed encounters with Jesus’ former body brought back to life, or indeed that the resurrection was an event in history in the same way that the crucifixion was an event in history. The empty tomb is a powerful metaphor, and we diminish its power when we insist it must be taken literally.

I have to admire the way you dismiss other people's views, Trav, using the most contentious and tenuous of interpretations as your evidence.

If I were Jewish, I'd call it Chutzpah.

>> how do you explain away the gospel accounts, tacitus, josephus, and also paul, who was writing 20 years after the event, and says he was passing on an earlier tradition that says Jesus "died for our sins"?<<

This is the classic litany of the believer.

The gospel accounts? Were all written well after the events they "record", and differ in many key areas. As you well know.

Tacitus? He mentions "Christus", once. He had not independently verified the story, or the existence of "Christus". It was just a story that he passed on. But you know this.

Josephus? Testimonium Flavianum is "hotly contested" as a reliable source, given that there is clear evidence of tampering with the text. Hardly the most reliable of sources. Which of course you already know.

Paul? Writing 20 years after the event? I guess at least you don't claim that Paul "met" Jesus, which many do. But you would have to agree that anything he wrote was primarily designed to support his own mission, and therefore disqualifies him as objective evidence.

I'm a little surprised that you didn't bring up Tertullian. But I guess that even you realised that this would be a step too far from credibility.

But this is the beauty. Even knowing all the above, you still have the cheek to write:

>> In other words, followers were reporting Jesus death within a few years after it happened<<

"In other words..."

Chutzpah, indeed.

On the road to Damascus Paul is temporarily blinded by the resurrected Jesus...

We all know to dip our high beam at night as not blind drivers coming in the opposite direction. One would have thought the God of all the universe would have realised that super-luminousity would have hurt/disorientated Paul.

Given range from the darkest black and the brightest light of the super nova, why would the light given off by Jesus be "just" within the upper tolerance of human vision? So Paul can, "Linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty (Petual Clark)?

Or is it, a tale doesn't sound as good, without a few bells and whistles? And, yes, of course, lights.

Rhia,

With great kindness, who are most scientists? What statistics do you have? Secondly, tell me your scientific proofs for Lourdes miracles? Panels include top atheists and non-believers. I personally know an individual spontaneously cured at Lourdes of a tumour. It was not subjective for her doctor.

There is no "God of the Gaps"...You simply doubt every possible miracle out there, or even new ones we come across every day. Doubting every miracle in the Bible without scientific evidence, is irrational. So is doubting everything, everyone ever said, as a lie...New and different miracles also happen, so how is a gap created?
How is science gaining? What statistics do you have?

I seriously doubt, like many on this thread, that you have ever REALLY investigated miracles at all. I suggest you study Vatican approved miracles. You might be surprised. You doubt from a distance. That's gutless. This stuff goes on everyday. Study the image of Guadualapue, or miracles of modern day saints. Have you an open or closed mind? I also challenge you to go to the US and be present at a real excorcism. You might change your tune at one of those.
Non-believers have done this. Conversion came on the spot.

As for doubting every author in the first century about the resurrection of Christ. The apostles must have been pretty dumb to die for this myth. Whoever died for a lie? Nearly all were marytered. They all had first hand experience of resurrection. It could not have been group psychosis. Over several years? Ridiculous.

Disprove the Shroud too. Show us the money...You might be surprised where they are at now. As Atheists always say, the onus is on you...We'd like to know if its real or not?

I think many people on this thread are behind the times on religious issues....I sense a sixties/seventies religious education everywhere. Its a pity. We reaped what was sown.

aga, you wrote 'I suggest you study Vatican approved miracles.' That is just the trouble, the Vatican is the only body that investigates miracles (and 'approves' them!), and the Catholic church has a huge financial interest in the proving of miracles and the making of saints. People are so hoodwinked that when an image of sorts appears anywhere it is assumed to be Jesus if male and Mary if a female. A shape that looked remarkably like the silent screen star Mary Pickford popped up on a piece of toasted cheese a few years ago and was immediately claimed to be Mary and sold for ten of thousands of dollars on eBay.

In relation to spontaneous remission of tumors, why should we be any more surprised at that than at the development of the tumor in the first place? The last time I discussed the origin of brain tumors with an oncologist he said that the trigger and mechanism for the development of cancers cells is still not understood, so it makes sense that we don't yet understand why one might spontaneously shrink or disappear. No-one shouts 'Its a miracle, I've got a brain tumor,' so why attribute the reverse to divine intervention?

I think there is enough smoke to indicate some sort of fire. I think the broader Christ account is plausible, as the long historical record shows there are humans who will transcend fear and accept as their lot the most horrible of deaths, for a just cause they beleive in enough.
I find it challenges too much to go beyond the version cited by Sells; Mark, but find no trouble accepting the proposed non-shirking lead by example God. This God would more likely accept Christ and the historical few who also made the effort, than an ego driven earlier historical conception. And given what they've risked; good luck to them, they deserve all they get.
People don't like Easter. It reminds them of their limitations withits uncomfortable observations. It wasn't just "them" who did in Jesus; it was all of us (sympathy for the devil?) Its really about buckpassing and complicity- everyone has their price.
If the only tolerable life is one in which value and meaning must operate, Christianity seems a satisfying enough explanation without the "magic" bits. The riddle of death is not avoided in real Christianity, it is included as part of the scenario that faces every human, giving a plausible account of what people would have to transcend for meaningful life of any duration.
The eternality is just a side issue, but likely good icing on the cake.
It's ok to do a frivolous, comfortable life and just hope that you go to sleep afterwards, but what of the person who finds cowardice unbearable and must "take up arms in a sea of troubles"?
If you ignore the arguable injustices of life done others, what should you hope for if you are in strife yourself?
Distilling further, if sense of accomplishment is what makes life meaningful, what will life ever mean for a person never taking a hard decison?
Maybe Pascal's wager is still worth a think. At any rate, I think an ethical God is not so much the trouble as limited people.
And yes, its in our nature to think about these things.

As the only records of his resurrection were seen by his devoted followers and recorded many decades later, there is no solid information that he was resurrected at all.

Most probably, he died and his followers made it up to maintain the cult.

Ho Hum<<Which body will be"resurrected"?..>>it is the spirit that gets reserected into the soul;body,..the soul body shape is acording to the ego it houses..[thus in those with love of evil have a vile form[soul]body,those with good/grace/love have their inner goodness that shines through

as we spi-ritualy mature,we mature into a youth-fullness,..but usually when first reborn[are reborn]much as we are,..further others see us as we are recalled by them,in heaven..[yes and in hell]

we will even know those who thought to hide behind alias

and those with the plastic surgery..[that dosnt transcribe into the soul]..so all them nose job movie star's look only but vaguely like that celuloid image they portray

<<What about bodies vaporised by a nuclear explosion?..>> mate the physical meat dies,..the spirit inside us is eternal,

that ego they were..clothes them in their next after life..[those sheep remain sheep those wolves in sheeps clothing are revealed as the wolves they are,..our soul body reflects the real being we were being,..evil cant fake inner beauty

jesus died[in the flesh] what happend to his meat disappeared..[the minute he let go of his ego..its not an easy thing to do,..we spend so much effort in being who we think we are,..we miss that we really are,..ie..spirits having an incarnate learning,..designed mearly to give us the relitive realm in the next life[in heaven or hell],..that are not a threat [or punishment]only our just wages ,..chosen by us by that we loved in this life..[more shall be given]

say you loved to murder..[your love joins you to those with the same LOVE..[all the murderors are in the realm we would 'call' hell..,but they think they are in heaven..[because they so love murdering each other]..of course they can only murder those others who also love to murder

you have to love the justice of it all..,racist hell is a real hell, but racists so love their racism,..they all get the same realm[its not a punishment,its just what they love[fruits]they chose to love,..by their deeds..they chose to do..in this realm

What an extraordinary other-worldly question, aga.

>>The apostles must have been pretty dumb to die for this myth. Whoever died for a lie?<<

I would suggest that anyone who has been on the "wrong end" of a religious war has done exactly that.

If you were a Christian in the twelfth century, you would have seen a large number of Saracens taking this path. Of course, if you were a Saracen, you would say that the Christians had all died "for a lie".

If you were a Catholic in Northern Ireland in the seventies, you would have seen many Protestants die "for a lie" etc. etc.

Did the Germans of WWII "die for a lie"? What about self-immolators? Was there cause always justified, or did they not also "die for a lie"?

As I said, a very strange, and somewhat naive question.

>>They all had first hand experience of resurrection. It could not have been group psychosis.<<

Of course it could have been group psychosis - we have seen enough examples of that in religious communities through the ages, haven't we?

And there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they had "first hand experience of resurrection".

Anywhere.

"The gospel accounts? Were all written well after the events they "record", and differ in many key areas."

No, the gospels were written beginning from 30-35 years after the event.

And this was in a culture where 10-15% of people could actually read and write. So EVERYTHING people knew was passed on orally. And the earliest follower were all Jews- guys who memorised the Torah word for word. It seems incomprehensible to us today, but their memories would've been 100 times better than ours. Also, they agree on the main points and only differ on minor ones.

"Tacitus? He mentions "Christus", once. He had not independently verified the story, or the existence of "Christus"."

1. He was clearly referring to Jesus of Nazareth, because the other information he says cancels out any other possibilities. 2. Why would you need independent verification when you've got Paul, the gospel sources (Q), John and Josephus?

"Josephus? Testimonium Flavianum is "hotly contested" as a reliable source, given that there is clear evidence of tampering with the text."

Actually, no. The part about Jesus being crucified is not really hotly contested. Josephus uses familiar Josephus-like language, and had no reason to make it up. The parts that were tampered with are the other bits- where he says Jesus IS the messiah and asks "be it lawful to call him a man?"

"Paul? Writing 20 years after the event?

But you would have to agree that anything he wrote was primarily designed to support his own mission, and therefore disqualifies him as objective evidence."

1. Yes, Paul wrote between 48-64 AD. 15-30 years after Jesus. An extremely small time period in antiquity.

2. Do we disqualify everything Tacitus wrote because he wrote with an obvious Roman Imperial agenda? No. Do we ignore all of Josephus writings because he wrote with an obvious Jewish agenda? No. They why on earth would we disqualify Paul?! That's not how historians work. You seem reasonably knowledgable on the topic (although, I could be wrong), so I'm surprised you even brought this point up!

Trav,

One argument put is that Josephus remained an orthodox Jew and did not convert to the new Christian Judiasm. Why so, if Jesus had so much appeal?

After the period of oral lore, the many gospels are displaced in locality, as we as time, having provincial flavours. In orthodox Christianity, the Gospel of Thomas, which would be close in time to alleged Q, is ignored by Christians.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are illustrative of the general religiosity of the period. Also, how works, even the OT works, were re-written.

Sacrafice and resurrection are known to the mystery cults from 500 BCE until after Jesus' time. Jesus is not well differentiated from Mithras and Dionysus. The Isis-Osirus godhead is an apt template for the trinity.

I do believe it is concievable Jesus existed:

Jesus may have been crucified close to the Passover. However, it is unlikely Pilate, Prefect (not Proconsul as Christians claim) of Judea, would have risked a roit by crucifying people during the Passover.

Likewise large crowds gathering to he hear a Jew speak in a the time the zealots were calling for revolt against Rome seems doubtful. Had the gospels said, 40 godfearers gathered, maybe it could have happen

So, your central argument, Trav, is that barely literate, Bronze Age tribal societies produced more accurate historical records than the structured academic enquiry of the modern era, and that oral information is more reliable than written, even after half a century of circulation?

When will you be abandoning Christianity to take up the beliefs of Aboriginal Australians? Their myths must be straight from the mouth of god!

Oliver, you've got it backwards- there would've been a riot had Jesus NOT been crucified. Remember, it was mainly the crowd, NOT Pilate who wanted Jesus dead. Jesus did at least four major things which were utterly offensive to the Jewish religious establishment during passover week, hence why they baying for his blood. The fact that Jesus was doing these offensive things during passover week made the crowd want him crucified more not less.

Regarding the Mithras/Dionysus myths, if you have a look into those further you'll find there's absolutely no substance to it. For starters, there are no solid historical records of any of those Gods being resurrected before 200AD. Goto YouTube and type in "Habermas/Callaghan debate" and you'll find a snippet from Lee Strobel's old program Faith Under Fire, where this subject is debated. Callaghan is pressed continually, but is unable to actually provide any evidence for this myth claim.

re: Gospel of Thomas, this is most reliably dated in the Mid Second century. Some date it earlier, but the strongest arguments by far put it over 100 years after Jesus. It really doesn't tell us much about the Historical Jesus at all. But if you think it does- why? What does it tell us?

Sancho, you'll need to clarify your comment for me. Why have you set up a false dichotomy between trusting ancient historical records, and "structured academic enquiry"? I'm not sure where you're going with this- please tease this out further and explain it's relevance to the discussion.

<”stormbay, just confirming that I am reading you correctly here: Are you suggesting that all the verifiable historical evidence shows Jesus was not crucified?”>

Trav, the story doesn't fit the known facts. Herod was dead years before the event. In all the recorded documentation of the time kept by Herod's kingdom, the Romans and two Jewish tribes of Herod's kingdom makes no mention of any such event or a Jesus.

Herod was a king, he ruled over his kingdom not the Romans, he was a friend of Rome not conquered. Therefore Pilates had no say in the law of the land and Herod had no need to turn to Pilates for a judgement, he metered out his own punishment and it is well documented.

The official documentation around Pilates never mentions anything about the event, nor does the more then 30 documented writers of the time in the exact area. Herod married the daughter of one of the chiefs of the Jewish tribes and they make no mention of any event written in the bible.

The more than 100 documented writers of the time around the area make no mention of anything surrounding the bible, nor does any Roman document and they kept meticulous records.

If god and jesus are so great, you'd have thought they could easily leave real evidence. An event like the loaves and fishes, would have been headlined everywhere with such a large group of people attending. But there is no mention of anything ever. It's the same with Paulini, Josephus and others, they never met him any fleeting mention, is hearsay many years later. The section in Josephus writings has been debunked as having been added by the church, they determine that by the linguistics and writing style of the various times.

Look at the historical acts and outcomes from this belief, and you find nothing to support it's credibility in any way. When you have to fake evidence, your veracity goes out the window.

Thanks stormbay, I was about to make the same points, but far less eloquently than you have.

Trav, your approach to history reflects your desire that the foundations of your faith are based in accurately recorded events. You might have to accept that historical precision is not only impossible, but entirely unnecessary. Then you won't have to have these arguments all the time.

As Sells' himself points out in his article.

Here's his take on the central focus of an entire religion:

"My contention is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an event that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about its reality or not, but rather is based on the subjective; the experience of the presence of Christ."

Given this approach, why would you not treat the entire story in the same manner. What would you lose?

To paraphrase Sells a little...

"My contention is that all the stories about Jesus Christ are not events that may be observed and examined so as to come to a conclusion about their reality or not, but rather are based on the subjective"

This attitude would be far less stressful, I would suggest.

Look at Sells. The very model of stress-free Christianity.

I have pointed out in another thread some of the many flaws in the Bible...

Storm Boy very succinctly outlines the failing in the historical record.

But even the Bible lets down the notion of a resurrection even if a crucifixion did take place.

John 19:30, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46 all state Jesus died. (I haven't checked every version)

What was in the wine (vinegar)that they put to Jesus' lips?

Mark 15:23 mentions the oil Myrrh - http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=167&othername=Myrrh%20(Botanical:%20Commiphora%20Molmol). but Jesus allegedly wouldn't drink it.

Matthew 27:34 mentions gall (hemlock)http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7219.htm Gall means bitter but hemlock (a poison) can cause unconsciousness and death. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821362-overview Jesus tasted it but wouldn't drink it.

John 19:39 "...Nicodemus took Myrrh and Aloes" Myrrh has antiseptic qualities and alloes have healing properties (not embalmers) http://www.peacehealth.org/KBASE/cam/hn-2036003.htm

Matthew 27:48 One of the crowd took a sponge dipped in cheap wine and soon after died.

Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified?

Of course then there is this problem

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

With more explanations here

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

Followed by this (ah human's nothing like a good alleged fraud)

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1850111,00.html

It all makes a wonderful story, but if the Bible is flawed in so many areas, why wouldn't it be flawed in the alleged historical account of the alleged Jesus.

opinionated, your last link leads to this link

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

with this quote...<<A leading New Testament expert from Princeton Theological Seminary,Prof.James Charlesworth,was intrigued enough to organize a conference in Jerusalem this week,..bringing together over 50 archeologists,statisticians and experts in DNA,ceramics and ancient languages,..to give evidence as to whether or not the crypt of Christ had been found...

..Their task was complicated by the fact that since the tomb was opened in 1980,the bones of the various ossuaries had gone missing through a mishap of Israeli bureaucracy....>>..LOL,if NOT real proof what would they have to fear?these acts alone prove some validity[israel authorities]..mate,should have protected the evidence better..[be it true or faulse]

<<Also gone were diagrams made by excavators that showed where each stone sarcophagus lay inside the tomb,and what the family relationships might have been,...>>lol..one needs to think why stuff around and hide the info SO VITAL TO XTIANS yet possably so dangerouse to israel

it disapearing gives it validation..[for if it proves nothing why disappear the evidence..[someone got frightend and made real attempt to hide the stuff,..perhaps even for good[ill]reasons..as well as organise the rebuttal[and articles etc]

it sounds suss

[who gains?,..who stands to lose?,..who fears the info?,

if untrue why hide it?..israel authorities couldnt be that dumb[but in this case clearly are,or are risking for it to appear so..[why?]

newton01, that's a mistranslation from the Hebrew, as everyone knows.

"American Audio Q-Spand PRO 4-Channel DJ Mixer" should be read as a Jewish criticism of Christ's failure to produce thumping new-school trip-hop breakbeats at his weekend party sermons.

In fact, we know from the apostles that the messiah's fusion Eurotrance stylings reinvigorated Jerusalem's retro acidfunk DJ scene.

That's why Catholics conclude their prayers with "...the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. That rad s--t is off the hook, yo!"

Trav,

Sorry wasn’t clear about Jesus’ ability to pull crowds. I was referring to events, such as the feeding of the multitudes (5,000). It is doubtful Rome would not have allowed it. Also whom Jesus could minister to would have been governed by the Herodians (Thiering).

Dionysus was known to Homer and the Ancient Greeks. Mithraism was brought toRome sixty years before Jesus was born:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578314/mithraism.html

Wells and Toynbee present Jesus in the middle of a Religious Age. When the sorts of the characteristics attributed to Jesus were shared across deities and his needs reported known to teacher mendicants. Mendicants to the Gentiles were from the House of David. This is why think he is an historical person. Much of the description of the crucifixion also seems accurate, though he would not have carried a 150 kg cross – only the crossbeam.

My reference for the Gospel of Thomas was Burton Mack of Claremont Theological College. Thomas is not a flowing narrative. I mention it because the sources I have read place it as early as Mark. Yes, Thomasine manuscripts are dated much later.

Although Qumram 7Q5 might represent an early edition of Mark; given, the tiny Rylands P52 fragment’s dating, we simply do not have significant NT manuscripts of canonicals, either:

http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

Thomas is in on a similar footing as Mark in reconstruction. Researchers would try to associate its saying with Q and the canonical gospels. It is hard to ago before 200 CE in dating respectably sized NT manuscripts: Usually codexes suggesting the pages were flipped for comparison.

One way alterations come about, it is thought is that copiers “copy” (ahem) margin notes made on the target document into a new document.

[Busy. I could be offline for a few days.]

I thought this was all cleared up when Jesus come back in the form of Mr Moon. If you got any questions shouldn't you just ask him, I think he's moved to the US.
LOL

OK, you guys have raised a few points that I wasn't aware of! That doesn't bother me in the slightest though, because I'm no expert and never claimed to be. However, I will look into this further. In fact, I've read a few books on these subjects and some of these points have been discussed in those books, but obviously I can't recall every detail of everything I read.

Still, a few questions:

"The more than 100 documented writers of the time around the area make no mention of anything surrounding the bible"

What do you mean by "surrounding the bible"? That's a rather ambiguous statement, please clarify and specify exactly what you mean. Do you mean "none of the places and people mentioned in the bible are mentioned by these authors?", or do you mean "None of the events in Jesus life have also been recorded by these authors?"

Also, who are these 100 authors? Have you got any website links (or books) which delve into this further?

