OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

Again, I'll get more in to it later, I hope. But, I'd also point out.... a jury is not obligated to believe one thing simply because their is testimonial evidence of it, and even where there is no attack on the witnesses testimony. That is, if witness X testifies that she saw a man shove a fully grown elephant up his nose, a witness is not required to so believe simply because there is an absense of evidence to the contrary. I bring this up because you seem to indicate "We have testimony that the resurrection happened, so therefore it did unless it can be shown otherwise" which isn't true. All we have is testimony to be or not to be believed.

Likewise, appeals to some number of witnesses is meaningless without a testimonial from any of them.

yes, yes. the point is made... you are excellent at writing briefs.

So I'm clear, is Paul also a witness in this excersie? What I mean is, can I cross examine Paul? If I could, I'd point out that he didn't see anything with his own eyes, relying instead on Peter's accounting(s) (for example) (hearsay). I'd inquire in to the nature of his relationship with Peter, and I'd try to elicit that Peter is not to be believed wholesale (a theory I'd futher advance when I put my case in chief on by the inclusion of testimony from other "expets" (say, the Gnostic authors). And then I'd get him to admit he believes he is being compelled to write things by some invisible force that he "hears in his head..." a hallucination... etc... (ie the Holy Spirit) etc..

I'll get in to more later....

Aha! but Paul DID see something with his own eyes, and it was so bright that it blinded him. i think you are forgetting about the road to Damascus.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

yes, yes. the point is made... you are excellent at writing briefs.

Aha! but Paul DID see something with his own eyes, and it was so bright that it blinded him. i think you are forgetting about the road to Damascus.

I'd be sure to include the visual hallucination angle as well, then.

Hey, Happy B-Day, by the way.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Thanks, and was reading today how the bible was composed and combined with Roman pagan belifs, thanks to Constantine. They pretty much made up every tradition & ritual Cathliocs celebrate in present day mass.. nuts.

Sorry to say that what you read is historically impossible. The Bible, by which I assume this author is discussing the New Testament, was already in existence over 100 years prior to Constantine. Do a search on the Muratorian fragment if you want more information.

 

[lvbuckeye]

sorry, but your literary style is so verbose that i sometimes lose track of what you are trying to say... simply put, it reminded me of that scene in The Client where the judge jumps all over the guy for not being succinct enough...

I'd be sure to include the visual hallucination angle as well, then.

is it a hallucination when you are blinded by it? there were witnesses to that.

Hey, Happy B-Day, by the way.

hey, thanks!

 

[buckeyegrad]

Again, I'll get more in to it later, I hope. But, I'd also point out.... a jury is not obligated to believe one thing simply because their is testimonial evidence of it, and even where there is no attack on the witnesses testimony. That is, if witness X testifies that she saw a man shove a fully grown elephant up his nose, a witness is not required to so believe simply because there is an absense of evidence to the contrary. I bring this up because you seem to indicate "We have testimony that the resurrection happened, so therefore it did unless it can be shown otherwise" which isn't true. All we have is testimony to be or not to be believed.

This just proves my point. Who the jury decides to believe is based on who they believe, in other words faith. Siding with one side over the other is nothing more than this.

Likewise, appeals to some number of witnesses is meaningless without a testimonial from any of them.

Except we do have some testimonials as the 500 witnesses include Peter, John, Matthew, James, and Jude. Of course, we have lost many of the testimonies today, but in Paul's time when he made the claim, we could have called many of those witnesses.

So I'm clear, is Paul also a witness in this excersie? What I mean is, can I cross examine Paul? If I could, I'd point out that he didn't see anything with his own eyes, relying instead on Peter's accounting(s) (for example) (hearsay). I'd inquire in to the nature of his relationship with Peter, and I'd try to elicit that Peter is not to be believed wholesale (a theory I'd futher advance when I put my case in chief on by the inclusion of testimony from other "expets" (say, the Gnostic authors). And then I'd get him to admit he believes he is being compelled to write things by some invisible force that he "hears in his head..." a hallucination... etc... (ie the Holy Spirit) etc..

I'll get in to more later....

As LV pointed out, Paul would claim that he did see the resurrected Christ, and he did this immediately after he cited the 500 witnesses.

Your other "expert" witnesses (i.e. the gnostics) can and should be dismissed. In fact, Paul would probably move for the judge to not allow their testimony as their perspective is immaterial to the case as none of them could claim to have first account knowledge of the resurrection (Christian gnosticism at its earliest date does not arise until several decades after the resurrection and at least as far as I know contain zero Jewish authors, which is essential.

As for Peter, how can you base a claim of insanity? His wisdom astonished the leading Jewish religious leaders of his day. So unless you are going to condemn first century Judaism as insane, that claim can easily be dismissed. Furthermore, depending on who your jury is (western secularists, ancient religious leaders, spiritualists who believe in communing with a higher being) will determine whether such a claim would be acceptable or offendable.