"An event like the loaves and fishes, would have been headlined everywhere with such a large group of people attending. But there is no mention of anything ever."

I'm arguing that Jesus was crucified. Nowhere have I attempted to argue that every event, as recorded in the bible, is literally true.

"It's the same with Paulini, Josephus and others, they never met him any fleeting mention, is hearsay many years later."

As with most ancient history, Josephus wrote much later than the events he was describing. Nothing unusual there at all.

"The section in Josephus writings has been debunked as having been added by the church."

Incorrect. Please read my previous posting on this. There's 3 lines of his testimonium flavvium which are universally considered interpolations, however most historians agree that the rest is legit-for good reasons too, such as Josephus using words he regularly used. And thats only one of the two references. So in other words, there's not much doubt at all that Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, and that he mentioned the crucifixion.

Candide,

With respect, I mention Vatican approved miracles, precisely because that is where secularist and non-Catholics are involved. Don't you think the Vatican has a vested interest in approving something modern science cannot debunk? Think about it. Get past your "Da Vinci code" like predudice and get your hands dirty. As for the mockery of secular media about toasted Mary or something...Get real...as if anyone takes them seriously. By the way tell me someone who has a spontaneous tumor. I'd be interested to know...As for dead cells regenerating instantly, in remission cases, are you for real?

Pericles could you also please define evidence for us? That would be nice....What dictionary do you use? We could then discuss something useful? Dismissing evidence without valid proof is just your surmise. You might as well dismiss ALL the classics, as just about everything we have was preserved by monks...Most works we have today are copies of copies. Just close your history books, since you disbelieve in everything? There is more evidence for Gospel accounts than anything else. Papyrus fragments are amongest the earliest we have. Look at Fr Wren, Fr Carmingac, Carsten Thiede etc...You have not checked my links page...cited earlier.

They have found the tomb and home of Caiaphasis the high priest, they have found the sheep pool with five porticos. We have found a marker with the name Pontius Pilate - Governor from early 1st century Israel.

If your wondering why Discovery Channel, Time, Ron Howard, Dawkins, Hitchens and co are peddaling rhetoric and conspiracy stories, and fake tombs, it is because their ideas are intellectually bankcrupt and everyone knows it, except perhaps yourself. Heck every Antony Flew believes in God now? Wonders never cease. Read Scott Hahn's and Wiker's book on "Answering the New Atheism". They blow them away.

"Trav, your approach to history reflects your desire that the foundations of your faith are based in accurately recorded events. You might have to accept that historical precision is not only impossible, but entirely unnecessary. Then you won't have to have these arguments all the time."

Sorry, I'm not sure where you got that impression. I've already stated numerous times here that I understand that historical investigation can only go on probabilities. But here's the thing: the events surrounding the resurrection are historical facts, as in, we can say with a reasonable level of historical certainty that they happened- the crucifixion, empty tomb, and the disciples strong belief in post mortem appearances- so I'm simply proposing that the best explanation of these is a resurrection, especially in the absence of any plausible natural explanation.

However as we can all see, we're discussing the crucifixion right now.

the truth is jesus died..[lest those who claim he died for our sins wish to reclaim them]so he physiclly died,..yet clearly his spirit lives on,..if only because he lives in our minds enough to discuss him in this living moment

jesus never said i am god..[let him be,called'emanuel'[god within us]jesus spirit lives in my mind..[gods spirit lives in my heart]..it is jesus who stains my faith,..and god who sustains my life

not the light but[to]bear witness;of the light]..just by living,our lives bear witness of the life sustaining light,..the logic of light/sustaining life sustains/my belief in the light]..the fruit of the light is my life..[is sustaining your life]too

i didnt make this up..[i live therefore i am]..this is a known-known[or a knowable-known]..science with all its theory HAS NEVER MADE LIFE,!..yet dares to speculate that life had a beginning from non life..lol

life begets life such is the evidence..[if you have faulsifyable proof/..non-life creates life please reveal it]

the holy-text reveals that life..[god]..sustains the light that sustains life..[even science has not rebutted this fact,..life came from somewhere..]

[thus the word records that life..[god]..breathed life into the clayman..[adam]and lo the clay lived..[science has only replicated life with the re-animation of life..[by using a living cell]..lol

life appears to die..[thus the messiah needed to'die'],not for our sins but for our grace,..that life be proved/beyond physical-life..jesus returned and said;see im not morte..[not dead]..thus we know we will all be born/again

but then comes some thief in the night stealing gods living gift to say ye must be born-again..[as in a bornagainchistian]..lol..which is a destraction from the mesiah's teaching..[for he did asure even a judean/thief..he too will be born/again[this very day,of his'death']

i note the complainers attempting to rebut the proof..talk of olden days..[but proof of life-after/life is in the realms of science/fact,

but it is not me that needs know you live on after death,but you to prove your dead...rebut if you will..[with your proofs dead is dead]..

but simpler or better..prove what is life..[as your claiming you live]yet i see your life is death

Oh dear, do I detect sarcasm, aga?

>>Pericles could you also please define evidence for us? That would be nice....What dictionary do you use?<<

I probably define it the same way that you do, except that I have subdivisions of evidence that I call "credible", "stretched-credible" and "incredible".

>>There is more evidence for Gospel accounts than anything else.<<

Well you see, that's where we disagree.

There are absolutely no contemporary accounts.

The Romans - much like the British Raj - kept quite detailed records of their administrations across their empire.

Not a whisper about Jesus.

Given the various deeds that were attributed to him, does it not appear extremely unlikely that they all passed unnoticed at the time?

Incredible.

>>Heck every Antony Flew believes in God now?<<

What, every one of him?

As far as your poster-boy goes, I find him far more convincing as an atheist, than he is as a convert.

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design”

A somewhat... unique, shall we say, take on a scientific breakthrough that most folk use to reinforce the logic behind evolutionary theory.

So far, I notice, Flew has managed to avoid associating his new-found God with a particular religion, but I suspect it is only a matter of time.

I wonder which one he'll pick, given there are so many to choose from.

I doubt very much Flew would actually cherry pick any of the religions in order to become a ‘believer’ Pericles – and he’s hardly a ‘convert’ to any. I fear aga chooses her ‘poster-boy’ from false presumption. He’s quite clear on his rejection of all alleged divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. He also continues to reject outright the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence.

His suggestion in 2004 that, “…the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before" is hardly a straightforward polemic arguing for God’s ‘existence’ . Flew is perhaps somewhat similar to the late astronomer (and also declared atheist), Fred Hoyle, who also reminds us that physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive. Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." It may be convenient to believe in the total randomness of events but it seems to be increasingly illogical in continuing to pursue such a line.

The resurrection of the boy Jesus before the Christ might be a better answer as far as compassion for others is concerned.

According to historians, so much since has been spoilt by the powerful colonial grab philosophy.

Sorry to be a tease, Regards, BB, WA.

One can say that it historically true the Herodians delegated the role ministering to Gentiles to descendents of the House of David. Pilate, Caiaphas and Pilate were historical people. Religious mendicants were common to the period. The description of crucifixion in the main is accurate. Place names and names of religious sects and practices in the main are accurate. There seems to have been some oral lore about a person called Jesus surviving him by a few generations, later to be documented to an alleged life lived: Even then, Mark, the earliest Nicaean gospel, does really give a biography. That is about as far history will take us.

G'day Trav, I'm not going to argue with you, my knowledge comes from reading, because of my psychological background I'm very interested in, “psychology in anthropology” and a friend is a cultural anthropologist. Google Herods history, I read papers by Jewish researchers who make the claim there's no mention in Roman, Herodian, or Jewish verified documents of anything withinin the NT bible as having happened.

Josephus would've been twelve at the time, he only writes his recollections as a young boy of the Jewish tribal riots, he would have been in the cradle at the time of jesus.

I'm sorry Trav, most historians don't agree with what you claim, it's the opposite unless they are themselves fervently religious and read what they want to be there, instead of what really is. If there were substantiated archaeological and historical evidence supporting the crucifixion and resurrection, it would be splashed all over the newspapers and TV's of the world and people wouldn't deny it. It's the same with your miracles, nothing acceptable to substantiate them, just hearsay. Yet there is no such claim, other than from those who hysterically babble out rubbish and false hope within churches around the world.

I was at an ANZAC day dawn service Saturday and someone invited a pastor to say a few words. The first thing he said was “oh god of love and peace” to which their was an audible groan from most of the vets. His statement is the opposite to the reality veterans faced in wars created by ideologies, mainly around religion. He was saying his god was all love and peace, whilst the evidence shows the opposite. That's the problem you face Trav, lack of real knowledge, no credible supporting evidence for anything claimed and yet you expect people to accept unsubstantiated and impossible fairy tales as truth. To achieve that aim, you have to have your argument based on credible evidence and you don't have any of that.

reida, no evolutionary biologists that i know of claim the "random emergence" of a single cell, and the junkyard-aircraft analogy is tired and trite strawman nonsense. i hope hoyle and/or flew had something of more substance to offer, but i somehow doubt it.

bushbasher,
A shortcoming in the 'Age of Reason’, for some people, are that the various traits bound to creativity, intuition and the subconscious cannot be proven and therefore do not exist. Rigidly held prior conceptions and conceptual lacunae reduce thinking to the two-dimensional.

Random events do in fact underlie a wide range of biological processes as diverse as genetic drift and molecular diffusion. But that is not my point and neither was it Hoyle’s or Flew’s. I suspect also, many find Sells difficult, if not, impossible because they have absolutely no theological framework or concept to go by.

reida, i can make little sense of your first paragraph. to the extent that i can make sense of it, it seems irrelevant.

to claim that random events "underlie" a biological process is quite different from claiming that it is the sum total of the process. whatever you (or hoyle) intended, that is the force of the plane-junkyard analogy.

BB, it was actually meant to be an insult.

>>reida, i can make little sense of your first paragraph<<

The point being made is that you are constrained to think in only two dimensions...

>>Rigidly held prior conceptions and conceptual lacunae reduce thinking to the two-dimensional.<<

That's you, by the way.

There is also confirmation of my view of Sells' offerings.

>>I suspect also, many find Sells difficult, if not, impossible because they have absolutely no theological framework or concept to go by<<

This is code for "he can only talk to fellow theology graduates from his own faith". Which of course we have known all along.

I'm a little puzzled by relda's dismissal of poor old Flew.

>>He’s quite clear on his rejection of all alleged divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. He also continues to reject outright the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence<<

So much for the atheist who came in from the cold.

The sting in the tail was there, though.

>>It may be convenient to believe in the total randomness of events but it seems to be increasingly illogical in continuing to pursue such a line.<<

I think this is also supposed to be a snide remark aimed at us atheists.

Apparently, the only alternative to believing in some form of supreme being is to believe that all events are totally random.

If that's not an example of two-dimensional thinking, I don't know what is.

Correction of above: Even then, Mark, the earliest Nicaean gospel, does NOT really give a biography. That is about as far history will take us. - O.

Relda and bushbasher,

1. Infinite indetermancy exists at a quantum level. Probability is the inner shell of macro systems.

2. Scientists are exploring the mechanism of biological creation. What is needed,for life known to us, is that there is a cell wall to contain amino acids and that the cells replicate. Cell walls have been "created" in the lab. Crystals show some characteristics of organic life, i.e., replication. Study of the same is a work in progress.

Regards,

O.

Pericles,

It was not sarcasm, but a touch of truth, and it bit didn't it....
I am sorry if you were offended, but this is how others are reading you as well. I don't claim to be better than anyone else. You may disagree with my opinions, but if you intend to discuss in a valid manner, than it helps to make things clear what your saying. As for your personal sub-categories of evidence, these are still not defined?

As for Roman evidence, I see it more plausible than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly...How could they given Gospel accounts. Besides, if Roman guards fell asleep on duty near the tomb, they would have been put to death, and I doubt Pontius Pilate would have reported the case. I'd bet the Jews would have paraded Jesus body through the streets to disprove the Resurrection if the body was around, but they did not. Why not? Surely they would have gone all out for this approach. If so, explain St Paul, whose letters possibly predate some Gospels. More psychosis again?

Would you have recorded it today? I doubt it. The secular media would have dropped it. I'll give you an example of how they work. Remember that Montana plane crash in the cemetery. It sort of died quickly as a story. You want to know why? Check this weblink...
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/646579835.html#
Its a very tragic situation, and the family needs remembering, and prayers for those who can offer them I think. More objective reporting out the window. This is still my complaint against Atheists etc..today...Not intellectually honest anymore.

As for Antony Flew, I am intrigued as to why an offhand comment should have such an effect? To close to the mark perhaps...Yes he was a more honest intellectual atheist than Dawkins and co. Maybe that's why I suppose...

My goodness, aga, that's some ticket you have on yourself. "Touch of truth" indeed...

>>It was not sarcasm, but a touch of truth, and it bit didn't it... I am sorry if you were offended<<

Offended by what, aga? Please be reassured that nothing you have written has offended me in the slightest. Think Dennis Healey/Geoffrey Howe.

I am impressed, though, by the amount of stretch required to follow your line of reasoning.

>>I see it more plausible than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly...<<

Yep. I think anything is more plausible "than no Roman would have recorded the Resurrection directly"

>>if Roman guards fell asleep on duty near the tomb, they would have been put to death<<

They fell asleep? I thought they were distracted in a game of cards with the two angels.

>>I doubt Pontius Pilate would have reported the case<<

On what grounds? Insignificance?

>>I'd bet the Jews would have paraded Jesus body through the streets to disprove the Resurrection if the body was around, but they did not. Why not?<<

"I'd bet..." is a pretty strong argument around these parts.

>>Surely they would have gone all out for this approach<<

And don't call me Shirley.

>>If so, explain St Paul...<<

That's a big "if", aga.

>>Would you have recorded it today? I doubt it...<<

What is there to doubt?

I'm at a party and some dude turns water into wine, it'd go straight on the blog. Ditto Lazarus, loaves and fishes, leaping lepers, the whole lot.

Then he gets the death penalty...

It would at least make Today Tonight.

Your "the secular press is out to get us" link is pretty unconvincing, too.

Only a "christiannewswire" would make the link between a crashed plane, a "Tomb of the Unborn" and a random guy who they admit "was not an abortionist". At best, it might have made a line in MX's "What the Weird" column.

The reporter was not too good with facts, either.

"The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles"

Think about that for a moment.

Pericles

That last post of yours - up there among your best.

AGA

If you want to believe in resurrections, you are free to do so. I just wish that all Christians would treat their spiritual beliefs as private and personal (as do some Christians), as I do mine and spare us the frightening aspect of the mental gymnastics you use to believe in the impossible and then get all het-up when your mental twists are pointed out to you.

Much anguish could then be avoided.

aga,

The Catholic Church now admits the Shroud of Turin to be a fake. When I was growing it was the True Shroud. The Brothers visiting my high school even had a 35 mm slide show. After forensic science demonstrated the Shroud to have been no where near the necessary antiquity, the Catholic Church said it had known for centuries it was not ""The" Shroud and had never held the position it was genuine. Yet, I can still remember the slide show.

I agree with Pericles. Were crowds gathering in their thousands or had the Perfect of Judea and a Jewish King (actually the Herodians technically were Syrian) and the High Priest come to together to discuss one case, the Romans would have recorded:

Today, imagine a State Premier and the Head of Jewish Faith in Australia giving evidence before a Magistrate, who also happens to be a State Treasurer, and nobody officially records the incident?

The Jews would not have paraded a dead body. Especially, before the fall of the Second Temple, their purification codes would not have allow it

Thanks Fractelle. Tea on the terrace? Or perhaps a glass of wine by that roaring fire?

But there was one last item in aga's saga that I meant to comment upon, but forgot.

>>As for Antony Flew, I am intrigued as to why an offhand comment should have such an effect? To close to the mark perhaps...Yes he was a more honest intellectual atheist than Dawkins and co. Maybe that's why I suppose...<<

Aga, every time a religionist feels the ropes at their back, the name Antony Flew is paraded before us.

"Such an effect?" Oh, please.

It's like swatting flies. You know they are harmless, but they are just sufficiently annoying to warrant a slap.

We've been through this often enough on this forum, but here's a quick overview of my own position, because you are new around here.

Point one: atheists are not required to think alike.

The only concepts we share is that there is no God, and that all religionists are kidding themselves to believe that there is.

Antony Flew had a brilliant, highly active mind. He explored atheism from a philosophical perspective.

My atheism does not have its roots in philosophical theory. I don't think like him. I suspect few people do.

Point two: it is of absolutely no concern to me that Antony Flew has decided to believe in the existence of a higher power. It is, after all, a thoroughly personal choice, and one that I begrudge no-one. I did allow myself to reflect upon his rationale, but it appeared, to me, somewhat unsound. Just another variation on the "it's so complex, there must be an amazing mind behind it all" theme.

In my more cynical moments, I also entertain the thought that if he was "wrong" before, maybe he is "wrong" now. But then again, since it is a personal decision taken for entirely selfish and personal reasons, it doesn't seem to be any concern of mine where his opinion now stands.

It just hacks me off the way he is wheeled out every time a religionist is on the back foot.

Pericles,
Most, if not all of my comments are not aimed to be personally vindictive, which you seem to interpret as snide – nevertheless people will often choose to take offense at anything written. I would hope bushbasher saw my comments as dialectic (even if not understood) rather than as something malicious. Comments made by some are obviously meant to offend – but I find a ‘thick skin’ is a good repudiation for such ‘felony’.

I certainly don’t claim to understand or agree with everything Sells has written but he offends me as much as you – that is, not at all. Just as “atheists are not required to think alike” neither I guess are those who might profess Christianity. Some atheists are perhaps best avoided – just as are some Christians. Aga’s fundamentalist disposition and those of similar kind are thankfully overruled by secular authority. Her interventionist god appears to act vindictively against those involved with abortion (see her link). ‘Pro’-lifer’s exhibit a terrible double standard - it seems totally arbitrary to condemn the killing of a human life on the one hand and yet completely sanction its removal on the other – an example of an ideology ‘running amuck’.

Your allusion to a ‘supreme being’ is not mine – none of my posts have ever mentioned such a simplistic ‘alternative’.

Oliver,
I guess the polemic here doesn’t really revolve around the idea that ‘man is able to create’ but is more centered in the ‘form’ of creation existing ‘outside’ of him/ her - in an ontological sense, naturally.

I think George made good reference to your post relating to ‘Infinite indetermancy’ around 12 months ago: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7190#111902

reida,

1) obviously your tone wasn't insulting, but i think pericles is correct. you were belittling my way of thinking as being naive and narrow: missing a dimension or two, in fact.

2) that's o.k. but if you're going to do that, you should have cause and, when queried, be able to back up your charge. you haven't done that.

3) it is not dialectic simply because you say it is. there was no reasoning in your first paragraph, simply unsubstantiated criticism. as for the second paragraph, until you explain otherwise, i still regard your use of the plane-junkyard analogy as nonsense. and cliched nonsense at that.

4) you may be right, that some like me do not appreciate sells because of my lack of theological background. but it is unlikely, and distracting from the main point. in fact, your are supplying sells the cheap defence of the 3rd rate expert.

usually when "experts" are misunderstood it is either because: (a) they are not smart enough to capture the essence of their field; or (b) there is little or no content to their field of expertise. in sells' case, i suspect (b). but even if it is (a), the burden is his.

but of course this is all really giving sells way too much credit. you are of course ignoring the fact that sells is often simply trying to stir, and treats the majority of the critical posters here with contempt.

(5) finally, for your own sake, you should try to write simply. complicated ideas sometimes need complicated expression. but most ideas are simple. you have a real knack of weighing down the simple with $5 words.

bushbasher,
Firstly, Pericle’s opening comment, “..it was actually meant to be an insult” is incorrect, it is also presumptuous – after all, how would he, or could he know what I meant? Certainly not from my previous posts. Quite simply, my comments were not meant as an insult.

“A shortcoming in the 'Age of Reason’, for some people, are that the various traits bound to creativity, intuition and the subconscious cannot be proven and therefore do not exist. Rigidly held prior conceptions and conceptual lacunae reduce thinking to the two-dimensional.” This is far less belittling (if belittling at all) than you saying, “…your are supplying sells the cheap defence of the 3rd rate expert.”

For a bit of 'stirring', of which you accuse Sells, read again Pericles post beginning with, “Oh dear, do I detect sarcasm, aga?...” Go back and read many of his other posts. Will you accuse Pericles of the same or perhaps admit, “If the heat is too hot in the kitchen etc…” I’ve given my own share of ‘stirring’ and certainly take as good as I give. Perhaps others should give similar consideration, and to use another old cliché but a ‘goodie’, with its origin from Don Quixote, don’t have ‘the pot call the kettle black’.

Finally, thanks for the advice on ‘writing simply’ – but I’ll do it for your sake (as I've done here) and not my own.

reida,

1) insult or not? not "meant"? maybe pericles was overstating it, but you're playing semantics.

2) who is being more belittling? as i said, the belittling is not the issue, it's the cause and the substantiation. and reference to the cheap defence was more an attack on sells: you're suggesting the attack is not warranted? you want me to substantiate it? please, oh please, don't go there.

3) will i accuse pericles of stirring? too right! one of the best in the business. but he (?) doesn't initiate stirring month after month (notably, this month excepted): he's not the germ. and i very much doubt, a la sells, that pericles would deny it. more to to the point, pericles engages: he makes arguments, and he addresses the arguments of others. there is substance in his stirring. by comparison, sells spends the vast majority of his postings simply sermonising. pot and kettle? well, they're both black. how about pot and cadillac?

4) yes, for my sake, your writing was better this time. a ways to go, but thank-you. but if you don't see it's for your sake as well, you are hugely missing the point.

5) recall, our little sub-debate started here because of a your "two-dimensional" crack, followed by your apparent defence of the plane-junkyard analogy. without the latter, the former looks kind of silly and lonely. do you want to defend the latter? or will you disown it, and we can write it off as a clumsy post? or, do you want to continue to obfuscate with sub-sub-debates?

Dear relda,

It is an interesting point you raise about creation; where, if I am permitted to extrapolate with a quotation:

“Our personal involvement in the world is with some parts of the world, while the conception of the creation of the world encompasses the whole world.” Polanyi and Prosch (1975)

Herein, if, we are a part of the created Universe and, we create life, or for that matter, we create another universe; our capacity to do so is only possible, because of the endowment of our creation by an external entity. Our “given” capacity is over the parts of the Universe, where we have dominion.

In regress, it raises the thought of a Higher Creator creating our Creator with the power to create us.

Attempts at resolution goes straight to the issue of First Cause. Creation is an event, which brought us and ultimately capacities into existence. Theists would have a supernatural agent transcending material existence. Others would have capacities arising from a Universe, without transcental First Cause.

Ontologically, our Being is related to placing a delimiter somewhere. “Who created the Universe?” “Who created God?”

Actually, the above questions have a strong Western epistemology and methodology. An Eastern culture would ask; “Why was the Universe created?” and “Why was God created?” If we answer the first question, “to serve some purpose of God’s,” the second question endures.

Thanks. I enjoyed revisiting the old thread:

My reason for citing QM was to illustrate -in your support- that stable world of macro systems is different to the world of probabilities existing at sub-atom levels.

Oliver. The Catholic Church has no official position on the Shroud one way or the other. Check the official websites. I seriously doubt you were taught it in a Catholic school. But if we use Pericles standards of evidence, your writing years later, and were probably psychotic like St Paul. Produce "credible" evidence. Ask Pericles what it means?

I asked prayers for the family? How is that sanctioning death? Pro-lifers supporting death? Cheap generalisation. Do you support http://www.massmediamail.com/durarealidad/

Sin brings death, and God does not send anyone to Hell either. You send yourself. He permits the ultimate freedom to do so out of Love, and must do so if He is God. Suffering can also bring a greater good. Easily verifiable in life.

Back against wall? None of my links, evidence or questions have been sufficently answered. Just rhetoric and sophistry. Mine is just as good as yours.

I do not see anything about a "game of cards" in Gospels? and I was naive enough to think you did not believe in Angels. But the real Pericles prayed to the Gods before he mounted a rostrum to speak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles
So maybe I have you pinned wrongly? See Oratorical section...

A big "IF" about parading the body?..That's precisely my point. I agree. Christianity is spread on a big resurrection lie according to you. So if body was not paraded - where is it? Explain logical natural evidence for the empty tomb and the moving of the big stone in presence of Roman Guards. Asleep or otherwise? Most likely awake.

Huhh? What's wrong with "over 2000 miles"? No civilian hours
mentioned, nor a military total? Typo? So what? Another conspiracy?

You blogg miracles? What is "credible" evidence? Better minds admit them. And yes, there are better minds than yours and mine.

Mental anguish and gynastics, Fractelle? For whom? You wish to exclude Christians and evidence from the public square. Who is the more totalitarian now? If the Romans recorded, so much the better.

Guys I'm off, you have strengthened my convictions immeasurably. My thanks. Oh. Pericles. Do you believe in Global Warming?

Fair enough relda.

>>Pericle’s opening comment, “..it was actually meant to be an insult” is incorrect, it is also presumptuous<<

I should have said "sounds like". My bad, as Buffy would say.

>>Your allusion to a ‘supreme being’ is not mine<<

A clumsy attempt by me to reflect Flew's statement that he should be termed a deist, rather than be described as religious. Again, if that wasn't clear from the context, my apologies.

And so it's goodbye to aga.

>>Guys I'm off, you have strengthened my convictions immeasurably<<

I'm not sure what state your faith was in before you arrived here aga, but it is good that we have performed some service during your stay.

That knowledge certainly makes up for the fact that I appear to have upset you somehow.

>>if we use Pericles standards of evidence, your writing years later, and were probably psychotic like St Paul.<<

I hadn't realized that Paul was psychotic. An interesting theory, not one that I had heard before. And now it's too late to find out more, you've gone.

>>I asked prayers for the family? How is that sanctioning death? Pro-lifers supporting death? Cheap generalisation.<<

Mysterious. Truly mysterious. Where on earth did you get the notion that I suspect you of "sanctioning death" - whatever that means. Oh, it's too late. You've gone.

>>the real Pericles prayed to the Gods before he mounted a rostrum to speak<<

How do you know that I don't do the same?

Well ok, it's a fair cop, I don't. But only because Wikipedia didn't say which ones he prayed to.

>>Christianity is spread on a big resurrection lie according to you<<

I didn't say "lie".

"Story" is much nicer.

>>So if body was not paraded- where is it?<<

Lack of a body does not indicate non-existence of same. For all you and I know, it was found and disposed of nearly two thousand years ago by people who wanted to make up a story.

>>Oh. Pericles. Do you believe in Global Warming?<<

More than I believe in your God, aga.

Have a nice life.

Aga,

The Catholic Church’s position on the Turin Shroud follows:

“…suggestion made of blundering or bad faith on the part of those who photographed were quite without excuse. From the scientific point of view, however, the difficulty of the "negative" impression on the cloth is not so serious as it seems. This Shroud like the others* was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting of the Easter sequence:

‘Dic nobis Maria, quid vidisti in via
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes’

As the word sudarium suggested, it was painted to represent the impression made by the sweat of Christ, i.e. probably in a yellowish tint upon unbrilliant red. This yellow stain would turn brown in the course of centuries, the darkening process being aided by the effects of fire and sun. Thus, the lights of the original picture would become the shadow of Paleotto's reproduction of the images on the shroud is printed in two colours, pale yellow and red. As for the good proportions and æsthetic effect, two things may be noted. First, that it is highly probable that the artist used a model to determine the length and position of the limbs, etc.; the representation no doubt was made exactly life size. Secondly, the impressions are only known to us in photographs so reduced, as compared with the original, that the crudenesses, aided by the softening effects of time, entirely disappear.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.” – Catholic Encyclopedia

*Other Shrouds

[Brothers attended my secular school.]

Caio

Stormbay, you need to go and do some reading on these subjects. First you tell me that I’ve got “fake evidence”, and "no real evidence" and that there is “nothing to support their credibility”. And you make a few other specific claims. So, I take you up on your claims. Now you say that “most historians” don’t agree with what I’m saying. You refer me to some unnamed Jewish researchers, and you don’t go into many specifics about their views either. After all that, you're “not going to argue with me” because your knowledge comes from your interest in “cultural anthropology”. Well, if you're going to make these big statements, perhaps you should be prepared to back up what you’re saying. If you start reading more history and less “cultural anthropology”, you’ll see the claims I’m making about history are absolutely valid. Jesus definitely existed and was definitely crucified, there is absolutely no doubt about that among credible historians. Those are moot issues as far as history is concerned. There’s also strong historical evidence to suggest that many people believe Jesus appeared to them after he died. Make of that what you will. I’m not saying there’s enough evidence to convince someone beyond any reasonable doubt- I never claimed that. But there is some credible evidence. Go do some reading and you’ll find out that I’m right about that!

Pericles,

[For all you and I know, it was found and disposed of nearly two thousand years ago by people who wanted to make up a story.]

Would you make up a story, knowing that you’d probably suffer persecution and even death over proclaiming that story, and then persevere with telling that story even when you WERE persecuted and your friends started getting killed?

Yes, no?

I’m guessing the answer is no. In which case, your “for all you know” scenario is totally implausible.

But I guess at the end of the day, you're right, in the strictest sense, we can't know. History can only go on probabilities. The problem is, your "wanting make up a story" line is incredibly improbable

Oliver,

Thanks for your reference to Polanyi and Prosch - I haven’t come across either of them before. I did a little digging into Michael Polyanyi - he wrote an interesting article in 1961 - “Faith and Reason’. His critique of the ‘modern positivist’ outlook shows how this has affected the secularist study of the mind and human affairs (past and present). This outlook has a mechanical conception of man – i.e. as merely a bundle of appetites, a mechanical toy and a passive product of social circumstances. “Behaviorism tries to replace convivial knowledge by I-It [as opposed to “I-Thou”] observations of the particulars…”

He alludes to something of what I was trying to express in my 'A shortcoming in the 'Age of Reason’ etc..." post – but he says it better...

“Such is the inescapable predicament of man which theology has called his fallen nature. Our vision of redemption is the converse of this predicament. It is the vision of a man set free from this bondage. Such a man would be God incarnate; he would suffer and die as a man, and yet by this very suffering and death he would prove himself divinely free from evil. This is the event, whether historic or mythical, which shattered the framework of Greek rationalism and has set for all time the hopes and obligations of man far beyond the horizons of Greek philosophy.”

Your reference to QM infers two levels of ‘reality’ – seemingly independent of each other but nevertheless linked, with a very stable system underpinned by ‘quantum random events’. Some scientists prefer a more deterministic view and would prefer the explanation of ‘hidden variables’. Particles exhibiting a type of indeterminate action or ‘free-will’, I guess, is a little hard to take :).

Pericles,

Over many months typing away and participating at OLO, I have found a few theists one can actually engage and have some sense of sensible discussion. George, Philo and relda think before they respond and seem to adhere to their beliefs, after some reasoning process. My comments do not apply to those persons.

On the other hand, for the few mindful theists, there seem to be hoards of mindless ones. Those satisfied saying every nonsense that comes to their minds.

When one offers alternatives citing highly respectable sources, they take flight or shift from dialogue to abuse.

Most recently aga is an example in point. I'm sure after he labelled me psychotic, despite his formal good-bye, he had a look back this thread and saw my post from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. To him a non reliable source? Heavens, I am using the sources he should know!

Then, we have others, who, like Lancaster Bombers, of old, drop their load, and leave. They do not enter into any thoughtful debate supporting their position. After-all this a forum. Arrogance, perhaps. It is easy to feel on has won an argument (in the mind of the presenter), when statements areone sided and in one does not engage opponent. Sells is king here.

With several notable exceptions amongst the OLO theists, including the abovemented; so many other theists ignore science, ignore history, ignore anthropology, ignore philosophers, igore neurology and even ignore academic theologists. Not just the fields of study, but peer respected experts in those fields.

What frustrates me is I am prepared to read the Bible and other religions scripts, to test beliefs (non-beliefs). I feel that makes me a good skeptic. Sells & Co., do apply a healthy skepticism is religious beliefs.

Rant over.

Cheers,

Oliver.

Oliver, I must admit, your penchant for relating exceptionally complex ideas in an idiosyncratic manner irritated me when I had first encountered it, but I must say you have improved markedly since then. And since then I have come to appreciate your view on some things far more than I have expressed previously. You are indeed imperturbable and very much better read than many you address.I appreciate your efforts in at least trying to understand that which you have come to disbelieve. I know that you have civility towards most, especially those that have at least the facade of civility towards you, but your thinking that relda, George and Philo actually reason before responding I think is misplaced. Mostly I have seen a definite avoidance of actually wishing to be understood with penchant for abstract concepts (more akin to poetry than conversation in some cases) and sesquapadalian remonstrance.

Like a fine wine, you just keep getting better Oliver, especially since I have found that you have read many of the same refernces as myself and can understand where you are coming from now (but it does take time).

I did feel that you were full of it at first, but after much reading, can now understand you have a much better grasp than most others (and spend obviously far more time than most others) on the historical situation of humanity's lamentable position in regards to religion.

BTW, Trav, do you know the meaning of the word, moot?

Yeah, I just looked it up. My apologies, I misunderstood the meaning of the word! I now realise that was in opposition to my previous sentence. So, please ignore that "moot issues" line!

Thanks Oliver. You bring a great deal more erudition to the issues than I, so it must be that much more frustrating for you, to meet such unwillingness to listen. I'm just a simple non-historian, non-believer, so my scepticism is of a far lower quality.

I do however know running-for-cover when I see it.

>>Would you make up a story, knowing that you’d probably suffer persecution and even death over proclaiming that story, and then persevere with telling that story even when you WERE persecuted and your friends started getting killed?<<

Me, personally? Absolutely not.

However, there are many well-documented examples of thoroughly irrational behaviour, leading to a fatal, or potentially fatal confrontation with authority.

I guess you may have heard of Jonestown. Or Shoko Asahara and his Aum Shinri Kyo. Or Marshall Herff Applewhite and his Heaven's Gate. Or David Koresh and Branch Davidians. Or David Berg and TFI.

You and I agree on this...

>>Those are moot issues as far as history is concerned.<<

...although from the context, you believe "moot" means "taken for granted".

>>But I guess at the end of the day, you're right, in the strictest sense, we can't know.<<

Once again, we are in total agreement. We can't know. We can only take a guess where there is no solid evidence.

I didn't say "any evidence". The fact that there is enough for you to make that leap of faith is patently obvious. But you cannot persuade me that it is evidence in the normally accepted use of the word.

>>History can only go on probabilities. The problem is, your "wanting make up a story" line is incredibly improbable<<

And turning water into wine is "probable"?

Another error of mine (above):

Sells & Co., do NOT apply a healthy skepticism is religious beliefs. My leaving "not" out on more than one occasion is a bad habit.

Pericles and Bugsy,

Thanks for the feedback.

Oliver

lol..no solid evidence

even way back when the origonal letter delivering the laws were being written swine was flagged as un-kosha...how kosha this swine flue hybred?

had all the pigs been elimiated there could be no swine flue
but pigs have rights[just like them perverts who made the hybred, now have recombination,..gmo rights.. to join the two human flues and bird flue and swine flue

the new testiment flagged the epidemic
re the rider's of the ape-pox-o-lips

but i suppose thats all just acodemoc..lol

yeah ok i take it as a script too, a script weak minded leaders are fullfilling to bring on the messiah[who came long ago]

who said love brother [love god]
who came to reveal there is no end time jud-meant day
that WHEN [regardless of the cause]..we die..

and ALL even a thief are reborn instantly,..when we die we all get reborn..[even a thief,..or a god replacement]..jesus died,..some say for our sins, but its indesputable he died to the flesh

the messiah can[at the prphesised time, was offered this realm and refused[he aint comming back here

he has prepared a place in our fathers house[where each gets as we gave]
more shall be given..[those loving the christ share the christs room[mahanoudians share the mahamoud room,athiest have their room,sheep goats wheat and even chaff each have their own realms

you can debate all you chose,the facts are there,wether you regard their proofs true or not..feel free to believe as you chose

i have tested the science proof of evolution and you couldnt defend the lie, what beliefs you hold are your beliefs,

what truths we hold are our truths,you want proof..,yet mearly seek to rebut others faiths/beliefs..proving just what?

I think I have figured out the entire 'resurrection' thing.

Jesus was a space alien from the planet Arachnidia. Creatures from this planet have the power to resurrect themselves.

Spider-man, Spider-man, he can do anything a spider can.

Please read my link to "The Resurrection of the Spiders".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090424-spider-resurrection-coma-drowning.html?source=email_wn_20090501&email=wn

Where would we be without science?

under one god

Im confused. Is this some sort of parody?
What little sense I can make of your post leads me to believe you are just 'taking the micky' out of the Christians.

Surprise, surprise I make one visit to OLO and Sellick is flogging the same dead horse.

[Via Apologetics 315]
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

Objection 5:

But a literalistic interpretation of the resurrection ignores the profound dimensions of meaning found in the symbolic, spiritual and mythic realms that have been deeply explored by other religions. Why are Christians so narrow and exclusive? Why can't they see the profound symbolism in the idea of resurrection?
Reply: They can. It's not either-or. Christianity does not invalidate the myths, it validates them, by incarnating them. It is "myth become fact," to use the title of a germane essay by C.S. Lewis (in God in the Dock). Why prefer a one-layer cake to a two-layer cake? Why refuse either the literal-historical or the mythic-symbolic aspects of the resurrection? The Fundamentalist refuses the mythic-symbolic aspects because he has seen what the Modernist has done with it: used it to exclude the literal-historical aspects. Why have the Modernists done that? What terrible fate awaits them if they follow the multifarious and weighty evidence and argument that naturally emerges from the data, as we have summarized it here in this chapter?

The answer is not obscure: traditional Christianity awaits them, complete with adoration of Christ as God, obedience to Christ as Lord, dependence on Christ as Savior, humble confession of sin and a serious effort to live Christ's life of self-sacrifice, detachment from the world, righteousness, holiness and purity of thought, word and deed. The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, you must deliberately make an exception to the rules you use everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?

Ask yourself that question if you dare, and take an honest look into your heart before you answer.

Repetition does not eventually make something true, Martin Ibn Warriq.

>>The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer.<<

Welcome back, by the way.

The entire edifice of historical evidence falls away when you examine the sources, none of which was compiled during the lifetime in question.

Far from being "massive" in any stand-alone fashion, the evidence is almost exclusively self-referential. If you believe the first few stanzas of Luke, for example, you can build an entire mesh of interlocking evidence, based entirely on his one claim, that he researched it thoroughly.

But the clincher, to me, is that there are no contemporary accounts. At all.

Historians were in fact hard at work, in a number of places that should have been in total upheaval, if the events described in the Gospels actually occurred.

But did any of them notice a thing? Not one.

Philo Judaeus apparently didn't, despite the fact that he lived in Jerusalem at the time. Where are his reports of the excitement caused by the moneychangers being swept from the Temple? Or the triumphant procession into town of a Jewish messiah on the back of a donkey, preceded by a massive crowd throwing their coats on the ground?

As a noted Jewish philosopher, he would be expected, surely, to have noticed something?

In fact, according to Luke himself, everyone in town was aware of it.

"...Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?" Luke 24:18-19

A conspiracy of silence, perhaps, prevented Philo Judaeus from jotting anything down.

Or just possibly, this might be an indication that the sources Luke relied upon as "eyewitnesses" were simply gossipmongers. At the very least, it has to cast doubt upon the confidence with which Luke sets out his stall of information goodies.

"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" Luke 1:2-3

Pericles, are you aware that most ancient history was written way after the events?

For example, Mohammed's biography wasn't written till well over 100 years after his death. As with Jesus, I'm fairly sure no university historian doubts Mohammed's existence, and with good reason. But my point is, the gospels were written 30-50 years after, which is within the lifetime of eye witnesses.

You keep making this interesting claim regarding contemporary accounts here on OLO. Yet I haven't heard or seen you actually explain why you'd expect a contemporary account. Correct me if I've missed your explanation (and please direct me to it), otherwise, feel free to explain this expectation of yours.

It seems that no one has pointed to the weak point in my argument and that is that the risen Christ is relegated to the merely subjective. I say merely because that is where science places subjective experience. Hobbs is the extreme in this when he describes consciousness as phantasms, as not existing in the real world. A friend pointed out to me that if the risen Christ is merely subjective how come he is responsible for something in the real world. i.e. the church? This led my scurrying to read the phenomenologists, Husserl, Heidegger et al . They take objects within consciousness as real objects but objects of a different nature to the things in the world. They cannot be dismissed of being of no importance because they make up what is human. So to say that the risen Christ was an experience of the disciples does not detract from the reality of the risen one. There must be a difference between the living Christ and the risen Christ who ascends to the Father. If we are to hold a coherent understanding of the world together in that God is not a being who can break the laws of nature, then there is no other possibility. God is an object in consciousness but that object is connected to events in the real world, that is why the incarnation is so central. Without it we could go off into any religious imaginings that suit us. It is the incarnation and the death of Christ that confront us with a reality that is in the world and over and against us so that we cannot simply dream up a religion that we find satisfying.