Edit: Oh, one other thing about your gnostic witnesses I just happened to remember. They believed Jesus was a phantom that never had a physical body. So.....just who do you think the jury is going to consider more credible?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

See? You've moved for their dismissal is overruled because.... you have no idea why I have offered their testimony. Moreover, as experts (should they ever be admitted to so testify) they NEED NOT be present at an event to offer opinion. My point is, of course, you've already decided who to believe and who not to believe, and this game isn't going to change anything (nor is it my intention to do so).

Why would it be overruled? I would claim that their testimonies are immaterial to the case of proving the resurrection. How would you counter that they are relevant to the case?

There are those who might consider it madness to give up one's career to go follow another man around. Suppose we had a "disciple" of david koresh on the stand... You're arguing well after the fact, as if I'm trying to indict 1st century Judaism, which tells me you're not playing this game on the same terms I'm trying to play. I'm not indicting anyone. I'm suggesting alternative ways to contemplate the testimonies. I don't care if you believe it, I'm merely illustrating some ways it could be done.

I'm trying to provide the counter arguments in order to show that your attempts to dismis Paul's, Peter's or any of other disciple's testimony as not being trustworthy are flawed because they are simply crap thrown against the wall in order to see what sticks rather than being grounded in true ways to determine the trustworthiness of their statements (perhaps my bias of being a qualitative researcher is showing here in that radically different standards are used to determine trustworthiness in such scientific endevours than in a court of law--in other words, just because you can provide other possible interpretations does not mean the interpretation I present is not trustworthy).

I would observe that your hostility to the Gnostics is indicative of how troubling their theory is to your understanding of Christianity. Nothing wrong with it... nothing wrong with what you believe. But... as I've tried arguing all the time... nor is there anything wrong with their understanding. Nor is their anything wrong with my understanding.

You are correct that I find gnosticism troubling. Not because it threatens my perspective, but because it lead millions of people astray from salvation in the past and I fear it is about to do the same thing again as interest once again is rising in it, although most people haven't a clue of what it actually taught (i.e. the God the Jews is evil). My constant and passionate defense of Christianity results from my desire to see people come to salvation in Christ and reap the rewards of re-establishing a relationship with God. I believe Christ when he said he was the only way this could be accomplished and I grieve over those who I see as remaining lost.

While argument has it's place, you have not made an offer of proof of any kind... and I would object to your observations as improper in a trial and my objections would be sustained. Lawyers do not testify.

My evidence is the 500 witnesses. I have yet to see anything you have presented to credibly challenge the trustworthiness of the evidence (again, I think this is because I am using standards based in qualitative research theory rather than what goes in a court of law; which is also a reflection of my bias against the way we operate courts of law, which I see as a contest of who can win rather than a combined effort to discover truth).

 

[Deport]

Sorry to say that what you read is historically impossible. The Bible, by which I assume this author is discussing the New Testament, was already in existence over 100 years prior to Constantine. Do a search on the Muratorian fragment if you want more information.

forgive me if i am wrong, as it has been decades since catholic school, but werent the fragments just that, fragments? and only 2 gospels were identified, making it possible that constantine did edit some gospels?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

incidentally, if I had a dream where I believed Jesus came to me, can I rightfully claim I have seen the resurrected Christ? What if it's a day dream? What if my eyes are open? What if I'm babbling afterwards? Regardless of the "rightfulness" of my claim, are you not bound by your belief to believe me?

I ask, because my mother claimed she was visited by Jesus no less than two times. Are you telling me she's insane or did what she learned in these visions actually happen in a "real" visitation sense? Is she also to be believed and have the same authority as Paul, since she too can honestly claim to have had conversation with the resurrected Jesus?

I can tell you, my mom wasn't insane. In fact, fear of the being labeled insane kept her from telling her story to many people. I can also tell you that my mom's religion was quite possibly the most deep I have ever had the privilege of being near. She died a happy woman. She finally got to go home. There was not one ounce of fear. She believed, and she was certain of it.

And... her belief wasn't exactly Pauline. Though, I can't say it was hostile to Paul either. I guess I would describe her religion as mystical yet .... I don't know.. grounded? That is, she believed in the Bible as the Word.

Anyone who is uncomfortable discussing my mom for fear of upsetting me, understand I won't be offended by anything you say.... (In other words, if you think that's insane, then say so. I won't be setting out to ding you or the like) In fact, knowing my Mom, she'd welcome the opportunity to provide an example to further any discussion of the only thing that matters.. God. Buckeyeryn can confirm.

 

[buckeyegrad]

forgive me if i am wrong, as it has been decades since catholic school, but werent the fragments just that, fragments? and only 2 gospels were identified, making it possible that constantine did edit some gospels?

The importance of the fragment is that it gives a full list of the books considered to be cannon c. 170 C.E. Constantine, although he did alter Christian traditions and practices by fusing and cementing pagan ideas into the faith and by affecting the final severing of Christianity from its Jewish roots, had nothing to do with what books are in the Bible...had it been so, James and Hebrews would likely not have been included due to their ultra-Judaic perspectives.