Another friend pointed out that the resurrection was not an extra piece of history added to the life and death of Jesus. It is not in the formal sense history, but experience.

I can only assume that our posts crossed, Trav.

>>You keep making this interesting claim regarding contemporary accounts here on OLO. Yet I haven't heard or seen you actually explain why you'd expect a contemporary account. Correct me if I've missed your explanation (and please direct me to it), otherwise, feel free to explain this expectation of yours.<<

As I mentioned to Martin Ibn Warriq in the post immediately preceding yours, I would have expected someone as smart as Philo Judaeus to have noticed what was happening outside his study window. He was a) alive at the time and b) a noted Jewish historian.

I would expect a contemporary account (Philo Judaeus' work is available in its original form, by the way) from such a person to have referred directly to such acts as the chucking out of the moneylenders - surely they would have made a bit of a row?

If that event had escaped his notice - say, he was away on his holidays at the time - I'm sure he would have been moved to comment on the arrival, on a donkey, of a self-proclaimed messiah, preceded by vast crowds of people throwing down items of clothing and bits of trees as he passed by.

And that was just Jerusalem.

According to the books, Jesus travelled far and wide... Galilee, Syria, Decapolis, Judea, across the Jordan... surely, surely, someone must have been sufficiently interested to have written a few words in their annals.

Nope.

None.

I hope that clears it up for you.

As Justin Martyr said 'if God wanted us to believe in a spiritual resurrection, why the empty tomb?' The Gospels are clear it is you who have reinvented a Jesus to suit your philosophy - one that makes the universe eternal or uncreated and physical laws 'God' in some Platonic sense. You Sells as Paul would say the saddest of all men.

Pericles it seems you argue the Gospels are mythical. I'll leave you to google that one if you will. The mythical gospels greatest champion is Richard Carrier - in the latest debate with Prof. William Lane Craig Carrier was pushed to this admission; the logical outcome of his 'mythical' hypothesis 'the Gospels are works of astounding literary genius'. If you want to live your life believing the disciples had Shakespearan abilities that is up to you. But it is shameful. Very soon who we have really been worshipping all this time will be revealed for everyone to see and that shame will burn like a fire that never goes out. We're men and the meaning and reason of life is to find the true and the good and follow it.

Pray from your heart to Him, you have nothing to lose.

'I am the Way the Truth and Life'.

"Very soon who we have really been worshipping all this time will be revealed for everyone to see and that shame will burn like a fire that never goes out."

o.k. i'll iron my shame suit, make myself a cup of hot cocoa, and sit down to wait. may i watch "south park" while i wait?

So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?

Whether or not one believes in the resurrection of Jesus comes simply down to faith.

You either believe it true or not.

Serious doubt can easily be raised if the Bible is studied correctly.

The problem is that the intellectual pursuit of biblical matters is often suppressed because people are too scared to question.

BUT surely that is what we all should do! God allegedly gave us a questioning mind so why wouldn't he want us to use it.

Jesus allegedly said

John 5:22: The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.

BUT also

Luke 12:14 But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?"

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

John 12:47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."

And this

John 8:15-16: You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.

IF Jesus, the all knowing, all seeing son of God can't explain his role how can we truly accept any of the Bible as God's word?

How can a Christian read the Bible and not notice these obvious discrepancies?

How can we trust the resurrection story when the Bible is so flawed?

If you can reconcile the God of the OT and the God Jesus spoke about then you are way better than me.

If Jesus is God, as many believe, why did he "harden pharoah's heart" (Exodus 7:3) and then use that hardening to kill all the first born of Egypt? (Exodus 12:29)

Would your loving God do such an atrocious thing? OR allow his alleged son to be crucified?

In the 21st century shouldn't people start analysing before accepting myth as truth?

What an odd comeback, Trav.

>>So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?<<

Of course it isn't a "clincher" argument, you funny little possum.

Any more than your unsupported rumours are "clincher" arguments.

I just happen to believe that the balance of probabilities favour the likelihood that had events of the magnitude and importance the bible purports to ascribe to them been going on in Jerusalem while our friend Philo Judaeus was hard at work recording his philosophical musings on the Jewish religion, he would have noticed.

It is not the silence itself that is significant to me, but the contrast between the biblical descriptions of vast crowds attending major events, and the deafening silence of anyone who was around at the time with a stylus and papyrus.

Your belief that all those stories in the gospels are truly ruly real is equally valid as my position that it is a load of guff.

My intention is not to dissuade you from your beliefs, but to register an objection each time these stories are claimed to be historically accurate.

Which, I have to say, is quite a frequent occurrence.

[What an odd comeback, Trav.]

It was not a "comeback", merely a clarification....

[>>So is that it, Pericles? Your "clincher" argument from contemporary accounts is an argument from silence based on one single Egyptian philosopher?<<

Of course it isn't a "clincher" argument, you funny little possum.]

Sorry buddy, you said it yourself [But the clincher, to me, is that there are no contemporary accounts. At all.]

So I asked you to clarify, and you only mentioned Philo, so it's a fair assumption that your clincher is based on the silence of Philo, no?

[Any more than your unsupported rumours are "clincher" arguments.]

So, events that are multiply attested to by early and independent sources are "unsupported rumours", but your argument from the silence of one person is a "clincher". ha!

[I just happen to believe that the balance of probabilities favour the likelihood that had events of the magnitude and importance the bible purports to ascribe to them been going on in Jerusalem while our friend Philo Judaeus was hard at work recording his philosophical musings on the Jewish religion, he would have noticed.

It is not the silence itself that is significant to me, but the contrast between the biblical descriptions of vast crowds attending major events, and the deafening silence of anyone who was around at the time with a stylus and papyrus.]

There were actually only a few events of Jesus which attracted large crowds. It's perfectly plausible to suggest that those few events happened but weren't recorded elsewhere. But even so, what IF those events were slightly exaggerated in terms of crowd numbers, or what if the followers of Jesus added in a story or two after the events? Neither of those possibilities phases me in the slightest, and nor should it phase any Christian.

There's nothing unreasonable about suggesting that, in the case that Jesus DID rise from the dead and IS the son of God, that a couple of stories might be added anyway, or that the apostles might write down that 3,000 or 5,000 were there, rather than 1,000 or 2,000

An interesting last post Sells, something almost reminiscent of the Polanyi quote.

An intriguing feature of late medieval epistemology in general, and of Ockham's (of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ fame) view in particular, is the development of a theory known as “intuitive and abstractive cognition.” In approximation, intuitive cognition can be thought of as perception, whereas abstractive cognition is closer to imagination or remembering.

Many like to proudly display their use of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ in their denial of “abstract” entities. William Ockham, however, certainly believed in immaterial entities such as God and angels but did not believe in mathematical (“quantitative”) entities of any kind. Reducing one's ontology to a bare minimum, therefore, will not guarantee the perfect perception of ‘reality’.

The new rationalism provided by the enlightenment was originally combined with a world view that was, as Polanyi said, “expected to set men free to follow the natural light of reason and thus put an end to religious fanaticism and bigotry… Humanity would then advance peacefully towards ever higher intellectual, moral, political, and economic perfection.” The ‘legacy of Christ’ (a term used by Polanyi), however, was to prick this ‘enlightened’ and rosy picture, and in support of Rousseau he enjoined “that civilized man was morally degenerate, for he lived only outside himself, by the good opinion others. He was a ‘hollow man,’ an ‘other-directed person’.”

Not waving, drowning, eh Trav?

>>So, events that are multiply attested to by early and independent sources are "unsupported rumours", but your argument from the silence of one person is a "clincher". ha!<<

(I particularly enjoyed the "ha!", by the way. Most convincing. Especially the exclamation mark)

There are two tiny flaws in your position, Trav.

One, that the events are not "multiply attested", as you claim, or even "singly attested", by anyone who was there at the time. And two, my argument is not based on the silence of one person, but many.

"Multply unattested", if you will.

>>There were actually only a few events of Jesus which attracted large crowds.<<

Only if you believe the stories in the first place. Otherwise, there could have been none at all. Which is an even more plausible reason why nobody noticed, is it not?

(I was slightly tempted to say "ha!" at this point, but resisted)

>>Neither of those possibilities phases me in the slightest, and nor should it phase any Christian.<<

For the umpteenth time, I have not the slightest interest in your being "phased" (see: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/faze.html) Trav, or to "phase" other Christians.

But while it's perfectly OK to believe whatever you like, you can't claim that you are in sole possession of the truth.

>>There's nothing unreasonable about suggesting that, in the case that Jesus DID rise from the dead and IS the son of God, that a couple of stories might be added anyway, or that the apostles might write down that 3,000 or 5,000 were there, rather than 1,000 or 2,000<<

Exactly.

The only point we differ on here is whether the embellishments were actually required, because Jesus was just this ordinary guy who preached a lot, and just happened to get himself executed for his ideas. The stories added colour, and turned an ordinary guy into a religious figurehead.

There's "nothing unreasonable" about suggesting that, either.

Have a great day.

A brave admission from a Christian Trav, congratulations! You may find enlightenment this lifetime, afterall!

You said:

<<But even so, what IF those events were slightly exaggerated in terms of crowd numbers, or what if the followers of Jesus added in a story or two after the events?>>

This concept shouldn't phase you but it opens dialogue on a simple set of questions.

If Jesus' followers added "a story or two" which ones?

Wouldn't adding a story or two be a fib? Why would they fib?

Therefore does teaching an "added story or two" make the teachings suspect?

If there is no evidence whatsoever other than the biblical accounts could a few more than "a story or two" have been added?

Don't churches teach this stuff as God's word, inerrant and infallible?

Is it wrong in a religion that purports to represent truth to teach stories where someone "added a bit"?

These are the very points I was trying to make in this thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

It was never designed to undermine a person's faith, but it was designed to question whether the Bible is a reliable reference.

Pericles, has somehow managed to get you to make a grand admission and it shouldn't phase you, you are correct.

Hopefully, however, it may help you to search deeper and question things more openly.

Christianity, by it's very nature, can't teach falsehoods as that would be a blasphemy against God.

Faith has much more to do with personal spirituality than the black book, so heavily relied upon by Christians, teaches.

Did the ressurection take place...I have no idea but I believe it too may be very suspect!

Well done both of you!

Sells

No doubt the disciples 'experience' of the resurrection is best described as subjective. As to the weakness, or otherwise, of your argument that depends, perhaps, on one's philosophical disposition to the arguments of the phenomenologists.

In reporting their 'experience', however, the disciples have 'created' an objective reality, namely the Church. The Church, in turn, seems content to leave the matter of the resurrection somewhat ambiguous. Large numbers of Christians believe the resurrection to be an objective reality and the Church does little or nothing to correct this misunderstanding. Some Churches actively encourage it.

As history the resurrection would be merely an aberration, a temporary relaxation of the laws of nature accessible only to those present 'at the time'. Such an event might alter the course of history but could it redefine history?

As 'subjective reality' the resurrection becomes accessible to all people in all times because it is possible to share the experience of the disciples rather than 'merely' report their experience. This is why sacraments are more 'effective' than sermons, why the eucharist defines Christianity more truly than adherence to dogma such as the Trinitarian formula. Whatever Jesus of Nazareth might or might not have done historically he did gather to himself the Messianic ideas of the day and 'created' the Christ whom anyone can 'experience' as a 'subjective reality'. (Or perhaps it was the disciples who gathered together those ideas and attached them to Jesus. It hardly matters which). Furthermore, it is the canon of Scripture that constrains us from flights of religious fantasy rather than the historical 'facts' of Jesus' life (or resurrection). One only needs to read a few of the non-canonical gospels to appreciate this fact.

What surprises me about this thread is that you have not attracted harsher criticism from our evangelical friends. Perhaps they do not fully comprehend what you have said.

Opinionated2
You said "Faith has much more to do with personal spirituality than the black book, so heavily relied upon by Christians, teaches"

I agree that my Bible (mine's white by the way) has a lot more to say about relationships and about what is just in society than it has to say about 'personal spirituality'. Im inclined to think that my Bible is closer to the money than any sort of 'personal spirituality'. Call me cynical but Im inclined to the view that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature and, if anything, antithetic to the message of the Gospel.

Waterboy,

I am thrilled that you think you are cynical, and I guess skeptical and I guess questioning. But do you question properly?

You said

<<Call me cynical but I'm inclined to the view that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature and, if anything, antithetic to the message of the Gospel.>>

I guess from that comment you haven't met many spiritual people who aren't religious...never mind I shan't be harsh because of your lack of experience.

I would have thought Christians were more narcissistic than the spiritual people I have met so rather than cynical you may just be wrong.

I am also interested on your views regarding "your inclination that you Bible is closer to the money", I would have thought that it is so contradictory on all things including relationships & the law that it is a rather debatable statement.

I would have thought personal spirituality draws on a person's experiences rather than the misguided words from a dusty old book.

If you are like most people here you probably don't know the Bible all that well anyway. Feel free to bring your cynicism to this thread if you have some great wisdom to impart.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

This thread is about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, so we shouldn't clog it with your philosophical ponderings

Opinionatedx2

I may be cynical and I might even be wrong.... How about you?

If 'personal spirituality' is solely informed by 'personal experience' then it is bound to be very much more limited and 'quirky' than a spirituality that is informed by the wider experience of a 'faith community'. The dusty old book, as you say, is neither inerrant nor infallible. It is a part of the record of a faith community, collected from nearly a thousand years of experience, seeking to make sense out of their shared experiences in spite of their less than perfect knowledge of God. It reflects their mistakes and mistaken ideas along with a few of their successes. The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience. There is little wisdom in dismissing the experience of others as lightly as you do.

You said
"I guess from that comment you haven't met many spiritual people who aren't religious...never mind I shan't be harsh because of your lack of experience."
and
"If you are like most people here you probably don't know the Bible all that well anyway. "
You guess wrong! You do make some wild assumptions.

Given your propensity to make wildly unjustified assumptions, your self-declared resistance to learning from the experience of others and your pompous disregard for well-formed syllogism one must doubt your capacity to make any meaningful contribution to this thread.

Waterboy,

Isn't it you who make the wild assumptions? Your definition of "Personal spirituality" is simply wrong.

Personal spirituality is often driven by an event, an experience or a longing to know more. It is not commenced by indoctrination or feeding children chocolates and presents as bribes to further the cause of a religion whose book, the Bible, is dubious at best.

It is not based on myth that has been taught as fact.

It does not pretend honesty where very little honesty exists.

It does not present "a GOD' that hardens a Pharoah's heart Exodus 7:3 God allegedly says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart..."

GOD HARDENS PHARAOH'S HEART!

God stated he would do it...culminating in

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

Would a God commit such a deliberate and intentional obscenity? I don't dismiss it...I expose it as utter rubbish!

If this is rubbish what else is rubbish...Abrahamic religions are based on coddswallop!The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience.

<<The experiences of a faith community, such as those that have contributed to the Bible, might just be useful in broadening and interpreting personal experience.>>

How can this be if the experiences documented are untruths that people believe as facts and churches teach as facts?

It is you who made the wildly unjustified assumptions originally in your first reply to me and when corrected you suddenly want to take your cricket bat and ball and go home.

I have plenty to offer these threads...I will at least give an honest interpretation of the Bible pointing out it's serious flaws.

You were the one who stated "...that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature"...Isn't that a wild assumption?

If much of the Bible is rubbish how can there be any value in a falsified "shared experience"?

And if the Bible is wrong in many places, is the resurrection a load of bunkum as well

Relda.
I must catch up with Polanyi! Bruce Barber, to whom I ascribed some central ideas in the article has taken me to task for using the Cartesian bifurcation of mind/ world and framing theology on those lines. He proposed a different way of approaching the theology that is more biblical, this is what he said:
“ I’m still unpersuaded that theology has to think with the categories the philosophers require eg about the ‘living’ (I prefer the ‘earthly’) Jesus and the risen Christ. The Cartesian heresy (the bifurcation between the res cogitans (the thinking mind) and the res extensa ( the external world) looks awfully like your sentence “the former event is an objective event in the world the latter is an event in the mind”.
It seems to me to go this way. Biblically, flesh and spirit are integral ways that body might inhabit the world. The man of flesh is the whole man (body, mind, and spirit ie Greek anthropology) turned away from God and the neighbour; Spirit is the whole man (body mind and spirit) turned towards God and the neighbour.
This happens as the salvific event called repentance by the agency of ‘Holy Spirit’ ie by that spirit which vivifies the wounded inert body of the crucified Jesus this side of his cross, and which is also promised to us, and analogously turns our dead ‘living’ bodies to living ‘dying’ bodies in the event of discipleship.
I can’t see any ‘mind’ in this except the transformed nous Paul enjoins in Romans 12: 1 ff which brings about a totality of bodily reconciliation.”
My response to this was:
This helps as long as we understand that we are talking metaphorically and existentially. In that case an adoption of the Cartesian bifurcation is no help at all and I repent of my using it in the article. The better apologetic for the modern man is therefore to instruct him in the ways of metaphorical and existential language rather than to adopt modernity’s own problem.

Opiniated

“Your definition of "Personal spirituality" is simply wrong.”
I didn't offer any definition of personal spirituality. If you think my 'definition' is wrong then that is probably because you are making assumptions about how I would define it.

“It is not commenced by indoctrination or feeding children chocolates and presents as bribes to further the cause of a religion whose book, the Bible, is dubious at best.”
Curious statement! Obviously intended to be more emotive than rational.

“It does not pretend honesty where very little honesty exists.”
Sounds idealised and very optimistic.

“If this is rubbish what else is rubbish...Abrahamic religions are based on coddswallop!”
Faulty syllogism.

“It is you who made the wildly unjustified assumptions originally in your first reply to me and when corrected you suddenly want to take your cricket bat and ball and go home.”
My children used to argue like this. A. “You're a goon.” B. “No! You're a goon.”
Fortunately, they grew out of it.

“I have plenty to offer these threads...I will at least give an honest interpretation of the Bible pointing out it's serious flaws.”
The 'criticism' of the Bible that you have offered so far seems to be based on discrediting a particular view of S. namely that it is inerrant. Its a straw man argument. I think I have made it very clear in my posts that I do not regard S. as inerrant.

“You were the one who stated "...that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature"...Isn't that a wild assumption?”
No. It's an opinion that sounds like an assumption when taken out of context.

“If much of the Bible is rubbish how can there be any value in a falsified "shared experience"?”
Essentially a repeat of the same faulty syllogism noted earlier.

“And if the Bible is wrong in many places, is the resurrection a load of bunkum as well”
You dont seem to have understood what Sells was saying.

Do you read poetry? Does it trouble you that it isnt 'true'?

From Jesus to the Christ?

Defending its purpose of discussing all things, could say to our OLO chiefs that from a philosophical point of view, Christ was actually a Greek word tagged on Jesus after the Resurrection.

Further, from a philosophical point of view, one wonders why the wonderful theme of the Sermon on the Mount
gradually took second place to the Resurrection?

Whether it has taken second place to the present line of Christianity which like it or not, has become a strong part of Western politics, makes one wonder how much of the Christ up to our time has been made up?

Certainly when we study the Sermon on the Mount, we find how much better are such examples as Blessed Are, than Though Shalt, which to me sounds so much like my military life, where life became Yours is Not to Reason Why, Yours is But to Do or Die.

One wonders what went through the mind of St Thomas Aquinas when he accepted Hellenistic Reasoning in order to lift Christianity out of the Dark Ages - and also as a Doctor of Learning Aquinas began universities.

Further, in a study of Aquinas we find he had a troubled mind, and to be sure as later with Immanuel Kant, they were torn between the humanistic love and decency that the young Jesus bore and the harsher practicalities that later Christians had to face.

Nevertheless, as the young Jesus was one who cobbered up with ordinary folk, including fisherman, one feels if
He is a True example for us so-called Christians, and ordinary others, compassion and respect for ordinary others should be our main object in life - admitting how wrong us ordinary humans can be at times, as part of it, as well as indeed, particularly to be ready to share the blame in International Relations.

Bushbred

Your post shows a great deal of common sense. It got me thinking just what would Jesus make of people like Peter Sellick?

An intellectual poseur? Well, probably Jesus would refrain from judging him at all and hope that by his example Sells would reflect more upon Jesus' philosophy and be more gracious to people who hold differing opinions.

Fractelle, thanks mate for the compliment.

Though I only hit the topic with a bit of philosophy, every good Christian knows how St Paul gave dire warnings concerning philosophy.

Reminds me again too much of the military and ours is not to reason why?

Cheers cobber, and thanks for your company.

Regards, BB, WA.

Sells you admit writing with intention: an apologetic for moderns. The Gospel writers had one too – narrating Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Post mortem appearances are explicit, the reference to the empty tomb likewise. If the writers intended a spiritual resurrection that would have been easy enough eg Acts12:15.

The narratives are messy, and in all eyewitness testimony – often conflicting. They're not smoothed out for effect, the reports don’t line up perfectly as they would if there was collusion.

Jesus resurrection isn’t narrated with eschatological meaning because it was eyewitness testimony, the symbolic and metaphorical wasn't yet in their thinking.

The disciples initially didn’t understand the resurrection – only that Jesus has been vindicated - everything he said about
himself was true! They went and witnessed as commanded, and were duly killed.

Instead of allowing the historical text to constrain what is allowable to think and write you keep trying to put it
through your philosophical sausage maker. A machine that cannot compute the facts:

-The universe had a transcendent cause,
it can’t exist before it existed.

-The Big Bang is empirical evidence of its coming
into existence, only creative will brings things
into existence.

-Creative will is the product of mind, intelligent
design of physical constants and laws is evidence too.

-Only persons have minds.

-Therefore the universe was created by a personal being.

-God unchaning and omnipotent, atemporal before
the creation and temporal after, is not constrained
by the physical laws he created and sustains.

-He suspended these laws and entered into his creation
for the reasons he provided.

Fractelle the irony is Sells would not recognise Jesus if he came back, his philosophy doesn’t allow it. Sells would ask
to be taken to the psychologist.

And you would find Jesus awfully intolerant of your desire to be left alone in your agreeable delusions. He doesn't take no for an answer though. Until that fateful time when he will woo no more.

“I came that you may have life and have it to the full”

Still peddling, I see, Martin Ibn Warriq.

>>Post mortem appearances are explicit, the reference to the empty tomb likewise... The narratives are messy, and in all eyewitness testimony – often conflicting.<<

Both explicit AND messy. That's a good stretch.

But I was remiss in not responding to the last red herring you trailed across the spoor.

>>Pericles it seems you argue the Gospels are mythical.<<

Not at all.

It would of course be far easier for you to think so, so that you can make dismissive observations like...

>>the logical outcome of his 'mythical' hypothesis 'the Gospels are works of astounding literary genius'. If you want to live your life believing the disciples had Shakespearan abilities that is up to you.<<

Stories are simply... stories.

They become embellished over time, sometimes with malice aforethought, sometimes through carelessness, sometimes simply through misplaced enthusiasm. None of which elevates them to Shakespearian heights.

This is of course a perfectly valid reason why they differ in detail.

Much as you'd like to use these differences as proof that they could not have been fabricated...

>>They're not smoothed out for effect, the reports don’t line up perfectly as they would if there was collusion. <<

...it could equally - nay, more feasibly - be argued that they were simply oral tradition, passed from fireside to fireside, growing with each telling like a recently-escaped trout.

But each to his own.

I feel comfortable that the all-pervasive lack of evidence, is on my side. You feel that it is on yours. No problem.

But what's with the threats?

>>Very soon who we have really been worshipping all this time will be revealed for everyone to see and that shame will burn like a fire that never goes out... you would find Jesus awfully intolerant of your desire to be left alone in your agreeable delusions. He doesn't take no for an answer though. Until that fateful time when he will woo no more.<<

Shows that you paid close attention at Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar classes, but little to indicate a connection with reality.

Sad, really.

physical bodies cant walk through closed doors
john 20;19 clearlt says ...when the doors were shut...jesus CAME and stood in their midst, and said to them ;..'peace be with you'

at john 20;20 clearlt he reveals his hands and side piercings...''then the deciples were glad when they SAW the lord''

i say saw with highlights because at john 20;17 jesus says unto mary...'do not cling to me ,for i have not yet ascended'...and say to them i am ascending to my father and your father[ie god]..thus isnt flesh and isnt 'god'

further at john 20;21 ,jesus says to them..''peace to you...as the father has sent me...i also send you

at 22 he breathes on them and says ''recieve the holy spirit''[ie our breath]

blessed are those that believe without seeing

21.1 he again reveals himself to be SEEN
but it all depends on how we each chose to see it[or not]

as paul later reveals when you were children i fed you milk..[maybe its time we got to the meat of the matter]jesus is a son of god[thus not god..he died for us [yet now is eternal like our father god who can never die]

we either believe he is emanuel[revealing god within us all; thus love god by loving neighbour]or not[either way the path via the many beliefs are all but narrow paths to god]god is grace/mercy..we can but try to be like the christ reveals our father to be[that in seeing his grace and mercy we see them..as if seeing the father]

Peddling? I don't care so much if you go to Hell, Jesus does though and I've been told I have to tell you he has a get out of Hell free card to give you. I am the one who holds orthodox Christian beliefs the ones constitutive of our civilisation: it is you and your kind who are peddling for a new moral and cultural program. But I'll allow you to display your wares. It is only Christianity that is the sure foundation for your freedom of speech.

Explicit and messy yes. Agree on central facts disagree about detail, talk with anyone who transcribes eyewitness testimony.

>Stories are stories.

You haven't done any work on this. If you mean the genre is of modern realistic narrative the next example was 1600 years later.

If you mean legendary:
1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33,

. . . this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death.

. . . . Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. No time has elapsed for the "stories" to develop.

You don't know your textual science Pericles.

"I feel comfortable that the all-pervasive lack of evidence, is on my side." Never a truer word spoken. The general standard of atheism is appalling; it is irrational, aggressive and misanthropic. You may comfortably sit in your unreason but don't try and spread it.

UNSURE who..[or if]..martin is quoting<<Peddling?..I don't care so much if you go to Hell,>>..me either..<<..Jesus does though and I've been told I have to tell you he has a get out of Hell free card to give you.>>...but it must be clearly said

jesus can forgive us our past sins..[in fact does]...BUT he cant remove your will to sin

[it is the love of sin plus the will to sin
that takes you into the hells}

see that we can be forgiven..[yet if we return to 'sinning' we go to that some place of love of sinning some call hell..[its relitive that those in hell dont think of it as hell]...[so essentially hell is the wrong word],..the sheep go to the place of sheep..[the goats to the land of the goat#

the tares to the place of tares[the wheat to the place of wheat[and yes even the chaff has the place of chaff]

[for a true sinner..heaven would be hell,..all them goody/goodly [godly]..holier than thou preachers..preaching to each other..[i can well see how easy it could be to confuse that some call heaven yet others call hell]

see that more WILL be given..[if you love to sin you go to that place those not loving to sin..call hell,]but that you think you love has others loving it MORE..[..doing upon only EACH-OTHER the vile they love to do to you...lol]


its not rocket science..[jesus dosnt remove the will to sin..[only says if your willing to redeem thyself..,all is forgiven]

we assume much about things..[one mans heaven..[is anothers hell]

just as a swine loves rolling in the muck..[swine would hate rolling on flowers,till they too turn to muck

so too..forgiving an un-repentant 'sinner'

what the use excising 'one' demon...
only to have 7 return?

You sound upset, Martin Ibn Warriq.

>>The general standard of atheism is appalling; it is irrational, aggressive and misanthropic. You may comfortably sit in your unreason but don't try and spread it.<<

There's no need to be.

If you are prepared to believe all those weird stories in the bible, there's absolutely nothing that I can possibly say that would change your mind.

In any case, I couldn't give the proverbial fig, it is a matter that involves only you and your credulity, and I'm not standing between those two rascals.

No-one "spreads" atheism, by the way.

Many people "spread" religion. In fact, you have turned it into a mini art-form, tailored to a 350 word limit.

You play with words...

>>If you mean the genre is of modern realistic narrative...<<

I'm pretty sure you just invented that term.

>>If you mean legendary... it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. No time has elapsed for the "stories" to develop."

No, I don't mean "legendary". And I don't mean "modern realistic narrative" either.

I'm talking about stories. That people tell each other in their various meeting-places. Over dinner and a fine pinot noir. Or down the RSL. Or whatever the equivalent in Galilee.

>>You don't know your textual science Pericles<<

Did you invent that one as well?

I'm talking credibility here. To me, the fact that no-one at the time was sufficiently exercised to make a note of each passing miracle is a strong indication that those miracles did not occur, and were in fact merely strongly embellished stories that people used to mythologize a religious cult figure.

Presumably "textual science" is what you use to fill in the gaps. And you wouldn't dream of using it to promote an agenda, would you?

For the umpteenth time, I have no opinion on your devotion to religion. I don't have the same addiction, but I have no desire to wean you from yours.

But claiming that some ancient stories are somehow factual, as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical, continues to annoy me to the point where I have to respond.

Waterboy,

Your question regarding poetry is mindlessly pointless, but you impressed yourself so I am pleased you felt good for that moment..Ha!

My comment re:indoctrination, Christmas and Easter is very rational...It is how we all know about the alleged God and how it is continually put in our children's faces at least twice a year.

Maybe your kids realised their error and concluded A. “You're a goon.” B. “No! You're a goon.” C No we're both related to Dad...He's the head goon... Sorry couldn't help my self.

You seem to nit pick but not actually say much...

If "...that adventures in 'personal spirituality' tend to be narcissistic in nature" when taken out of context seems like an assumption...please put it into context for us.

But if I misinterpretted your post...I apologise...you seem to go to a lot of trouble not to say much.

But enough of this sillyness

The way the Bible has been mistaught, misread, selectively read, and selectively sold...I would thing that the resurrection is very questionable.

In fact if I were God...I would be very judgmental of the way Christianity has conducted itself since Jesus' alleged ministry.

How can anyone teach the murderous God, the threatening Jesus, the vengeful, jealous, angry God and think they have it right?

When will Christians actually understand, that if there is a God, he would NEVER have done the things that the Bible says he did.

The jealous, angry, vengeful God who killed his son to save us from sin, that churches sell is a myth...

What will God think of people who believe and teach that he would be so unintelligent, (based on the Bible), to commit such horrific acts, makes such stupid laws and sacrifice his alleged son?

No wonder people with brains are atheist and agnostic...

And so is the debate now heading for a horribly fruitless end between the Scylla and Charybdis of Martin Ibn Warriq and Opinionated2?

On the one hand is the religious literalist who cannot accept that the Bible is neither objective history nor a book of rules but rather an imaginative narrative told largely in metaphorical language.

On the other side our atheist will not accept that many Christians read the Bible as imaginative narrative and metaphor. Despite everything other people might try to point out to the contrary, O2 keeps accusing all of them of believing in the Bible as literal,factual truth.

There's not much point in saying anything to either of these clashing rocks or their ilk. Theirs is the mindset that causes violence in our world. I suggest future discussion should simply ignore them.

Actually Crabsy you are wrong!

I don't accuse all Christians of this but there are many out there who believe it to be the utter truth.

Do the churches teach it as truth? I don't hear you whaling at the Churches for creating misinformation and creating hatred!

Why not?

Fancy accusing me at least of having the mindset of causing violence in the world. I am so anti-violence that it isn't funny.

Why do you make such a false accusation?

Why in the 21st century can't we discuss things openly?

Are you scared of free speech?

Can you write to the Churches and explain this "an imaginative narrative told largely in metaphorical language" to them.

Someone forgot to tell them!

I've never heard them say "the Bible is an imaginative narrative" have you?

Aren't you just making that up?

How many Christians here believe the Bible is an imaginative narrative?

Finally can you tell me how many Christians believe the Bible to be factually correct? How many just think it is a narrative?

And whilst you are at it...Can you point me in the direction of a Church or group of churches that teach the Bible as "an imaginative narrative told largely in metaphorical language".

Sometimes it is so easy to type something BUT when asked to prove your point it gets much much harder!

O2

Seems you are the ignorant one!
Biblical inerrancy is not taught in the mainstream seminaries.
It is, however, taught in many minor Bible colleges (usually independent) and they do have an unwarranted influence over many lay people.

The mainstream seminary I attended taught us to use the methods of literary criticism to read and understand the Bible. Since the Bible is a collection of writings from different times and different literary genres it is an oversimplification to 'characterise' it as of any one particular genre (such as 'imaginative narrative'). It contains imaginative narrative, poetry, theological discourse and many other genres. The Gospels are particularly interesting in that they are 'creative' arrangements of pre-existing material (sayings attributed to Jesus) ordered by 'narrative' elements which include historical references. It is as much a mistake to dismiss the historical elements of the NT as it is to 'overstate' its historicity.

You asked Crabsy why he 'accused you' of "having the mindset of causing violence in the world."
That could have something to do with the condescending and abusive tone of many of your posts. You and Martin have a lot in common despite being diametrically opposed in beliefs.

Waterboy…..OOps didn't you just fail Bible 101?

Did your seminary teach you "do not judge others"…Matthew 7:1-5 - your assessment of me as "seeming to be ignorant" & “condescending” is a judgement. You failed John 8:7…let he who has not sinned cast the first stone….”

As you typed it here you failed Exodus 20:16…"Do not bear false witness"! OOPs

"I turn the other cheek"…Matthew 5:39

But lets get into some Bible study...the kind that isn’t taught in Churches!

I will quote the Holy Bible, not just the NT, because it is the whole Bible that churches preach...isn't it?

1. Was Moses a war criminal?....NUMBERS 31:13-19

Was Moses a witch doctor who performed magic to get approval and power…Exodus 4:2-5 then had all competitors killed…Exodus 22:17 so to remain in power?

Egyptian magicians did the same tricks….Exodus 7:8-13. Did God give them their powers?

2. Exodus 7:3….God allegedly says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart..."

Culminating in

Exodus 12:29…"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

Did God murder all the Egyptian firstborn?

Was the Passover mentioned in your Church this Easter? Was the last supper the Passover meal?

Which "methods of literary criticism" did the priest/minister/preacher mention...If he/she didn't, why not? Did you correct him/her like you choose to correct me? Why so timid?

3. Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20)…empowers the law of Moses plus unequivocally states in verse 18…"As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

Some of mad Moses’ laws

Exodus 31:15…Kill people who work on the Sabbath.

Exodus 21:17…Kill people whocurseth his father, or his mother.

Leviticus 20:10….Kill all adulterers

Deuteronomy 22:20-21…Kill non-virgin women after wedding night

Deuteronomy 22:28-29….Rapists can pay 50 pieces of Gold and the rape victim must remain married to the rapist.

We need Churches and the religious amongst us to explain which bits are "truth" and which are falsehoods still taught by Churches! Can Christians teach fibs?

History UPDATE...More wars have been caused by religions than my condescending tone!...lol

darn o2 your a hard hitter,..but clearly have done some hitting on the wholy book,..i think we can all agree its certainly a great read,and of most value as the means to sepperate out the sheep from the wheat[to mix some meta-fore's]

i think the testiments they contain are mostly written by sin-cere people[inteligent people]who really had experiances they attributed to god[but also in many cases from not god]

jesus revealed many great wisdoms[but the teachings should be used to filter out the wheat from the tares]...his highest teaching is love god by loving neighbour...and that even a beast in the stable knows the voice of his master

god is love..[good true,..the giver and sustainer of all life]..and thus feel i can sort the fable from the feeble in any holy text..[if its death murder vile or the other human negative emotions..[thats not from god[good]

i feel most could agree that jesus by and large reveals love[if not love a faith in that good][where he upsets the money changers[or the pharosees, or a tree that refuses to fruit[or advises his deciples to take to the sword]...

i chose to take the teaching from it that he was after all born of woman[thus human][or that humans may have made simple human error in missing the point or intent of his teaching's]

in no way can any holy text be taken as infalable..[after all there is but one perfect[god]let ye without sin etc..meaning none is perfect..even with the stoning of the woman,..it is easy to imagine the words jesus wrote in the dust to have been the central command-ment[thou shalt not murder]

anyhow i stick with his main reason being to reveal to the judeans that there is no resurection..'day'..clearly if he can assure even a thief soon to be dead that even the thief will enter into heaven this day[his appearances there after on earth,..cannot have been in mortal flesh]

i fail to see why he would be expected to return to this[satans]realm,..he was offered it and refused it[his returning was done when expected as is recorded at the time]

Opinionated

"Did your seminary teach you "do not judge others"… "
Discernment wasnt proscribed, only judgement.

As for your complaints against the Bible..
I suppose these might be problems if you took them to be literally true? DO you?

In various places Jesus demonstrated that common sense can tell us when rigid application of the Law is inappropriate. Jesus 'broke' the Sabbath Law, He 'broke' the purity laws and befriended all the wrong people. Jesus' disputes with the Pharisees often revolved around His non-compliance with the legal requirements of the Law. Matt 5:18 must be understood in the light of all that Jesus said and did. He is not advocating rigid application of the Law but He does say that conformance to the Spirit of the Law is much harder than formal compliance with the letter of the law. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

Basically, Jesus taught that rigid application of the rules was a form of evil and that justice, mercy and faithfulness take precedence over the Law. I dont believe Jesus would have any problem with me vigorously disclaiming your mischievous misrepresentation of S.

As I have said before, you have setup a silly and simplistic characterisation of the Bible which you find easy to disclaim. This 'method' of debate is called the straw-man argument. It doesnt carry any real weight.

There are fundamentalist Churches that teach Biblical literalism and I actually share your distrust of them. I do, however, manage to find many congregations that practice justice, mercy and faithfulness where the Bible is read quite intelligently and the Gospel is proclaimed faithfully. But Churches are like women. If you wait around for Miss Perfect then you'll die a bachelor.

Waterboy,

I don't believe the literal truth of the Bible. Which bits do you believe are literally true?

If God exists, suggesting that he killed all the first-born of Egypt OR that he murdered innocent children and babies in Noah's flood OR that he came up with the Mad Moses' laws is the greatest sacrilege possible! What does your Church teach?

If he exists he is intelligent, not stupid, and to state that he did these things would be blasphemous!

But you didn't answer any of my questions in my last post! Please at least try!

It is not what you learnt in the seminary that is important, it is what is taught in your Churches.

How does your Church teach the Passover?

If the last supper was the Passover meal - Why would Jesus (the son of God) celebrate something that never happened?

Jesus actually didn't break the rule about the Sabbath. He healed people on the Sabbath. Mark 2:23-26 is a very reasonable explanation!

However, aren't you being very selective in your discussion of Matthew 5:18...not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."?

By changing an unequivocal statement to a much softer statement aren't you manipulating Jesus' word to suit yourself? Is this mischievous?

Jesus may have a problem with you calling what I say as "mischievous misrepresentation". John 8:7…let he who has not sinned cast the first stone….”

Your Bible, Christian Churches and preachers misrepresent, not me!

Forget the straw man rubbish..please answer the questions? My quotations are directly from your Bible!

Finally, the gospels, are also very flawed.

On judgment alone Jesus allegedly doesn't know what he is doing.

John 5:22 "The Father has committed all judgment to the Son."
John 8:16 "My judgment is true..."
John 9:39 "For judgment I have come into the world."

BUT he also says

Luke 12:14 "Who made me a judge?."
John 12:47 "I did not come to judge but to save."
John 3:17 "God did not send the Son to judge the world."
John 8:15 "I judge no one."

Ox2 This is not for you,for obvious reasons.

The texts from John that O2 has so carefully selected to misrepresent S. are worth discussing.On the face ofit this is off-topic since the thread is about the resurrection but it is pertinent to the theme of interpreting S.

O2's use of8:16 illustrates well the problem with quoting texts out of context.A slightly expanded quote demonstrates the problem.O2's quote "My judgement is true.." (capitalising the M wasa particularly clever trick.)
What John really says..
"8:15 You judge according to the flesh,I judge noone.8:16 Yet even if I do judge,my judgement is true,for itis not I alone who judge but I and He who sent me."

The context of 5:22 includes 5:19 through to at least 5:32.It's too much to quote inits entirety here.In context two things become evident.Firstly from 5:25 it is evident that John is talking about the 'final judgement' which will take place at the resurrection of the dead.Secondly from verse 24 we find that John's idea of Jesus' judgement is not that Jesus makes any decision of judgement but that His mere presence 'provokes'a kind of judgement that people bring on themselves.