As for editing the gospels, what proof can you offer? My understanding is that we have a number of copies/fragments of the books of the New Testament that predate Constantine and verifies our current translations are accurate (in the sense of there not being anything added or missing) in relation to the original writings.

 

[buckeyegrad]

incidentally, if I had a dream where I believed Jesus came to me, can I rightfully claim I have seen the resurrected Christ? What if it's a day dream? What if my eyes are open? What if I'm babbling afterwards? Regardless of the "rightfulness" of my claim, are you not bound by your belief to believe me?

If you claimed that you had a vision of Christ, I would consider it a possibility as I believe he has/does appear to people in dreams and visions. Now if you claim you have a message from him, then the verasity of your claims of what he said would be measured against Scripture. As long as nothing contradicted Scripture, then yes, I would consider a visitation a real possibility.

I ask, because my mother claimed she was visited by Jesus no less than two times. Are you telling me she's insane or did what she learned in these visions actually happen in a "real" visitation sense? Is she also to be believed and have the same authority as Paul, since she too can honestly claim to have had conversation with the resurrected Jesus?

It is very possible they were real visitations. Again, I would have to know what her vision stated in order to determine if it was Jesus or something else.

I can tell you, my mom wasn't insane. In fact, fear of the being labeled insane kept her from telling her story to many people. I can also tell you that my mom's religion was quite possibly the most deep I have ever had the privilege of being near. She died a happy woman. She finally got to go home. There was not one ounce of fear. She believed, and she was certain of it.

I would never judge someone insane merely because they believe they had a vision, even if it was something else other than Christ. I believe very much in a spiritual world. Furthermore, although I have never had a vision, I have had two occassions where I have heard the voice of God while praying and worshipping Him.

 

[buckeyegrad]

BKB,

Crap. I just realized that I hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" to respond to your comments on the law case; therefore, my reply is now under your name and your previous message is lost except what I quoted.

I apologize for this blunder and hope it does not cause confusion for anyone.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I would never judge someone insane merely because they believe they had a vision, even if it was something else other than Christ. I believe very much in a spiritual world. Furthermore, although I have never had a vision, I have had two occassions where I have heard the voice of God while praying and worshipping Him.

I think the spirtual world is something very real

I find the gnostic idea that the god who made the world is not the same God worthy of our worship fascinating, and want to look into it just to see why they thought that.

When you heard the voice Bgrad, was it out loud or was it within your mind? I've heard very few stories of hearing a voice out loud, very cool either way.

edit: its kind of hard to deny faith after an experience like that one.

 

[Brewtus]

I think the spirtual world is something very real

I find the gnostic idea that the god who made the world is not the same God worthy of our worship fascinating, and want to look into it just to see why they thought that.

When you heard the voice Bgrad, was it out loud or was it within your mind? I've heard very few stories of hearing a voice out loud, very cool either way.

edit: its kind of hard to deny faith after an experience like that one.

I don't think anyone could deny that faith does not exist, because faith is belief in something without evidence (and there is no shortage of people in the world that believe some crazy things without a shred of evidence). If someone requires eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection, or visions of Christ, or hearing the voice of God in order to support their beliefs then they do not have a strong foundation of faith. Didn't Christ mention something about having faith in him and God without evidence? IMO you're walking on shaky ground if you require any kind of solid evidence supporting your spiritual or religious views as new evidence can always come to light which could possibly discredit your beliefs. God and faith are outside the realm of physical evidence.

 

[CookyPuss]

I don't think anyone could deny that faith does not exist, because faith is belief in something without evidence (and there is no shortage of people in the world that believe some crazy things without a shred of evidence). If someone requires eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection, or visions of Christ, or hearing the voice of God in order to support their beliefs then they do not have a strong foundation of faith. Didn't Christ mention something about having faith in him and God without evidence? IMO you're walking on shaky ground if you require any kind of solid evidence supporting your spiritual or religious views as new evidence can always come to light which could possibly discredit your beliefs. God and faith are outside the realm of physical evidence.

I would not agree that is entirely true. You need some evidence in order to have faith. It does not have to be verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence; but some evidence or experience none the less. Otherwise, you have an empty faith. I would also hope that evidence is somewhat "solid" in nature, otherwise one could easily be lead astray.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I don't think anyone could deny that faith does not exist, because faith is belief in something without evidence (and there is no shortage of people in the world that believe some crazy things without a shred of evidence). If someone requires eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection, or visions of Christ, or hearing the voice of God in order to support their beliefs then they do not have a strong foundation of faith. Didn't Christ mention something about having faith in him and God without evidence? IMO you're walking on shaky ground if you require any kind of solid evidence supporting your spiritual or religious views as new evidence can always come to light which could possibly discredit your beliefs. God and faith are outside the realm of physical evidence.

I meant personally for him, after he heard what he believes to be the voice of God, it's evidence for him. Just like things are reveled to me every day, or so i think, they aren't required but definatley strengthen/deepen faith.

Misunderstanding at what i was saying it seems.. I've already stated in this thread 'good luck finding proof for faith'

I guess the only PROOF I have is it goes against science own laws not to have a God-like being