It is very clear from 8:15&16 that the writer of John's Gospel is developing a theology of judgement that doesnot require Jesus to 'decide in judgement' over anyone.

9:39 then must be read in the light of all that has preceded it.It is no longer contradictory but follows from the extended development of John's theology of judgement.Johns Gospel appears to be a very carefully contructed work (unless we accept Bultmann's analysis, of course) that uses contrasting imagery to develop his ideas and theological point.Light and darkness,blindness and seeing,deafness and hearing all fit with the major theme of Jesus presence precipitating the crisis of faith which is judgement culminating in His being raised up in glory on the cross.The idea of judgement is developed in the contrast between condemning and saving.Jesus does not condemn but came to save.

This is better explained by Raymond Brown in his commentary on John from which I have drawn the preceding discussion.

opinionated<<However,aren't you being very selective in your discussion of Matthew 5:18...not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."?>>

as waterboy replied context bro

your taking the quote out of its context,the preceeding words that lead up to your quote are some of the most important words written[mourning/comforted,..hunger/thirst for rightiousness fullfuilled, mercyfull get mercy,..bless the peacemakers..pure in heart will see god..those percicuted for rightiousness sake will be blessed

what is saLT THAT HAS L0ST ITS FLAVOUR..[WHAT USE A LIGHT THAT SHEDS NO LIGHT...mat5;16..let your light shine before men, that they masy see YOUR GOOD WORKS and glorify your father in heaven,..17..do not think i came to destroy the law[or the prophets]..i did not come to destroy but to fullfill..18..your quote..ADD IN.till all is fullfilled

well the previous verse revealed..he was here to fullfill..[get it?]

19 whoever therefor breaks con of the least of THESE commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in heaven, but whoever DOES and teaches THEM..shall be called great..20..for i say unto you

..THAT UNLESS YOUR RIGHTIOUSNESS EXCEEDS..the rightiousness of the scribes and the pharisees, YOU will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven...

[think ye they were rightious?..any honest reading reveals we simply by not murdering beasts[sacrificial goats [or nation states] are more rightious

[or rather are you able to be more rightious than those who wrote the old test-i -ment?]

<<By changing an unequivocal statement to a much softer statement aren't you manipulating Jesus' word to suit yourself?>>by making it haRSHER ARE YOU MORE RIGHTIOUS?

<<Is this mischievous?>>..LET OTHERS READ THE TEACHINGS THEM SELF[THEN LETS SEE IF THEY CAN REALISE rightiousness MORE HOLY THAN WAS WROTE..YOU HAVE HEARD IT was SAID to those of days of old...[YOU SHALT NOT MURDER....but i say to you..simply being in anger...25 agree with your adversary quickly

why dont people see that adulterating gods laws ...is true adultery

Waterboy,

Why won't you answer my questions? Scared?

Did you sleep through the "do not judge others"…Matthew 7:1-5 and John 8:7…let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.." lectures.”

I notice that you totally ignored my questions and jumped to the judgement section...If you do a word count you will see I had to shorten them because I was running out.

So when you said "carefully selected to misrepresent" & "capitalising the M was a particularly clever trick"you failed Exodus 20:16…"Do not bear false witness"! AGAIN!

You false accuser you...lol I did neither of your judgemental accusations!

Put the L plates back on!

Now let's correct you

Firstly, isn't John quoting Jesus' alleged words?

If they aren't Jesus' words but Johns' you have opened a nest of worms.

You have proven that the Bible isn't God's word and churches preach falsehoods...Do your priests ever say "Jesus said"? Well done!

John 8:14 "NO" Jesus answered... If as you state they are John's words could John therefore be making all this up and pretending Jesus said them?

Which of Jesus' words in the Gospels are actually his and which are the words of the gospel writers?

Do you realise what you have stated here?

So let's pretend they are Jesus' words afterall it often states "Jesus said"

Jesus contradicts himself in

"8:15.....I JUDGE NOONE.8:16 Yet even if I do judge,my judgement is true,FOR IT IS NOT I ALONE WHO JUDGE but I AND HE WHO sent me."

Did Jesus understand words?

But in your zeal you failed again

John 5:25 Jesus (or John) makes a mistake....."the time is coming - the time has already come..." or KJV "...The hour is coming, and now is" but by John 5:28 ... the time is coming again...

He sounds confused.

But wait John 5:27 says God has given the Son the right to judge.

Whomever's words these are they sure are contradictory.

So tell me - Are they Jesus' words or John's? And if John's shouldn't you tell your Church they are teaching wrongly?

Please answer my previous questions...you seem timid & evasive!

Of course it was quite right of Waterboy to point out that I had over-simplified my characterisation of the Bible in saying it was “imaginative narrative and metaphor.” The book is, as he said, a mixture of genres. My description concentrated on the aspect that seems to be most vehemently denied, probably out of fear, by a sizeable portion of the OLO posters. Opinionated2 is the most conspicuous of them at present.

Notice the linguistic style of the posts in the name of Opinionated2. Sentences are generally very brief, and almost every one is written as a paragraph in itself to create a punching or stabbing effect. Add to that the extraordinary number of exclamation marks per post and you have a way of screeching on the screen. The proliferation of question marks is also remarkable. The incessant quoting of the scriptures in this style is the written equivalent of the hand savagely pounding the Bible.

These devices all combine to produce the language of the bullying interrogator who is secretly terrified of relating to another person on an equal footing. To do so would involve seriously questioning one’s own assumptions and conclusions, which in turn would tend to make one’s own assertions more qualified and one’s own questions more gentle and nuanced.

This is so like the behaviour of many fundamentalist Christian campaigners that it isn’t funny. In their crazed quest for complete domination, aggressive religionists and aggressive atheists equally deny the humanity of others. That is why I said earlier that their mindset leads to violence in our world.

I must refrain from abbreviating the name of Opinionated2 to simply O2, which denotes life-giving oxygen. Perhaps a better term would be H2SO4 (if I could insert subscripts).

opinionated2<<..Jesus contradicts himself>>..lol it is you who are revealed to be fool, back to that you wrote

jesus contradicted himself yet you missrepresent what he is saying, to finish your QUOTE..<< in "8:15.....I JUDGE NOONE.8:16 Yet even if I do judge,my judgement is true,FOR IT IS NOT I ALONE WHO JUDGE but I AND HE WHO sent me.">>>..im curious why you persist in missleading o2, thats not what was written[and certainly not in FULL CONTEXT

if you were able to comprehend law at the time you would realise that TWO people need to testify a truth..[recall at the end TWO testified, well re read from 8;13...YOU BEAR WITNESS of yourself..[ie one][thus]..YOUR WITNESS IS not TRUE

8;14 even if i bear witness of myself[one]..my witness is true..for i know where i came from and where i am going..but you know not where i come from, nor know you of where i am going

then your 8;15..you judge according to the flesh..[i judge no-one]..16..and IF i do judge...my judgement is true;..for i am not alone..[ie one witness]..but i am with my father, who sent me[thus two]...17 note..IT IS ALSO written in YOUR law..that THE TESTIMONY OF TWO MEN IS TRUE..18..I AM ONE...and the father who sent mebears witness of me [TOO ,ie making two witness]

now let me ask[your own words back at you

Did Jesus understand words?

<<in your zeal [to make points]..you failed again

re your john 5;27...yet another selective quote
it must be read in the light of deuteronomy 17;15-22
and must be read in its full context 5;16-47

but how can me..[but an ignorant fool]..convince one as wise as you...lol
words quoted out of con-text,will allways seem contradictory, because they serve a pre-set adgenda

Relda and Sells,

Polanyi does argue that at the Christian Church saw itself the custodian of all knowledge. When science usurped religion, he claims science took the Church's old role. The fallacy being that there is non-sciencific knowledge.

Science does put religion on the backfoot based on knowledge. Yet, scientific knowledge is knowledge of a special kind.

Just the same, I guess the will always be a "God of the Gaps". No final scientific thrust, to religions' (with an an "s") perries. The religions will re-invent themselves, even in the face of cosmology and particle physics.

Actually, I feel history and cultural anthropology are worthier candidates than is science at interpreting scripture, because the disciplines state what happened and often why, typcially with counter religionist findings. Science and religion can argue First Cause until the cows come home, yet history can produce a stone table assigning Ashara to be the Consort of Yahweh. Do we have quadry to accommodate God the Mother in ousia?

I know you good folk are aware of his little Book on faith. However, the broader Polanyi corpus, associates believe with indwelling in a performance. Also, he sometimes referred to plays and art in concert with religion. Religion itself to be seen as a form archaism.

Crabsy, Waterboy..&..OUG,

As Christians you can't call people names or bear false witness...you let down your Christ by doing that. Oh how Pharisee-like you are!

Your God is watching and writing in the book Revelation 20:12.

The fact that Christians continually re-interpret their Bible to suit their argument is quite instructive. This has gone on since the year dot of course.

My guess is that they need to do this because they are justifying their faith by the manipulation of the word rather than just possessing a faith alone.

So they defend any contradiction to the nth degree and manipulate the meaning to suit.

I am still waiting to hear the word Allagory used in a church in relation to the Bible. I am still waiting for answers to simple questions from the Bible.

1. Which words are actually God's words?

2. Which words did Jesus actually say?

3. Which words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs did the writers change, modify or alter? Where did they change context?

4. Did God drown innocents in Noah's alleged flood, did he Murder the first born of Egypt at Passover and did he write Moses' crazy laws?

What do your Churches teach? Do they

But more on the contradictions John 5:24 ...he will not be judged...

John 5:27 "...he has given the son the right to judge..."

John 5 :30 "...I judge only as God tells me..."

Why didn't the all knowing, all seeing all powerful Jesus just say "I will judge you" OR "God will Judge you" OR ONLY non-believers will be judged"?

For someone so intelligent he sure waffled on.

And then this gem....John 5:45-47....Moses...is the very one that will accuse you..."

How can God let Moses accuse people after the murders of innocents Moses ordered?

Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." A pretty good haul 16,000 Numbers 31:36-40

Which loving God do I worship?

opi-2<<I..waiting for answers..>>ask reasonable questions..really seek to hear reasonable answer's,..you number points

<<Which/are..God's words?.>>..those that are live-time/loving..[god lives in real-time[live time]..any good we get comes directly from god..[any bad thought does not come from god..[as god is the only reality only good from god is true..[even a beast in the stable KNOWS its masters voice[is good]

<<Which words..Jesus..say?>>he spoke them not in english[so of all the words..[even those in red][in all my bibles]he spoke not one,..he spoke in arabic,our english words at best can only be translations of their specific/generalised interpritation

<<Which..did the writers change,modify or alter?>>ALL OF THEM..{SEE YOUR POINT 2]

<<Where did they change context?..>>the context is as recorded..from the memories of those who witnessed certain events..[yet as translated/as modified by the writers beliefs..of what they were personally/witnessing/transcribing copying

<<Did God drown innocents>>..NO FLOODS COME FROM RAIN..[the prediction of rain came from god..[the reason blamed,for the rain came from noah]

<<he Murder the first-born of Egypt>>no that came from the first born ritual of letting the first-born eat first..[the grain had gone bad]..source modern science/research

<<did he write Moses' crazy laws?>>the good'laws'come from god..[not murder,..not adulterate gods GOOD..etc..the respect..[no god befor god]..came from mosus]..the logic from traditions

learn to hear the good/god..sends to each of us in real-time,my brother

<<What/Churches teach?>>they teach..as was taught to them..[with the highest intent..[mostly]..but i can only do as i see my father do..[get it?]

<<Do they>>?teach?..i dont go to any church..[god lives in our heart, thus we bring him to any place we go..[jesus revealed a personal living loving god..[we either accept that or know him not]

<<..contradictions/John 5:24...he..will not be judged...>>WRONG..he who hears my words and believes in HIM..has everlasting life..has passed from death into life

<<John 5:27"...given/judge...">>WRONG..has given him authority to exicute judgment..[to tell good from ill]..like even a beast in the stable[to know his gods voice

<<John 5:30 "...I judge..">>WRONG..i do not seek my own will..[but my fathers

<<Why didn't..Jesus..say"I will judge you"OR"God will Judge"OR ONLY non-believers..judged"?>>..BECAUSE HE DIDNT..they are all incorrect..[read 5;34..i do not recieve testimony of man..but i say these things that you may be saved]

OUG et al,

The Laws of the Hebrew God are reflected in the Chuiqq and Torah, long before Moses. Also, see the OT, Genesis 26:5. KJV:

“ … Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

If historical, Moses could have been putting himself in the role a magistrate authorised by his God.

Relatedly, Abraham or his equivalent would have likely borrowed Laws from Babylonian and/or Canaanite myths. The tradition of borrowing is also evident between The Code of Hammurabi and Exodus 21:1-36:

Bible:

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Exodus+21

Hammurabi:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Regarding the content of above URL sites, it is interesting the way Christians would deny that Hammurabi 196 & 200 were borrowed for Exodus 21:24. Moreover, Moses was not a plagiarist, Christians would have it...

When denial becomes detachment from such clear evidence, the pursuit of God would have one strive for ignorance to achieve understanding beyond knowledge. Such anti-intellectualism is called, Mysticism.

quote oliver<<Abraham obeyed my voice,..and kept my charge,>>thus he HEARD gods voice...lol,

i did visit your 2 de link,they are not like..the ten commandment's..[in-fact it seems more the laws of trade/commerce,..

<<..Marduk sent me/to rule over men,..to give the protection of right to the land,>>..here in the last line[of his preamble]..he reveals not to be hearing gods/good voice..[god gave ALL/all belongs to god]..it is man/ego..who would stupidly claim to own that god alone could claim

<<I did right and righteousness..brought about the well-being of the oppressed.>>..this clearly comes from god..[but then he drifts off into ego..ergo]

<<1..If any one ensnare another,putting a ban upon him,but he can not prove it,then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.>>hardly as important..a first law..as having none before god

<<2..If any one bring an accusation against a man,and the accused go to the river and leap into the river,if he sink...his accuser shall take possession of his house.>>>stuff and nonsense..no where near as clear as showing mercy to thousands

<<But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty,...who..brought the accusation shall be put to death,>>again with this faulse voice of ego...[WHAT DEATH CAN SERVE THE LIFE_GIVER?...man takes away/life god gifted

<<while he who leaped into the river shall take possession./..accuser.>>nothing like do not take the lords authority..[name]..in vain

<<3..If any one bring an accusation of any crime./.he shall,if../..be put to death.>>..not even close to keeping the sabbath day holy..[or thou shalt not murder,..or honour thy mother and father,..or not adulterating gods word..[or not stealing

even if mosus was only sorting the wheat from the tares..[he HEARD the goodly of god[enough]..to make into commandments

[the nutter who ruled under the mess-o-put-paininian,..reeks of ego and ignorance..[though some wisdom clearly must be in the long list that follows...lol

mosus was at least inspired into the basics..[lest we forget the torah[IS SUPPOSED to be the old test]..ok its not.. the torah is more..yet less..because it isnt the complete version..[leaving out the prophescy and the witness/lessons/teachings of the messiah..[and his message][new/testiment]

Oliver,
Polanyi, as with Popper, defended the metaphysical conception of “a reality underlying mathematical relations between observed facts.”

The exact sciences, like logic and mathematics, require a relatively low degree of personal participation but in the natural sciences, the sciences of life, and the social sciences, ‘indwelling’ increases both in profundity and in complexity and reaches its most comprehensive and intimate form in history, particularly in the study of great historical figures. So your expression, ‘worthier candidates’ is quite apt. In order to understand, a person has to become wholly or largely “immersed” in them (i.e. the humanities). A sharp distinction drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities, however, is fallacious. A methodological (epistemological) dualism is rejected because “science, conceived as understanding nature, seamlessly joins with the humanities”.

Realists, and Polanyi appears as no exception, typically take it that the hierarchical ordering of the sciences is paralleled by an hierarchy of comprehensive entities, such as natural systems and processes of varying levels of complexity. Through an evolving process, the cognitive capacities of the mind display emergent features (self-transcendence) and the mind is itself an emergent feature of the body.

Dualism, or the mythic, religious and philosophical view that separates spirit from matter and mind from body, is found in what Paul Ricoeur calls the "myth of the exiled soul." It is an attempt to explain where evil comes from and how we may escape from it. It came to expression in ancient Orphism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism and has persisted down through the centuries in religious and philosophical forms of expression. Numerous thinkers have been shaped by this Platonic-Cartesian tradition. Dualism perhaps gives legitimacy to what we call "inner" experience, but ironically it prepares the way for the materialist interpretation of the world it seeks to avoid. By placing the soul or mind in a sphere radically different from that of physical reality, dualism abandons the physical universe to the realm of the spiritless and mindless. And it is fundamentally the mindlessness of nature that renders it incapable of sustaining purpose – the rationale underpinning scientific materialism.

Relda,

Thank you for an excellent and informative post.

“A sharp distinction drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities, however, is fallacious.” – R.

Fully agree. Moreover, where we bring personal knowledge to situations, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are said, by Polanyi, to coefficient. This would apply to humanities and science. Sciences and the humanities would have their own domains, which overlap. Yet, our explicit understanding of the science sand humanities is processed via our tacitly knowing. This “tacit dimension” is personal.

The penchant of even philosophers to build hierarchies would seem to be a product of our Classical Western heritage, wherein we have objectification, reductionism and atomisation.

Eastern societies would be more concerned relationships "between" (comprehensive) entities: The relationships between the domains of the natural and the supernatural are permitted to be ambiguous and vague. Also, there are intermediate states, e.g., the Tibetan Bardo and Indian Transmigration existing between reality and the supernatural.

In Christian theology, the realms of the Creator and Created seem to be distinct; as are the realms of the natural and supernatural. Likewise, assigning Earth a part of the Space, as opposed to a natural Earth and the supernatural Heavens was a fundamental threat to the Christian Church. Sells wont be drawn into this topic.

In “Meaning” Polanyi (if I recall correctly), discusses the imaginary and the supernatural; wherein, with imaginary numbers, systems of numbers are ultimately understood, thus, becoming mundane to the mathematics discipline. Alternatively, the supernatural remains super-mundane, i.e. transcendental.

I will need to reflect a little on your articulate comment of Dualism. In the meantime:

Does (inverted) Dualism exist in transubstantiation? That is, the transcendental (the divine) is present in physical reality.
If God is bound with time in physical reality, does this state require a facet of divinity to be other than timeless? Or is the Divine, like one of George’s manifolds, existing in heaven whilst across realities? The presence of God in the Eucharist is, for want of a better descriptor, a co-ordinate?

oh dear..the intelectual pharosies are entering their abstracting quantative word elitisms..[name dropping platitudes]..to quote the deceptivly/simple unpretentious named..oliver..[quote]<<In Christian theology,the realms of the Creator and Created seem to be distinct;>>

why the use of seem..they clearly are distinct..[created/creator..[cant you think of a bigger word..[more definitive than'seems'..?..but that would mean definitivly saying something...if nothing/its an interelation..[that you so absurdly call..'natural'..NEEDS..THE SUPRA-natural to give it animus..[life]

animus was pre the big bang..[as was logus/logic],..or else no big-bang

<<..as are the realms of the natural and supernatural...Likewise, assigning Earth a part of the Space,..as opposed to a natural Earth and the supernatural Heavens was a fundamental threat to the Christian Church.>>what a clever definitive conclusion/sumation built upon..'seems'..but your interlectual intercourse..[not relitive to the reality or not of the christs reserection]..continues its pharoic-essent name-play of interlectual's masticating their educated elitism unwinding...

<<In“Meaning”..Polanyi..discusses the imaginary and the supernatural; wherein,with imaginary numbers,systems of numbers are ultimately understood,>>>..as numbers definitivly can..lol..[be they negative or positive they are quantitive definitives..[1 means 1.definitivly..[and quantivly]

<<thus,becoming mundane to the mathematics discipline.>>and completly ir-relitive to one named quantitive[jesus]..dying/reserecting

but you use the distraction..[to forulate a hypothetical opposing thesis by turning a definitive quantative..into a qualitive presented as an alternative..lol..

<<Alternatively,..the supernatural remains super-mundane,i.e. transcendental.>>..turning supra-natural,..into super-natural,..into mundane...how clever..[lets read your validation...lol

oh..its no/show,..instead we go to the next articulated wank

<<I will need to reflect a little>>..or pro-pound/com-pound it a little?

<<..on your articulate comment of Dualism.>>oh dear go verb-illy hug each-other some other topic

<<In the meantime:Does..(inverted)/Dualism>>ie not duel but singular...

<<..exist in transubstantiation?..>>luckilly you redefine it..<<..That is,the transcendental..(the divine)..is present in physical reality.>>,..it should have read IS IT PRESENT...lol..

but to reply your incomplete question..uterly and completly,..but the inverse is impossable..[spirit animates flesh..[but flesh cant translate its..lol..'natural/animate'..lol..into..the supra/..spirit

<<If God is bound with time in physical reality,>>..he cant be..[think..a car needs..juice/..petrol..[does petrol need a car?]

<<does this state require a facet of divinity to be other than timeless?>>..divinity is totaly imersed in time and timelessness..[time itself is mearly a facit..[all facits belong to the unity/we know as god..[god is not a..'state'..

god is omni-present...omni-potant..[live with it]..k.i.s.s.

OUG,

My recent post was endeavouring to suggest OT Laws were likely borrowed from the Babylonians and/or Canaanites. The Code of Hammurabi 196 & 200 compared against Exodus 21:24 is illustrative. Christians would claim “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth” originated in the word of the God Yahweh (or Elohim). Forensics suggest otherwise. The use of tablets might suggest Babylonian origin. If memory serves, the Babylonians built collections of books in sets of ten or eleven. The number ten is perhaps significant.

When Jesus was Man, "How was he bound to reality?,is what I previously asked. If he is in heaven and across realities (including being on Earth, as Jesus the Person, in the first century of the current era), he is not Man. Alternatively, if Jesus delimited, held within temporal reality only, he is not transcending time, and therefore not God.

Aside: It is interesting that Moses is an Egyptian name (even if Egypt is his country of origin).

Oliver,
Perhaps it's best to ignore the terra incognita shown by UOG, but your polite response may certainly give him pause for reflection...

The R.C.’s particular ‘transubstantiation’ theology was made in the formulation of a ‘Christ presence’ - it does present a form of dualism where it separates into a mere and vague incomprehension with physical elements ‘transforming’ into real flesh and blood.

One should view the original eucharist in the milieu of the Passover meal, celebrated by Jesus with his disciples, and in the early church, where the celebration was in the context of an agape or a fellowship meal - only in later centuries was the agape abandoned. The loss of the sense and sensibility of the eucharist as a meal has been theologically and spiritually damaging as it implies the loss of the sense of intimate fellowship and friendship that shared meals connoted in Old Testament and New Testament biblical cultures.

The ‘Church’ becomes truly distinctive and has a lasting spiritual impact on the world when the ‘body’ of Christ overcomes the individualism and egocentricity of the natural man: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf”.

Interestingly, and to divert a little, the former poster boy of scientific materialism and astronomer, Carl Sagan, refers to a mystic core which sits at the center of our being. He adds that our sense of awe for the beauty, depth, and intricacy of the universe stems from the religious instinct rooted in human nature. The nature and ‘incarnation’ of Jesus certainly gives a material focus to this often vaguely stated aspect.

oliver<<..Christians claim“an eye for/eye”and“a tooth for tooth”..originated in the word>>..that stuff comes from the deciever..[ruler of this realm]..know your masters voice

from your link<<...nursed another child..without/knowledge of the father..her breasts shall be cut-off.>>..sound more like talmud law..[not torah law,..but the numbers you quote,..claimed to come from god..[i suggest others read them..not]

[that stuff COULDNT come from god]..neither the..'mosaic-laws'..of mosus..they are far from gist inherant in the laws ten..[thou shalt not muder et

<<When Jesus was Man,"How was he bound to reality?>>..well him dying on the cross..[for our sins...lol,]..sort of suggests him bound to..'reality'..

<<If he is in heaven../including being on Earth,as Jesus the Person,..he is not Man.>>..he was born of woman..[thus is called man]...he died to the flesh..then proved he lives on in spirit

<<he is not transcending time,and therefore not God.>>he didnt claim to be god,..there are those who CLAIM he is..but they dont read the scriptures properly..[he said i can only do/that i see dad do..[get it]..he cant be his own father..!

i see beasts in the form of man,claimning the right to drink his blood..[eat his body]..claiming to be as the risen/christ on earth[hanging his dead corpse,..

claiming he died for their sins..and see demons gory..made glory,and beg..why they cant see that they do?..satan has made them blind

good human's of the flesh/claiming to be the body of christ..[with their mouths..yet by their deeds are revealed to be far from him]..

''that ye see me do you shall do greater''..[greater than god?..or greater that our best teacher?..who came to reveal we shall all be born again..[even a thief on a cross]

he was offered this realm
he refused it

it was wrote he would return..[to prove he could conquere death..[and did return,..then left...he aint comming back,..

we either go to him follow the light he revealed..[or go to hell by rejecting the love and grace,living love,mercy,..light]..by which he revealed our creator/good/god

this realm belongs to satan...[get it?]

satan who revals in demonic demo-cracy..[de-mock-rc]
..where lives satan..bound to this realm..?

lest we forget jesus was the messiah../messenger..FROM GOD..[john 17]

17:1..When Jesus had spoken these words,he lifted up his eyes to heaven,and said...“Father,..the hour has come;..glorify your Son..that the Son may glorify you,

2..since you have given him authority..to give eternal life to all...

3..And..this is eternal life,..that they know you the only true God,

4..I glorified you on earth,..having accomplished the work..that you..gave me to do.

6..“I have manifested your name..to the people..whom you gave me out of the world...Yours they were,...and you gave them to me,..

7..Now they know that everything..that you have given me..is from you.

8..For I have given them the words that you gave me,..and they have received them and have come to know..in truth..that I came from you;..and they have believed..that you sent me.

11..I am no longer in the world,..but they are in the world,..and I am coming to you...Holy Father,..keep them in your name,..which you have given me,..{IMMMANUEL}..[god with-in us all]..that they may be one,..even as we are one.

12..While I was with them,..I kept them in your name,..immanu-el.!

13..But now..I am coming into you,..and these things I speak in the world,..that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves...

16..They are not of the world,..just as I am not of the world...17 Sanctify them in the truth;..your word is truth.

18..As you sent me into the world,..so I have..sent them into the world...19 And for their sake..I consecrate myself,...that..they also may be sanctified..in truth.

20..“I do not ask for these only..but also for those..who will believe in me..through their word/..testiment..that they may all be one,..just as you,..Father,..are..IN me,..and I..IN you,..that they also may be..IN us..!

22..The glory that..you have given me..I have given to them,..that they may be one....as we are one,!

23 I in them and you in me,.....that they may become...perfectly one

25 O righteous Father,..even though the world does not know you,..I know you,

26 I made known to them your name..[i-man..u-EL],..and I will continue to make it known,..that the love with which..you have loved me..may be KNOWN.....also to be..IN them.

Relda,

In Broca’s Brain, Carl Sagan suggests religion fundamentally mystical and “…the mystical core of region is neither literally true nor perniciously wrong. It is a rather flawed attempted to make contact with our earliest and most profound memories”. Here, I was surprised Sagan surmised religion as an attempt to re-connect with our birth. Jung, perhaps, Sagan, I wouldn’t have guessed.

Attempts by the Neo-Cortex to reconcile the primal survival drives of the Limbic System would seem a more likely source to me. Here, interestingly, incense stimulates the olfactory centres of the Brain, heightening Limbic response.

The Tibetan Buddhists ask, “How do you stop a single drop of water from ever evaporating”? The reply: “By throwing it into the sea”. My personal interpretation is, in Sumara, individual souls, after transmigration, return to the universal.

Christianising the Buddhist concept, I wonder whether the core mysticism is being as One with Christ’s in His “substitionary ransom”. The individual Christian soul survives in Christ’s sacrifice and is reborn in the resurrection. The Buddhist belief, if I interpret it correctly, is universal; whereas, the Christian is exclusive, in keeping with its Jewish heritage. In the latter case, only Christians are “returned to the sea”.

Sells,

Did Jesus have a human soul? If so, when was Jesus' human soul conceived?

Oliver

According to Christian orthodoxy Jesus was fully human ie in every possible way that we are human so was Jesus. Therefore if possession of a 'human soul', whatever that is, is integral to being human then Jesus possessed such a soul (according to Christian orthodoxy).

Beware, however, to distinguish between a dualistic notion of soul and the metaphorical use of the word 'soul' which does not require any metaphysical dichotomy of body and soul. Metaphysical dualism has become very common in popular evangelical Christianity. It is not, however, universal to Christian understanding and in its popular form does not represent Christian orthodoxy but rather derives from Persian religion and Greek philosophy (Im sure you know that already).

If you are asking what the Orthodox view is then body and soul are indivisible and together constitute the fullness of being human for Jesus as for anyone else. Consequent upon this is the theological doctrine of the resurrection of the body as per the Apostle's Creed.

jesus has a human soul..[we all do..it houses our spirit, once the soul and our animus/spirit..leave the flesh]

our spirit belongs to god..[our soul can be given over to evil..[thats why it is said the devil can buy your soul..[yet not your god given holy spirit]..the body/soul/spirit is the holy trinity...despite what others may think

at death our spirit is housed in our soul body..[the soul body is a reflection of our physical body..[occasionally called our aether body]or more commonly our astral body...the demons in hell have hidious deformed soul/bodies..often being so degraded they resemble beasts[in who's nature they revel in]

every vile we do..adds layers of vile/that veil over our soulbody..[so that the saying of having a dark soul,..becomes clear..especially in the next realm,..the good have almost a vaperous/luminous soul body..[their god given holy/spirit radiates out from it]

anyhow its a facinating topic..[jesus returned in his soul body]..but heck read the book yourselves,..he came he returned to prove we are all born again in the next realm,..thus we all must..'get'..that we live on after our apparent death..[each revealing our very truth as reflected by the soulbody,..so much so that the truth of..nothing be concealed becomes clear to all]

yet the truth of..more shall be given..[and to who much is given much is expected..love god by loving neighbour..[and knowing thy fathers l;iving/loving voice],..becomes as apparent as the blind leading the blind..[or planting good seed on barren soil]...lol

UOG

Thank you!
I think you've just illustrated my last point and perhaps also my point about the narcissism of highly 'invidualised' spiritualities.

Individualised! I wish you could edit your posts here. In some forums you can edit your old posts.

waterboy,

Thank you for your reply.

O.

Sells,

Would you agree with waterboy's explanation regarding Jesus having a soul because only in this way Jesus would be fully human? If one takes as given Jesus did have a human soul, when was said soul created? What was the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus' soul?

O.

Oliver

I hope I made myself quite clear that body and 'soul' are not able to be separated. It makes no sense to talk about the 'soul' being created as something separate to the person and body of Jesus.

Your question seems to be predicated on the assumption that Jesus' soul could possibly have an existence separate from His body. That would be dualism.

The idea that life consists in a 'spiritual body' or 'immortal soul' that has some form of 'para-physical' existence separate from our bodies leads into all sorts of bizarre metaphysical speculations which are entirely unjustifiable. Regretfully, this sort of speculation is common among evangelical Christians. That does not make it Christian orthodoxy.

waterboy,

Thank you. I did appreciate your comment regarding Dualism or rather non-Dualism.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gensis 2:7

Adam and by way of extrapolation Humanity has a living soul. Jesus, if born of a virgin, does not share that genaelogy.

I wonder what Sells thinks?

Last semester, I recall some of my students debating if grass has a soul, what are the implications of mowing?

clearly the clay adam..[though fully a body]..yet had no soul

it was only once god breathed his holy spirit..into the clayman[animating the clay]with GODS living spirit..that adam began forming his soul body

jesus was made man,..as he became adult his soul body grew into the adult jesus..[who's soul-body]was not recognised..[even by those closest to him]

the three are not interchangable..[but we are free to believe as we chose]..many have tried to make jesus more than the amasing teacher he is..

he is not god..[nor exclusivly the only son of god..[a term used many times throughout the bible]

this virgin issue is another case in point..[virgin back in those times meant unwed,..read the darn geniology,..how can jesus claim decendant back to the davidian king line..[a mortal line..[not a heavenly liniage]

i agree the body..[flesh houses the spirit,..but in between the two lies the soul[body]..the soul/body itself has many layers..[much like an onion]..in time all spirits return to god..

it is amasing to hear people prattle on about duelism[or trinity]as if that is some special ability..[or secret]..

if your really interested in the topic i suggest reading swedenborg..but clearly we are all just prateling..our own opinion's here..[when the topic is christs reserection]..

clearly many are thinking this is a matter of the flesh,..when its the highest matter of spirit...

jesus came to reveal this meat is nothing..[that when this meat dies it is instantly BORN AGAIN.. when it is 'born'..again..the life spirit is borne in our soulbody into heaven[or hell]according to our love of good[or vile]

the inportant issue is not of the flesh..[but that we seek to know god[you know the one..jesus came to reveal to us,..the one jesus calls father..the one those..many in the fathers many divided hoses..call god..[good]

jesus didnt come to form a new church..[but alone to unite the fathers divided house]..be one as my father and i are one

Oliver,

My assumption is that where Christians have literal belief in the soul it follows they also believe the incarnation was literally an incarnation, the taking on of flesh and blood by the one who existed before the moment of incarnation and who dwelt in the world as the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. As waterboy has more or less said, the human person is not the soul but is rather the composite of body and soul. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote this ‘formula’ with slightly different algebraic expression, saying he was not saved unless his body was saved i.e., “my soul is not I.” The nuance of orthodoxy is that if there is no resurrection then the Christian faith is in vain (as asserted by St. Paul).

Sells may well subscribe to what is known as Radical Orthodoxy (RO) - developed primarily by three Cambridge trained Anglican theologians (John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward). It is a posture or a take, if you like, that outrightly rejects the concept of the secular because, as this approach explains, the philosophy it is built upon leads to nihilism. However, if you abandon secular objectivity as a foundation for understanding reality what are you left with? RO would say revelation. At its core RO is an unapologetically confessional movement in its approach to explaining, not only reality, but also every aspect of the human experience. “It rejects modern dualisms and the myth of secularity, theology in mainstream discourse is allowed to be unapologetically confessional and Christian research across the disciplines to be unapologetically theological.” ‘Post secularity’ means that everything is informed by a theological ontology.

I would not equate this to fundamentalist theology where an incomprehensible G-d takes a backseat to his own ‘word’ - where the ‘authority’ of the Bible displaces the more nebulous authority of the ‘Lord’. Here, literalist readings of scripture reduce the most enduring of stories to a pre-processed bible-in-a-box - a series of if-then formulas where A-leads-to-B logic by which we are to know a world where all nuance is dismissed as the devil’s deception

Christ's ascension is problematic. Where did he ascend to?

If his body left space-time, this is a breach of the second law of thermodymics. In kind, Stephen Hawkins had to reconsider the idea nothing leaves a black hole, after it had been demonstrated that matter just popping out of the universe contravenes the second law.

Likewise, would an equivalent amount of antimatter need to destroyed and to what effect?

When Jesus' spatial body reaches presumably non-spatial heaven, how does it exist? How does put four diemensional space-time matter (pegs) fit into transcendental holes.

UOG,

"jesus didnt come to form a new church..[but alone to unite the fathers divided house]..be one as my father and i are one"

Well he failed....Jesus' ministry is continually being divided...Jesus allegedly said Matthew 10:34-35:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Either Jesus is fibbing here or you are fibbing - which is it?

Waterboy,

Weren't you brave enough to answer the questions I posed? What does your Church teach regarding Moses' time on Earth? What does your Church preach about the passover? Can Churches teach fibs?

OUG answers are somewhat suspect.

Genesis 7:4

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth"

God allegedly drowned innocent babies and children because the adults were sinful. How could God kill innocent babies and children?

Matthew 1:23:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called Emmanuel! OMG Joseph and Mary broke God's instruction.

NOah defied God's instructions also.

Genesis 7:2-3:

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

but in

Genesis 7:15:

And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

The fatally flawed Bible again!

UOG Aren't you being deceptive(unChristian?) when you typed see your Point 2...Which interpretations are God's words?

BTW...Satan is a fiction!

opinionated<<Well he failed....Jesus' ministry is continually being divided...Jesus allegedly said Matthew 10:34-35;"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:I came not to..BRING..peace,but a sword.>>..

the WHOLE EARTH is UNDER satans usurpation-1john5;19..[yes he didnt bring peace to satans realm..[satan offered him these realms..[he refused it]..but by being peace he wrought a metophorical sword ammoung satans realm..[divided it]..simply by rejecting vile and inspiring the writing the words...love neighbour/love god

see words are sacred...[sacred words]=[s/words]...how goes the saying the pen is mightier than the s/word

<<For I am come to set a man at variance>>yes some are as satan[of this real[others chose to be of the spirit of love[rejecting hate

<<Either Jesus is fibbing here or you are fibbing - which is it>>...your reasoning is flawed[your reasoning of the meat[body/flesh[jesus reveals things of the spirit...the flesh can not realise this simple fact

<<OUG answers are somewhat suspect...Genesis 7:4..God allegedly drowned innocent babies and children because the adults were sinful...How could God kill innocent babies and children?>>these reports..are what the flesh remaining reports..BUT..see it from the spiritual perception

[spirit dont die..[dying means we go to eternal life..[those..who got god is love..died in the flesh..BUT LIVE ON IN THE SPIRIT[with god][those who lived[in the flesh..were dead..to the ways of spirit..[they didnt get the joke,so remained in the meat/body...mosus served/heard satan..lived on in the flesh..[its satans realm remember]

<<Matthew 1:23:Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called Emmanuel!..OMG Joseph and Mary broke God's instruction.>>..read rev 21;3..LOUD VOICE out of the throne..saying..GOD is with-[in] men..he will tabernackle..WITH them..

[ie hear men will in time HEAR his..still quiet living loving inner voice..[GOD withIN us all..[sustaining us our very lives..[remember god breathed holy spirit into the clayman adam..[life]from life giver[noting men pass-on life..[living sperm]

<<BTW...Satan is a fiction!>>..ah but look at the war/s in this war realm..this is clearly satans/realm..[satan tests mankind..[because he was refined from fire..and gods logus/holy spirit..[man mearly of clay]..and gods holy spirit...but we stand on feet of clay

serve one master..[living loving..spirit[light/life]..truth good/god
or
the flesh...darkness[death]hate fear lies..satan
no one can serve two masters

Relda,
It is nice to hear one so grandly described! I must admit that I have read none of the authors you described as being radical orthodox. I tried Millbank once and found him too hard for my tiny brain. I found your question about what one is left with if we abandon secular objectivity interesting. I make no such claim, it is rather hard to be a scientist (now retired) and abandon such objectivity. However, while secular objectivity may give us a good description of, say human psychology, it gives us a poor ontology of the human. That is better described in Genesis 1-11 and in the person and work of Christ. This is where secular objectivity can only go so far and we must then rely on the collected stories of the human. The word “revelation” has become so contaminated by the supernatural as to be almost worthless. Here is another dualism: reason/revelation.
I agree with you about dualisms. There is no life without the body. It does seem that problematic theology stems from an infection from the Greeks, both Plato and Aristotle in their different ways. I am reminded in my studies of the seventeenth century that most working theologians were closet Aristotelians and that this led them onto strange theological paths especially as regards the theology of creation. The “first cause” is always in the background as it is today. Descartes gave neoPlatonic dualism a boost in the 16thC that still haunts us. So, although I do not believe in an original and pure Christianity I do see philosophical contamination and this prompts a move to retrieval of what may be called the radically orthodox especially perhaps in liturgy where the rubber hits the road.

Oliver.
The ascension is certainly problematic for secular objectivity. It is a prime example of the absence of body/spirit dualism in NT thought. The writer wants to say that Jesus returns to the Father from whence he came and the only way he can do this is to have him bodily rise through the clouds. Impossible, but the theological point is...

Sells,
I didn’t expect the baggy cap I placed on you to be much of a fit for size – more, it was an expedition to gauge how my ‘tiny brain’ might meld with yours. I’m somewhat pleasantly surprised.

As I’ve written elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985#143795), I can only quite agree that secular objectivity has its limitation. In our time of pluralising religion a question begs, is Christianity, with its Christocentric and thus incarnational approach, not doomed to be always too particular, too historical, too positive? The
homoousious of the Son indeed implies ‘Whoever sees me, sees the Father’ and is definite as it is significant, it therefore can only be approached in a radical-hermeneutical way.

A process of ‘detraditionalisation’ and ‘pluralisation’ has changed the religious landscape of Europe (and elsewhere) over the last half century. It appears, a vague religiosity is doing away with some particular beliefs of Christian faith - it is now open to alternative expression. Rather than this being an infantile waste product, borne of a contemporary secular culture, a deeper conclusion might be drawn. A reaction has occurred from the disenchantment with secular rationality and its utopia and against the nihilism found in a post-secular society.

As Christianity still suffers on many occasions from its own cultural-hegemonic past, and is called to account for seemingly ‘unsettled bills’, this ‘process’ will certainly affirm itself. The ‘radical hermeneutics’ of an incarnation, I imagine also, prevents one from lapsing into either a universalism without particularity or, a closed particular ‘system’ of belief , i.e. fundamentalism.

The ‘tacit knowledge’ referred to by Michael Polanyi, where the informed guesses, hunches and imaginings that are part of exploratory acts become motivated by what he describes as 'passions'. He gave strong emphasis on the dialogue to be found within an open community (a theme taken up later strongly by the physicist David Bohm). This spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that, nevertheless, has immense power and reveals coherent purpose, viz : "dia" which means "through" and "logos" which means "the word".

OUG,

Satan's a mythical being! You call Earth Satan's realm and yet that simply defies logic. Are you deceiving?

God can destroy Satan. God knows all things, can stop anything he chooses, but allows Satan to live. God knowingly pushed Satan here, so we humans would have to deal with him.

Hardly the act of a loving God!

In Job 1:6-7 God gets tempted by Satan and through that temptation fails his own greatness.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

GOD gave SATAN power over Job! Satan tempted God and God failed!

Surely God wouldn't hand a loving servant over to Satan would he?

God knows all things past, present and future. He wouldn't hand over US to this rotter Satan would he?

Do Christians by believing this rubbish undermine their God? By teaching such craziness, aren't they actually making the God they think we should believe in, sound unintelligent?

If God is real, surely he is more intelligent than Christians teach?

opinionated..i could quote endless legal texts/from the holy book's of the truth..of satan..[and quote to you/the temptation of christ..as well as eve..and many others from the holy texts..

[but we need only look as far/as those calling themselves gods-people]who..not only claim to be able to own..gods..holy lands by lies murder and deceptions..[read balfore document etc..to see how far/the lord of this realm..has gone in bringing perpetual war to these realms

here we have..those claiming to be the people of god of life..killing gods creations throughout time..[this because they have been decieved by the great ruler..of this realm..[as jesus revealed#..''by their deeds will we know them'']

further jesus revealed..a beast knows its masters voice..[look at the children of the beast..[who love the murder of the children..who call themselves to follow gods will..[islamb]

your clear ignorance..of the life givers goodness and grace/mercy..[who gives life its freewill..to follow who it will..[satan]..or the chist..or even the budda or athiest godheads..[god GIVES all life their life freely to live[as we chose..[see life and death are oppisites..[like night and day...

a clear cut choice,love/hate..life/death....we of our freewil..can chose..to love good or love evil..[and god loves us none the less..[god is all love]..hate is nought to do with god

it is possable to understand satan..[the least will be greater than the baptiser]...i really can see where satan comes from..[i would refuse to bow to adam as well..[i like him would bow before none..less than the living loving lifegiver..[god/good]

any decieved by satan/decieve themselves..[i am reliable assured satan is not to be found in hell..[how could he be...this is his realm

i have previously said christ..was my highest teacher..[but christ teaches children..[then satan goes to work explaining the rest..[as revealed in the quran/..when mosus walked with satan]..even then..revealing there is underlying reasoning..behind the seemingly most vile act..

something job failed to realise...if job found favour in this realm..it was nought to do with the creator..[god of life]..

jobs god was satan..[the acts he ascribed to..'god'..were not in fact to the true good..[recall the sacrifices of scape goats KILLing an innocent beast..[hardly pleasing to god]

continued

...look at your own quotes<<<..Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house,and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands,and his substance is increased in the land.>>note..ITS A QUESTION...so how did god answer

<<And the LORD said unto Satan,Behold,..all that he hath is in thy power;>>..is that clear enough,..all job has..WAS ALLWAYS..in satans power..[even satan dont get how fair god is to ALL]..only our living spirit is sacrosanct...<<..only upon him/self..put not forth thine hand..>>...the god rule is constant..

satan cannot affect us by his hand..but can mind fuc us all he likes...be it with words or by influence of others..[god gave satan power over all..but job's/him/our/'self'

please note no where have i found where satan doth strike anyone..[directly,..persona to personum..by personalised physical hand][unless abraham wrestled the devil..[not an angel]..

job wasnt GOOD/gods servant..[no love.mercy/grace..[he murded innocent sacrificial goats/lambs..[thou shalt not murder..[he didnt know the eternal/love of the true living good]..even beasts love their own kind

recall the christ said..love neighbour...not love your own

GOD hasnt handed us over to hate..[satan/death...we chose to get incarnated..to pass though satans realm..

[its the only way to get to true heaven]..all there..came though satans vally..[this realm]..and chose to reject its temptations of the flesh..conciously chose to reject the tempations of vile, conciously chose to love neighbour by loving good grace mercy

learn about atonement..[at one meant]..that we do to the least we do to god..[we are all entertaining angels unaware]..by forgiving others we forgive ourselves

as the quaran says to each nation was sent its messenger[we live in a time where we can l;earn from them all..[knowing simply if it aoint love its not from good/[god]..the ONLY good..

know the voice of love[god]..gives even the most vile of living its life..[thats got to be a huge clue]..that he dont judge anyone

UOG,

Yes you could quote endless passages from ancient documents that in your mind proves that Satan exists. That ancient mankind tried to explain people who did evil things by blaming it on a mythical being is no proof whatsoever.

The ancients told stories. These stories were simple suggestions of things they couldn't explain. Stories were passed from group to group and myth suddenly became fact.

We know humans have the ability to do evil things but the simplistic notion of an evil being (Satan) being cast out from heaven to make the Earth his domain is laughable.

You fail to accept simple truths. God could have killed Satan at any stage.

Why would God send him to Earth so that we mere mortals have to deal with him?

Aren't you the ignorant one?

Why would the Devil try to tempt Jesus? It is laughable - Jesus allegedly was the Son of God. He allegedly was with God in heaven, prior to him coming to Earth.

When Jesus was baptized, the heavens opened up and God spoke saying Matthew 3:17:And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So then the spirit allegedly led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted....Jesus would never fail such a test.

So basically, According to the bible and you

God can destroy Satan and all his evil at any time (but doesn't). But more absurd God in not doing so hands humans over to Satan in what you believe is Satan's realm. This is just an excuse used by believers to justify their God's lack of interceding in wars, atrocities like Rwanda and all other manner of areas where people suffer.

And yet Jesus says John 14:14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Are you saying Jesus told an untruth...his lack of intervention in these atrocious human actions shows that prayer doesn't work and that prayer meetings have no affect on the human behaviour whatsoever!

So much for the power of prayer!

good questions as usual...first realise that god gives and sustains life,..so visualise god=life,..see death is not god..[because god =life]..death thus=not god,..ie not life[because life is devine and a rejection of god=life means all that remains is death]

so we get to satan..[who rejected life/god]..but satan contains gods spirit[life]..we all do..and god cant withdraw life..because god gives life[eternal]..thus..as energy cant be created nor destroyed[satan only had one option[..to come here,..then here..was hell],now there are many hells

see god had to find the means..for freewil to reject eternal love,..without destroying the life..god alone sustains to live,,,but you can chose of your own freewill to reject this as well

the temptation of christ..is a parrable to explain the certain truths autoritivly..so they can be clear...satans realm/..christ rejecting this mortal realm..its just easier to remember the teachings..via the parrable...christ rejected this.[satans][..realm..][fullstop]this is a fact[we can accept or reject]..see we are all sons[suns]of god..[even satan]

see we are all in a wilderness..[we are all being tempted..[trying to serve two masters[flesh/spirit]..jesus had his moments of weaknes..eg[father.[el]..why have you forsaken me?]we all do...there are surities..but there are also the temptations of the flesh.[for all of us]..omly god is pefect

god cant destroy..[this people must understand clearly..[god dont judge,..god for a surity is/life/love/grace/mercy/light/truth...not death/darnesss/vile/lies/hate..etc.[clear oppisites,..god/life..death not god]whoever knows..god is love..cannot be decieved into hate[not god]

satan KNOWS god is love..[but simply cant comprehend..why..god loves this lot of mere clay/the flesh..indeed caNT get..why god would require himself to bow down before them[sinfull pride][recall jesus said who leads you will serve you..

[like god serves all life our very living...but satan KNOWS he cant touch us personally..but he can tempt us..[and in so doing teaches us that good/of god..and that not god..better than any parrable could

know prayer is more than begging or wishing..its visualisation the image into reality...the flesh is too weak to overcome the percieved reality...

OUR MASS BELIEF IN IT..being'real'..[only good is real..[thus that not good..isnt in reality/..real.[ITS ONLY OUR BELIEF..THAT MAKES IT..[REAL;]...oh ye of little faith..

UOG,

TY for your reply but again what you state is unbiblical. Are you making this up?

To paraphrase you said "God is life not death". But God is quoted as killing people in the Bible.

1 Chronicles 21:14: "So the LORD sent a pestilence on Israel; 70,000 men of Israel fell."

Deuteronomy 3:3 "So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left."

and

God "hardens pharoah's heart" (Exodus 7:3) and then use that hardening to kill all the first born of Egypt? (Exodus 12:29)

So you just can't be correct there!

But then you go on to explain that "our mass belief makes it real" and say "oh ye of little faith".

Again this isn't biblical.

For instance...The Sermon on the Mount covers this very well

Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

BUT to make the statement "Oh ye of little faith" you must judge my faith

Therefore Matthew 7:1-3 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.

It is tough being a Christian...but the rules are pretty simple.

I watch those who call themselves Christian, continually fail their own belief system, argue points that are simply unbiblical, and wrong, and then try to convince others that they know what they are talking about.

As a Christian you can't make this stuff up...Either the all knowing, all seeing God couldn't deal with Satan effectively, Revelations 12:9, and, by his lack of action, is responsible and his failure has led to the horrors that history has delivered OR the Bible is wrong!

Could the loving God you believe in really kill people like the Bible states? If he can't....the Bible must be wrong!

i speak/of god..[as in/genesis..1]..>..2;3...noting.;.at gen2;4...the words..''these are the generations/of the heavens..and the earth/when they were created''

then comes..a later edit..?..that adds/spurilously..''in the day that the..LORD god..made the heavens and earth''..see how the flow changes..[and the first use of..the lord..[of these realms]?..gets mention..by the change/from simply..''god''..to,,'LORD god'...

its a subtil change...but it struck me..that..god..is used exclusivly...but some how..at 2;4..becomes..LORD god

its a small point..but from then/the change..[or possable deception grows]...the diference is as mild as wheat and tares/looking the same till harvest time..[when the difference becomes clear]...[the lord of this realm intends a harvest]..so i need to split hairs

the life giver..is god..[this point is beyond dispute..[for those believing in god]...i need to believe that god has grace and mercy,is light sustaining life..[gen 1;4...and god saw the light...that it was good]...

i studied the holy texts seeking to know god..[the good][the light sustaining life]...i make no appologies for this

look at it from gods point..you make all life..

clearly as its creator..you love that you did create...if you didnt like it you would not have created it..[as the quaran says..god has but to say be/and it is...by the same token..he has but to say..be not and it would not be..[could not be]

what need have i to impress/frighten an ant?..[what need has god to impress/frighten man?

gen..1;27..and god CREATED man..[in the image of god created he them;..male and femail he created them...to destroy them?..[would be like destroying himself...its just pure insanity..[why give freewill..only to throw a tantrum..for us using our freewil?

god is most mercyfull..[even a beast knows its masters voice..[we either KNOW god is all mercyfull..[or we dont]..we either accept god loves all of us...or chose to judge god insane...

im sorry..if i seem to be not replying your question...but see..the most vile of life/living..[believers]..must believe..that god gave..all life..[even that most vile of life..living..]...our very lives..that we live..

if he dont want us living..he dont need fire or brimstone..[he need simply say..cease to be....[and if god be god..we would thus cease to be]...

just as he said be..and we believe to know that ..yes indeed..we are

<<..Chronicles 21:14:.."So the LORD sent..>>but back then/..the''lord''..was blamed for everything..[god gave us to live..[aint that enough]

<<Deuteronomy 3:3 "..and we smote them>>

<<God.."hardens pharoah's heart"[Exodus 7:3)>>..7;1..the lord..7;3...and i will harden..

<<(Exodus 12:29)>>the lord[of these realms]..smote..not god

<<you say"our mass belief makes it real"..that comes from a course in miracles http://www.courseinmiracles.com/index.html [the concordance would reveal it...but the websirte is removed..maybe..i quoted it too much.. http://www.execulink.com/~dthomp75/2007/URCONC/ur21.txt.WebConcordance/framconc.htm

"oh ye of little faith".>>mat 14;31

sadly i had to edit out your next quotes[word limit]but they are excelent..relitive quotes..[i cant argue them]

<<..It is tough being a Christian...but the rules are pretty simple...>>..absolutly..love neighbour..is how we love god

<<I watch those who call themselves Christian,continually fail their own belief system,>>to be forgiven we must first forgive others

<<Either the all knowing,all seeing God couldn't deal with Satan effectively,>>>...god allows EVEN satan his freewill

<<Revelations 12:9>>begins at rev 12'7..noting the past tense[and there WAS war i heaven,...but 12;9satan was cast OUT of heaven[to earth]...7-9 seems an addendum/explanation,.,qualification/destraction

<<by his lack of action,..his failure has led to the horrors that history has delivered OR the Bible is wrong!>>..its only too easy to blame satan[the d-evil made me do it...lol...not my freewill...lol

>>Could the loving God you believe>>..god dont need..'belief..[only that we believe in something..what is salt that has lost its flavour..[its suited neither for heaven..nor hell...thus cast out of both..[down to earth..lol..]

OUG,

Re:subtle changes in Genesis...Maybe the writer didn't want to become repetitive...Maybe it's a different writer...It makes no difference the Bible is still wrong!

If I was to believe in God...I would want to believe that God was good, a life giver, full of grace who actually followed through on his promises. But alas I see no evidence of this either in the Bible nor in the real world.

From God's perspective as expressed in the Bible God looks very unintelligent.

He creates man...knows all past, present and future events...places the tree of knowledge KNOWING man would fail and then blames woman and a snake for the failure....Isn't that a dishonest God?

He allows Satan to corrupt and ruin his creation...and for what purpose? Would you as a parent do similar for your child? It is illogical!

You ask...<<what need has god to impress/frighten man?>>...Well God shows exactly that need in Exodus 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 so the Bible proves you wrong!

You also say that...<<back then the Lord was blamed for everything>>..If the Bible is the Word of God he admits to many of the atrocities!

Your admission that...<<god allows EVEN Satan his freewill<<..undermines GOD as a power for good completely. If GOD chooses not to help innocent victims of all sorts of evil...then he is a failure! If he chooses not to OR can't defeat Satan then he should admit his weaknesses!

Then you go back and stop blaming Satan...so then GOD...(the ultimate Universal figure)...must be to blame for the atrocities. The Bible tells us he commits them so I guess you have proven my point.

John 3:16 contradicts your statement about..<<..god don't need..'belief..>>.. Believing in him is the condition for eternal life!

Why do believers believe in such an unintelligent God?....If GOD is good, and answers prayers let him cure "all the amputees" of the world.

Let's see all you people of faith pray for that to occur and let's see it happen.

If it doesn't it proves Jesus' allegedly saying in John 14:14: "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it"...an untruth

there may be a clue in the two trees..[one is knowing..[good from evil]..as children we dont have that disernment..[but with growing up comes wisdom]...god seeks equals..it sounds an absurdity..no one could ever be equal...never the less god created such a one[adam]

but an equal must know..[as god does..the difference between good/vile,..if only to know for surety/..the light thing..was indeeed good..and not a terrible mistake.

lets take the first recorded transgression..[eve..and a dumb apple]...i have realised..eve has been severly wronged...for one god didnt forbid her..[for eve was not yet born,..when adam was forbiden to eat of the vine]...never the less,..lets say eve knew..[adam as her husband..according to later law's of mosus..[can..forgive a wifes foolishness]..

but also..as he is teqniclly..her father..[so too can a father forgive a daughter..her foolishness...but also in a third way..can a brother..forgive a sister a foolishness..[eve is teqniclly adams/clone]..

anyhow..the question is made clear..via the words of satan...DID GOD forbid?..and eve..no doudt wouldst reply..no adam did..GOD DONT BLAME NO ONE..lets presume him to know fairity..[if not his..'own'../mosaic law]

look arround us..[there is little left..of gods..'creation',..the lord /man/nature..have changed much...but anyhow..lets recall the advice..[gen..1;28...god blessed them...fruitfull/multiply..replenish the earth ANd subdue it...have dominion

re..exodus points...the pillar of smoke etc..burning bushes..is the lord..[not god]..[if you want proof of the type that led mosus,...see how mosus didst murder..how even today..those claiming to be gods/people..still murder/palistein etc

[in fact many look forward..to resuming the blood sacrifice..[who living isnt given to live from god?..[good/lifeGIVER]..recall by their works will you know them..[by their deeds and lips..they prove..to be far from..the giver of ALL LIFE...they maybe the lords spawn..[but not..the only..people of the living mercyfull..good[god]

the bible is NOT the word of god..[the book of mosus must be presumed to be writen by mosus..[not god]..ditto the other books..[its about god[in part..but not dictated by god..[even the quaran was supposedly from the archangel to mahamoud..[may peace be upon/all gods messengers]

god and satan..ARE/NOT at war..read job...satan..is as much beloved of god/[michael]..as you or i...satan hate us claymen..because we are so easilly decieved away/from..the all living/all loving..good/god

have..no doudt..not one of us..loves good/god..more than the temptor of the goyam..and the..'chosen'..all having feet of clay..[of little belief/faith]...satan has taught men..more/than any-other messenger

god is good..[but jesus..is..the messenger..that gives us the visual of gods good..spiritual/grace/mercy/love..[just as satan..gives us the vision..of vile..[hu-man/being...despite god/..loving them both..equally]...

you say..god dosnt help/..the innocent..[see how this earthy-hell..is like a prison...a place of spiritual-teaching..for those seeking to know/..this freewill thing

see in heaven or hell..there is love..and passion..to do our good or vile..but when/we want freewill..we get incarnated..here...we all get a life-sentance...anyone..who comes here../has had to reject god..to incarnate...

your thinking..this is an eden..[or..a niavana/..of some sort..[its not..it's..a prison-planet...where those rejects..from hell get a 2.de chance,..to..of their own freewill..seek atonement..[at-one-meant]

name satans/autrocities..[..prove satan/made it rain/or the brimstone...he isnt god..he is simply..the representative/..warder of this freewill state/..realm...for good..or ill..he is/a scape-goat..we conveniantly blame..till we realise..we did our own vile...vile..only we/can repent

god gives us/our lives,..after death good/bad..live on..[in h/h]..if belief,,is a...''condition of..'eternal-life'...how you/explain those living in hell..[who rejected god]...even a thief..has eternmal-life

back to that amputee..thing..[why should god do something science will be doing..anyday/now]..if only god..grew back..limbs/then science would have claim..to equal god...lol..what teachings..in regrowing a limb?

as i said..before..[re/the link..a course_in_miracles..prayer is more than using..our lips..[its a complete-visualisation..of only gods perfectness/..being the truth..[if we doudt..the prayer just cant happen..[read the course..it speaks about..prayer/conclusivly]...

we are so caught up..in the lies and divisions..our faith/reality..is as nothing...we dont even come close..even jesus deciples couldnt..do it..continuesly

witness the deciple../attempting to..walk on water..or cast out a persistant demon..[even jesus..didnt..regrow limbs...yet watch soon science wil do it..[as jesus said...the things,..ye do..shall be greater than..that i do..john 14;12..[and..he was right]...ever imagined jesus fixing..a computer?

but..lets see who he was adressing..it appears he was addresing his deciples..simoen/peter/thomas..appear to have been present...yet even then..we well know the lesson/of the doudting-thomas...no doudt we have billions of them...

if belief were salt..there wouldnt be enough real belief..to salt up the unleaven bread...let alone..make it rise..mary/baker-eddie [science and health]..is worth reading in regards to the topic